Why do cellular proteins linked to K63-polyubiquitin chains not associate with proteasomes?

Although cellular proteins conjugated to K48‐linked Ub chains are targeted to proteasomes, proteins conjugated to K63‐ubiquitin chains are directed to lysosomes. However, pure 26S proteasomes bind and degrade K48‐ and K63‐ubiquitinated substrates similarly. Therefore, we investigated why K63‐ubiquitinated proteins are not degraded by proteasomes. We show that mammalian cells contain soluble factors that selectively bind to K63 chains and inhibit or prevent their association with proteasomes. Using ubiquitinated proteins as affinity ligands, we found that the main cellular proteins that associate selectively with K63 chains and block their binding to proteasomes are ESCRT0 (Endosomal Sorting Complex Required for Transport) and its components, STAM and Hrs. In vivo, knockdown of ESCRT0 confirmed that it is required to block binding of K63‐ubiquitinated molecules to the proteasome. In addition, the Rad23 proteins, especially hHR23B, were found to bind specifically to K48‐ubiquitinated proteins and to stimulate proteasome binding. The specificities of these proteins for K48‐ or K63‐ubiquitin chains determine whether a ubiquitinated protein is targeted for proteasomal degradation or delivered instead to the endosomal‐lysosomal pathway.     

26 S proteasomes function as stable entities.

Most proteins in eukaryotic cells are degraded by 26-S proteasomes, usually after being conjugated to ubiquitin. In the absence of ATP, 26-S proteasomes fall apart into their two sub-complexes, 20-S proteasomes and PA700, which reassemble upon addition of ATP. Conceivably, 26-S proteasomes dissociate and reassemble during initiation of protein degradation in a ternary complex with the substrate, as in the dissociation-reassembly cycles found for ribosomes and the chaperonin GroEL/GroES. Here we followed disassembly and assembly of 26-S proteasomes in cell extracts as the exchange of PA700 subunits between mouse and human 26-S proteasomes. Compared to the rate of proteolysis in the same extract, the disassembly-reassembly cycle was much too slow to present an obligatory step in a degradation cycle. It has been suggested that subunit S5a (Mcb1, Rpn10), which binds poly-ubiquitin substrates, shuttles between a free state and the 26-S proteasome, bringing substrate to the complex. However, S5a was not found in the free state in HeLa cells. Besides, all subunits in PA700, including S5a, exchanged at similar low rates. It therefore seems that 26-S proteasomes function as stable entities during degradation of proteins.     

Stimulating the substrate folding activity of a single ring GroEL variant by modulating the cochaperonin GroES

In mediating protein folding, chaperonin GroEL and cochaperonin GroES form an enclosed chamber for substrate proteins in an ATP-dependent manner. The essential role of the double ring assembly of GroEL is demonstrated by the functional deficiency of the single ring GroEL(SR). The GroEL(SR)-GroES is highly stable with minimal ATPase activity. To restore the ATP cycle and the turnover of the folding chamber, we sought to weaken the GroEL(SR)-GroES interaction systematically by concatenating seven copies of groES to generate groES(7). GroES Ile-25, Val-26, and Leu-27, residues on the GroEL-GroES interface, were substituted with Asp on different groES modules of groES(7). GroES(7) variants activate ATP activity of GroEL(SR), but only some restore the substrate folding function of GroEL(SR), indicating a direct role of GroES in facilitating substrate folding through its dynamics with GroEL. Active GroEL(SR)-GroES(7) systems may resemble mammalian mitochondrial chaperonin systems.     

ATP-dependent reversible association of proteasomes with multiple protein components to form 26S complexes that degrade ubiquitinated proteins in human HL-60 cells.

The role of proteasomes in ubiquitin (Ub)-dependent protein degradation was studied by analyzing lysates of human promyelocytic leukemia HL-60 cells by glycerol density gradient centrifugation. High succinyl-Leu-Leu-Val-Tyr-4-methylcoumaryl-7-amide hydrolyzing activity was found in the 26S fraction, whereas the 20S fraction containing proteaomes had no activity. Addition of 0.05% sodium dodecylsulfate to the latter fraction, however, induced marked activity. The 26S, but not the 20S fraction catalyzed ATP-dependent degradation of [125I]lysozyme-Ub conjugate. Depletion from the lysate of ATP caused complete shift of the active 26S complex to the latent 20S form, whereas in the lysate prepared from ATP-depleted cells, ATP converted 20S proteasomes to 26S complexes. The immunoprecipitated 26S complexes were found to consist of proteasomes and 13-15 other proteins ranging in size from 35 to 110 kDa. We conclude that in the lysate, latent proteasomes undergo reversible, ATP-dependent association with multiple protein components to form 26S complexes that catalyze ATP-dependent degradation of Ub-protein conjugates.     

Autoubiquitination of the 26S Proteasome on Rpn13 Regulates Breakdown of Ubiquitin Conjugates

Degradation rates of most proteins in eukaryotic cells are determined by their rates of ubiquitination. However, possible regulation of the proteasome's capacity to degrade ubiquitinated proteins has received little attention, although proteasome inhibitors are widely used in research and cancer treatment. We show here that mammalian 26S proteasomes have five associated ubiquitin ligases and that multiple proteasome subunits are ubiquitinated in cells, especially the ubiquitin receptor subunit, Rpn13. When proteolysis is even partially inhibited in cells or purified 26S proteasomes with various inhibitors, Rpn13 becomes extensively and selectively poly‐ubiquitinated by the proteasome‐associated ubiquitin ligase, Ube3c/Hul5. This modification also occurs in cells during heat‐shock or arsenite treatment, when poly‐ubiquitinated proteins accumulate. Rpn13 ubiquitination strongly decreases the proteasome's ability to bind and degrade ubiquitin‐conjugated proteins, but not its activity against peptide substrates. This autoinhibitory mechanism presumably evolved to prevent binding of ubiquitin conjugates to defective or stalled proteasomes, but this modification may also be useful as a biomarker indicating the presence of proteotoxic stress and reduced proteasomal capacity in cells or patients.     

