GroEL-GroES cycling: ATP and nonnative polypeptide direct alternation of folding-active rings.

The double-ring chaperonin GroEL mediates protein folding in the central cavity of a ring bound by ATP and GroES, but it is unclear how GroEL cycles from one folding-active complex to the next. We observe that hydrolysis of ATP within the cis ring must occur before either nonnative polypeptide or GroES can bind to the trans ring, and this is associated with reorientation of the trans ring apical domains. Subsequently, formation of a new cis-ternary complex proceeds on the open trans ring with polypeptide binding first, which stimulates the ATP-dependent dissociation of the cis complex (by 20- to 50-fold), followed by GroES binding. These results indicate that, in the presence of nonnative protein, GroEL alternates its rings as folding-active cis complexes, expending only one round of seven ATPs per folding cycle.     

Discrimination of ATP,ADP, and AMPPNP by chaperonin GroEL: hexokinase treatment revealed the exclusive role of ATP

The double ring chaperonin GroEL binds unfolded protein, ATP, and GroES to the same ring, generating the cis ternary complex in which folding occurs within the cavity capped by GroES (cis folding). The functional role of ATP, however, remains unclear since several reports have indicated that ADP and AMPPNP (5'-adenylyl-beta,gamma-imidodiphosphate) are also able to support the formation of the cis ternary complex and the cis folding. To minimize the effect of contaminated ATP and adenylate kinase, we have included hexokinase plus glucose in the reaction mixtures and obtained new results. In ADP and AMPPNP, GroES bound quickly to GroEL but bound very slowly to the GroEL loaded with unfolded rhodanese or malate dehydrogenase. ADP was unable to support the formation of cis ternary complex and cis folding. AMPPNP supported cis folding of malate dehydrogenase to some extent but not cis folding of rhodanese. In the absence of hexokinase, apparent cis folding of rhodanese and malate dehydrogenase was observed in ADP and AMPPNP. Thus, the exclusive role of ATP in generation of the cis ternary complex is now evident.     

ATP-bound states of GroEL captured by cryo-electron microscopy.

The chaperonin GroEL drives its protein-folding cycle by cooperatively binding ATP to one of its two rings, priming that ring to become folding-active upon GroES binding, while simultaneously discharging the previous folding chamber from the opposite ring. The GroEL-ATP structure, determined by cryo-EM and atomic structure fitting, shows that the intermediate domains rotate downward, switching their intersubunit salt bridge contacts from substrate binding to ATP binding domains. These observations, together with the effects of ATP binding to a GroEL-GroES-ADP complex, suggest structural models for the ATP-induced reduction in affinity for polypeptide and for cooperativity. The model for cooperativity, based on switching of intersubunit salt bridge interactions around the GroEL ring, may provide general insight into cooperativity in other ring complexes and molecular machines.     

BeF(x) stops the chaperonin cycle of GroEL-GroES and generates a complex with double folding chambers

Coupling with ATP hydrolysis and cooperating with GroES, the double ring chaperonin GroEL assists the folding of other proteins. Here we report novel GroEL-GroES complexes formed in fluoroberyllate (BeF(x)) that can mimic the phosphate part of the enzyme-bound nucleotides. In ATP, BeF(x) stops the functional turnover of GroEL by preventing GroES release and produces a symmetric 1:2 GroEL-GroES complex in which both GroEL rings contain ADP.BeF(x) and an encapsulated substrate protein. In ADP, the substrate protein-loaded GroEL cannot bind GroES. In ADP plus BeF(x), however, it can bind GroES to form a stable 1:1 GroEL-GroES complex in which one of GroEL rings contains ADP.BeF(x) and an encapsulated substrate protein. This 1:1 GroEL-GroES complex is converted into the symmetric 1:2 GroEL-GroES complex when GroES is supplied in ATP plus BeF(x). Thus, BeF(x) stabilizes two GroEL-GroES complexes; one with a single folding chamber and the other with double folding chambers. These results shed light on the intermediate ADP.P(i) nucleotide states in the functional cycle of GroEL.     

GroEL/GroES: structure and function of a two-stroke folding machine

Recent structural and functional studies have greatly advanced our understanding of the mechanism by which chaperonins (Cpn60) mediate protein folding, the final step in the accurate expression of genetic information. Escherichia coli GroEL has a symmetric double-toroid architecture, which binds nonnative polypeptide substrates on the hydrophobic walls of its central cavity. The asymmetric binding of ATP and cochaperonin GroES to GroEL triggers a major conformational change in the cis ring, creating an enlarged chamber into which the bound nonnative polypeptide is released. The structural changes that create the cis assembly also change the lining of the cavity wall from hydrophobic to hydrophilic, conducive to folding into the native state. ATP hydrolysis in the cis ring weakens it and primes the release of products. When ATP and GroES bind to the trans ring, it forms a stronger assembly, which disassembles the cis complex through negative cooperativity between rings. The opposing function of the two rings operates as if the system had two cylinders, one expelling the products of the reaction as the other loads up the reactants. One cycle of the reaction gives the polypeptide about 15 s to fold at the cost of seven ATP molecules. For some proteins, several cycles of GroEL assistance may be needed in order to achieve their native states.     

Mechanism of chaperonin action: GroES binding and release can drive GroEL-mediated protein folding in the absence of ATP hydrolysis.

As a basic principle, assisted protein folding by GroEL has been proposed to involve the disruption of misfolded protein structures through ATP hydrolysis and interaction with the cofactor GroES. Here, we describe chaperonin subreactions that prompt a re-examination of this view. We find that GroEL-bound substrate polypeptide can induce GroES cycling on and off GroEL in the presence of ADP. This mechanism promotes efficient folding of the model protein rhodanese, although at a slower rate than in the presence of ATP. Folding occurs when GroES displaces the bound protein into the sequestered volume of the GroEL cavity. Resulting native protein leaves GroEL upon GroES release. A single-ring variant of GroEL is also fully functional in supporting this reaction cycle. We conclude that neither the energy of ATP hydrolysis nor the allosteric coupling of the two GroEL rings is directly required for GroEL/GroES-mediated protein folding. The minimal mechanism of the reaction is the binding and release of GroES to a polypeptide-containing ring of GroEL, thereby closing and opening the GroEL folding cage. The role of ATP hydrolysis is mainly to induce conformational changes in GroEL that result in GroES cycling at a physiologically relevant rate.     

Folding with and without encapsulation by cis- and trans-only GroEL-GroES complexes

Although a cis mechanism of GroEL-mediated protein folding, occurring inside a hydrophilic chamber encapsulated by the co-chaperonin GroES, has been well documented, recently the GroEL-GroES-mediated folding of aconitase, a large protein (82 kDa) that could not be encapsulated, was described. This process required GroES binding to the ring opposite the polypeptide (trans) to drive release and productive folding. Here, we have evaluated this mechanism further using trans-only complexes in which GroES is closely tethered to one of the two GroEL rings, blocking polypeptide binding by that ring. In vitro, trans-only folded aconitase with kinetics identical to GroEL-GroES. Surprisingly, trans-only also folded smaller GroEL-GroES-dependent substrates, Rubisco and malate dehydrogenase, but at rates slower than the cis reaction. Remarkably, in vivo, a plasmid encoding a trans-only complex rescued a GroEL-deficient strain, but the colony size was approximately one-tenth that produced by wild-type GroEL-GroES. We conclude that a trans mechanism, involving rounds of binding to an open ring and direct release into the bulk solution, can be generally productive although, where size permits, cis encapsulation supports more efficient folding.     

The affinity of the GroEL/GroES complex for peptides under conditions of protein folding

The affinity of four short peptides for the Escherichia coli molecular chaperone GroEL was studied in the presence of the co-chaperone GroES and nucleotides. Our data show that binding of GroES to one ring enhances the interaction of the peptides with the opposite GroEL ring, a finding that was related to the structural readjustments in GroEL following GroES binding. We further report that the GroEL/GroES complex has a high affinity for peptides during ATP hydrolysis when protein substrates would undergo repeated cycles of assisted folding. Although we could not determine at which step(s) during the cycle our peptides interacted with GroEL, we propose that successive state changes in GroEL during ATP hydrolysis may create high affinity complexes and ensure maximum efficiency of the chaperone machinery under conditions of protein folding.     

Determination of the number of active GroES subunits in the fused heptamer GroES required for interactions with GroEL

A double-heptamer ring chaperonin GroEL binds denatured substrate protein, ATP, and GroES to the same heptamer ring and encapsulates substrate into the central cavity underneath GroES where productive folding occurs. GroES is a disk-shaped heptamer, and each subunit has a GroEL-binding loop. The residues of the GroEL subunit responsible for GroES binding largely overlap those involved in substrate binding, and the mechanism by which GroES can replace the substrate when GroES binds to GroEL/substrate complex remains to be clarified. To address this question, we generated single polypeptide GroES by fusing seven subunits with various combinations of active and GroEL binding-defective subunits. Functional tests of the fused GroES variants indicated that four active GroES subunits were required for efficient formation of the stable GroEL/GroES complex and five subunits were required for the productive GroEL/substrate/GroES complex. An increase in the number of defective GroES subunits resulted in a slowing of encapsulation and folding. These results indicate the presence of an intermediate GroEL/substrate/GroES complex in which the substrate and GroES bind to GroEL by sharing seven common binding sites.     

GroEL/GroES-mediated folding of a protein too large to be encapsulated.

The chaperonin GroEL binds nonnative proteins too large to fit inside the productive GroEL-GroES cis cavity, but whether and how it assists their folding has remained unanswered. We have examined yeast mitochondrial aconitase, an 82 kDa monomeric Fe(4)S(4) cluster-containing enzyme, observed to aggregate in chaperonin-deficient mitochondria. We observed that aconitase folding both in vivo and in vitro requires both GroEL and GroES, and proceeds via multiple rounds of binding and release. Unlike the folding of smaller substrates, however, this mechanism does not involve cis encapsulation but, rather, requires GroES binding to the trans ring to release nonnative substrate, which likely folds in solution. Following the phase of ATP/GroES-dependent refolding, GroEL stably bound apoaconitase, releasing active holoenzyme upon Fe(4)S(4) cofactor formation, independent of ATP and GroES.     

On the role of symmetrical and asymmetrical chaperonin complexes in assisted protein folding.

The cylindrical chaperonin GroEL of E. coli and its ring-shaped cofactor GroES cooperate in mediating the ATP-dependent folding of a wide range of polypeptides in vivo and in vitro. By binding to the ends of the GroEL cylinder, GroES displaces GroEL-bound polypeptide into an enclosed folding cage, thereby preventing protein aggregation during folding. The dynamic interaction of GroEL and GroES is regulated by the GroEL ATPase and involves the formation of asymmetrical GroEL:GroES1 and symmetrical GroEL: GroES2 complexes. The proposed role of the symmetrical complex as a catalytic intermediate of the chaperonin mechanism has been controversial. It has also been suggested that the formation of GroEL:GroES2 complexes allows the folding of two polypeptide molecules per GroEL reaction cycle, one in each ring of GroEL. By making use of a procedure to stabilize chaperonin complexes by rapid crosslinking for subsequent analysis by native PAGE, we have quantified the occurrence of GroEL:GroES1 and GroEL:GroES2 complexes in active refolding reactions under a variety of conditions using mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase (mMDH) as a substrate. Our results show that the symmetrical complexes are neither required for chaperonin function nor does their presence significantly increase the rate of mMDH refolding. In contrast, chaperonin-assisted folding is strictly dependent on the formation of asymmetrical GroEL:GroES1 complexes. These findings support the view that GroEL:GroES2 complexes have no essential role in the chaperonin mechanism.     

Characterisation of a GroEL Single-Ring Mutant that Supports Growth of Escherichia coli and Has GroES-Dependent ATPase Activity

Binding and folding of substrate proteins by the molecular chaperone GroEL alternates between its two seven-membered rings in an ATP-regulated manner. The association of ATP and GroES to a polypeptide-bound ring of GroEL encapsulates the folding proteins in the central cavity of that ring (cis ring) and allows it to fold in a protected environment where the risk of aggregation is reduced. ATP hydrolysis in the cis ring changes the potentials within the system such that ATP binding to the opposite (trans) ring triggers the release of all ligands from the cis ring of GroEL through a complex network of allosteric communication between the rings. Inter-ring allosteric communication thus appears indispensable for the function of GroEL, and an engineered single-ring version (SR1) cannot substitute for GroEL in vivo. We describe here the isolation and characterisation of an active single-ring form of the GroEL protein (SR-A92T), which has an exceptionally low ATPase activity that is strongly stimulated by the addition of GroES. Dissection of the kinetic pathway of the ATP-induced structural changes in this active single ring can be explained by the fact that the mutation effectively blocks progression through the full allosteric pathway of the GroEL reaction cycle, thus trapping an early allosteric intermediate. Addition of GroES is able to overcome this block by binding this intermediate and pulling the allosteric pathway to completion via mass action, explaining how bacterial cells expressing this protein as their only chaperonin are viable.     

Interaction of GroEL and GroEL/GroES complexes with a nonnative subtilisin variant: a small-angle neutron scattering study

Small-angle neutron scattering and contrast variation were used to study the solution structure of GroEL and GroEL/GroES chaperonins complexed with a nonnative variant of the polypeptide substrate, subtilisin (PJ9). The subtilisin was 86% deuterated (dPJ9) so that it contrasted sufficiently with the chaperonin, allowing the contrast variation technique to be used to separate the scattering from the two components bound in the complex. Both the native double-ring GroEL and a single-ring mutant were used with dPJ9 bound in a 1:1 stoichiometry per GroEL toroid. This allowed both the position and the shape of dPJ9 in the GroEL/dPJ9 complexes to be determined. A single-ring GroEL/GroES variant complexed with one dPJ9 molecule was used to study the structural changes of dPJ9 in GroEL/GroES/dPJ9 complexes formed with ADP and with ATP. It was found that both the shape and the position of the bound dPJ9 in the GroEL/GroES/dPJ9 complex with ADP were the same as those in the GroEL/dPJ9 complex. However, dPJ9 assumed a more symmetric shape when bound in the GroEL/GroES/dPJ9 complex with ATP. This important observation reflects the relative ability of ATP to promote refolding of protein substrates relative to that of ADP.     

Crystal structure of the native chaperonin complex from Thermus thermophilus revealed unexpected asymmetry at the cis-cavity

The chaperonins GroEL and GroES are essential mediators of protein folding. GroEL binds nonnative protein, ATP, and GroES, generating a ternary complex in which protein folding occurs within the cavity capped by GroES (cis-cavity). We determined the crystal structure of the native GroEL-GroES-ADP homolog from Thermus thermophilus, with substrate proteins in the cis-cavity, at 2.8 A resolution. Twenty-four in vivo substrate proteins within the cis-cavity were identified from the crystals. The structure around the cis-cavity, which encapsulates substrate proteins, shows significant differences from that observed for the substrate-free Escherichia coli GroEL-GroES complex. The apical domain around the cis-cavity of the Thermus GroEL-GroES complex exhibits a large deviation from the 7-fold symmetry. As a result, the GroEL-GroES interface differs considerably from the previously reported E. coli GroEL-GroES complex, including a previously unknown contact between GroEL and GroES.     

Allosteric signaling of ATP hydrolysis in GroEL-GroES complexes

The double-ring chaperonin GroEL and its lid-like cochaperonin GroES form asymmetric complexes that, in the ATP-bound state, mediate productive folding in a hydrophilic, GroES-encapsulated chamber, the so-called cis cavity. Upon ATP hydrolysis within the cis ring, the asymmetric complex becomes able to accept non-native polypeptides and ATP in the open, trans ring. Here we have examined the structural basis for this allosteric switch in activity by cryo-EM and single-particle image processing. ATP hydrolysis does not change the conformation of the cis ring, but its effects are transmitted through an inter-ring contact and cause domain rotations in the mobile trans ring. These rigid-body movements in the trans ring lead to disruption of its intra-ring contacts, expansion of the entire ring and opening of both the nucleotide pocket and the substrate-binding domains, admitting ATP and new substrate protein.     

Folding of malate dehydrogenase inside the GroEL-GroES cavity

The chaperonin GroEL binds nonnative substrate protein in the hydrophobic central cavity of an open ring. ATP and GroES binding to the same ring converts this cavity into an encapsulated, hydrophilic chamber that mediates productive folding. A 'rack' mechanism of initial protein unfolding proposes that, upon GroES and ATP binding, the polypeptide is stretched between the binding sites on the twisting apical domains of GroEL before complete release into the chamber. Here, the structure of malate dehydrogenase (MDH) subunit during folding is monitored by deuterium exchange, peptic fragment production and mass spectrometry. When bound to GroEL, MDH exhibits a core of partially protected secondary structure that is only modestly deprotected upon ATP and GroES binding. Moreover, deprotection is broadly distributed throughout MDH, suggesting that it results from breaking hydrogen bonds between MDH and the cavity wall or global destabilization, as opposed to forced mechanical unfolding.     

Triggering protein folding within the GroEL-GroES complex

The folding of many proteins depends on the assistance of chaperonins like GroEL and GroES and involves the enclosure of substrate proteins inside an internal cavity that is formed when GroES binds to GroEL in the presence of ATP. Precisely how assembly of the GroEL-GroES complex leads to substrate protein encapsulation and folding remains poorly understood. Here we use a chemically modified mutant of GroEL (EL43Py) to uncouple substrate protein encapsulation from release and folding. Although EL43Py correctly initiates a substrate protein encapsulation reaction, this mutant stalls in an intermediate allosteric state of the GroEL ring, which is essential for both GroES binding and the forced unfolding of the substrate protein. This intermediate conformation of the GroEL ring possesses simultaneously high affinity for both GroES and non-native substrate protein, thus preventing escape of the substrate protein while GroES binding and substrate protein compaction takes place. Strikingly, assembly of the folding-active GroEL-GroES complex appears to involve a strategic delay in ATP hydrolysis that is coupled to disassembly of the old, ADP-bound GroEL-GroES complex on the opposite ring.     

Football- and bullet-shaped GroEL-GroES complexes coexist during the reaction cycle

GroEL is an Escherichia coli chaperonin that is composed of two heptameric rings stacked back-to-back. GroEL assists protein folding with its cochaperonin GroES in an ATP-dependent manner in vitro and in vivo. However, it is still unclear whether GroES binds to both rings of GroEL simultaneously under physiological conditions. In this study, we monitored the GroEL-GroES interaction in the reaction cycle using fluorescence resonance energy transfer. We found that nearly equivalent amounts of symmetric GroEL-(GroES)(2) (football-shaped) complex and asymmetric GroEL-GroES (bullet-shaped) complex coexist during the functional reaction cycle. We also found that D398A, an ATP hydrolysis defective mutant of GroEL, forms a football-shaped complex with ATP bound to the two rings. Furthermore, we showed that ADP prevents the association of ATP to the trans-ring of GroEL, and as a consequence, the second GroES cannot bind to GroEL. Considering the concentrations of ADP and ATP in E. coli, ADP is expected to have a small effect on the inhibition of GroES binding to the trans-ring of GroEL in vivo. These results suggest that we should reconsider the chaperonin-mediated protein-folding mechanism that involves the football-shaped complex.     

GroEL-mediated protein folding.

I. Architecture of GroEL and GroES and the reaction pathway A. Architecture of the chaperonins B. Reaction pathway of GroEL-GroES-mediated folding II. Polypeptide binding A. A parallel network of chaperones binding polypeptides in vivo B. Polypeptide binding in vitro 1. Role of hydrophobicity in recognition 2. Homologous proteins with differing recognition-differences in primary structure versus effects on folding pathway 3. Conformations recognized by GroEL a. Refolding studies b. Binding of metastable intermediates c. Conformations while stably bound at GroEL 4. Binding constants and rates of association 5. Conformational changes in the substrate protein associated with binding by GroEL a. Observations b. Kinetic versus thermodynamic action of GroEL in mediating unfolding c. Crossing the energy landscape in the presence of GroEL III. ATP binding and hydrolysis-driving the reaction cycle IV. GroEL-GroES-polypeptide ternary complexes-the folding-active cis complex A. Cis and trans ternary complexes B. Symmetric complexes C. The folding-active intermediate of a chaperonin reaction-cis ternary complex D. The role of the cis space in the folding reaction E. Folding governed by a "timer" mechanism F. Release of nonnative polypeptides during the GroEL-GroES reaction G. Release of both native and nonnative forms under physiologic conditions H. A role for ATP binding, as well as hydrolysis, in the folding cycle V. Concluding remarks.     

GroEL mediates protein folding with a two successive timer mechanism

GroEL encapsulates nonnative substrate proteins in a central cavity capped by GroES, providing a safe folding cage. Conventional models assume that a single timer lasting approximately 8 s governs the ATP hydrolysis-driven GroEL chaperonin cycle. We examine single molecule imaging of GFP folding within the cavity, binding release dynamics of GroEL-GroES, ensemble measurements of GroEL/substrate FRET, and the initial kinetics of GroEL ATPase activity. We conclude that the cycle consists of two successive timers of approximately 3 s and approximately 5 s duration. During the first timer, GroEL is bound to ATP, substrate protein, and GroES. When the first timer ends, the substrate protein is released into the central cavity and folding begins. ATP hydrolysis and phosphate release immediately follow this transition. ADP, GroES, and substrate depart GroEL after the second timer is complete. This mechanism explains how GroES binding to a GroEL-substrate complex encapsulates the substrate rather than allowing it to escape into solution.