The mycobacterial Mpa–proteasome unfolds and degrades pupylated substrates by engaging Pup's N‐terminus

Mycobacterium tuberculosis, along with other actinobacteria, harbours proteasomes in addition to members of the general bacterial repertoire of degradation complexes. In analogy to ubiquitination in eukaryotes, substrates are tagged for proteasomal degradation with prokaryotic ubiquitin‐like protein (Pup) that is recognized by the N‐terminal coiled‐coil domain of the ATPase Mpa (also called ARC). Here, we reconstitute the entire mycobacterial proteasome degradation system for pupylated substrates and establish its mechanistic features with respect to substrate recruitment, unfolding and degradation. We show that the Mpa–proteasome complex unfolds and degrades Pup‐tagged proteins and that this activity requires physical interaction of the ATPase with the proteasome. Furthermore, we establish the N‐terminal region of Pup as the structural element required for engagement of pupylated substrates into the Mpa pore. In this process, Mpa pulls on Pup to initiate unfolding of substrate proteins and to drag them toward the proteasome chamber. Unlike the eukaryotic ubiquitin, Pup is not recycled but degraded with the substrate. This assigns a dual function to Pup as both the Mpa recognition element as well as the threading determinant.     

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.     

PLIC proteins or ubiquilins regulate autophagy‐dependent cell survival during nutrient starvation

Ubiquilins (UBQLNs) are adaptor proteins thought to deliver ubiquitinated substrates to proteasomes. Here, we show a role for UBQLN in autophagy: enforced expression of UBQLN protects cells from starvation‐induced death, whereas depletion of UBQLN renders cells more susceptible. The UBQLN protective effect requires the autophagy‐related genes ATG5 and ATG7, two essential components of autophagy. The ubiquitin‐associated domain of UBQLN mediates both its association with autophagosomes and its protective effect against starvation. Depletion of UBQLN delays the delivery of autophagosomes to lysosomes. This study identifies a new role for UBQLN in regulating the maturation of autophagy, expanding the involvement of ubiquitin‐related proteins in this process.     

The ATP Costs and Time Required to Degrade Ubiquitinated Proteins by the 26 S Proteasome

The degradation of ubiquitinated proteins by 26 S proteasomes requires ATP hydrolysis. To investigate if the six proteasomal ATPases function independently or in a cyclic manner, as proposed recently, we used yeast mutants that prevent ATP binding to Rpt3, Rpt5, or Rpt6. Although proteasomes contain six ATPase subunits, each of these single mutations caused a 66% reduction in basal ATP hydrolysis, and each blocked completely the 2–3-fold stimulation of ATPase activity induced by ubiquitinated substrates. Therefore, the ATPase subunits must function in a ordered manner, in which each is required for the stimulation of ATPase activity by substrates. Although ATP is essential for multiple steps in proteasome function, when the rate of ATP hydrolysis was reduced incrementally, the degradation of Ub₅-DHFR (where Ub is ubiquitin and DHFR is dihydrofolate reductase) decreased exactly in parallel. This direct proportionality implies that a specific number of ATPs is consumed in degrading a ubiquitinated protein. When the ubiquitinated DHFR was more tightly folded (upon addition of the ligand folate), the rate of ATP hydrolysis was unchanged, but the time to degrade a Ub₅-DHFR molecule (∼13 s) and the energy expenditure (50–80 ATPs/Ub₅-DHFR) both increased by 2-fold. With a mutation in the ATPase C terminus that reduced gate opening into the 20 S proteasome, the energy costs and time required for conjugate degradation also increased. Thus, different ubiquitin conjugates activate similarly the ATPase subunit cycle that drives proteolysis, but polypeptide structure determines the time required for degradation and thus the energy cost.     

Ubiquitinated Proteins Activate the Proteasomal ATPases by Binding to Usp14 or Uch37 Homologs

Degradation of ubiquitinated proteins by 26 S proteasomes requires ATP hydrolysis, but it is unclear how the proteasomal ATPases are regulated and how proteolysis, substrate deubiquitination, degradation, and ATP hydrolysis are coordinated. Polyubiquitinated proteins were shown to stimulate ATP hydrolysis by purified proteasomes, but only if the proteins contain a loosely folded domain. If they were not ubiquitinated, such proteins did not increase ATPase activity. However, they did so upon addition of ubiquitin aldehyde, which mimics the ubiquitin chain and binds to 26 S-associated deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBs): in yeast to Ubp6, which is essential for the ATPase activation, and in mammalian 26 S to the Ubp6 homolog, Usp14, and Uch37. Occupancy of either DUB by a ubiquitin conjugate leads to ATPase stimulation, thereby coupling deubiquitination and ATP hydrolysis. Thus, ubiquitinated loosely folded proteins, after becoming bound to the 26 S, interact with Ubp6/Usp14 or Uch37 to activate ATP hydrolysis and enhance their own destruction.     

A Tetrahymena Hsp90 co‐chaperone promotes siRNA loading by ATP‐dependent and ATP‐independent mechanisms

The loading of small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and microRNAs into Argonaute proteins is enhanced by Hsp90 and ATP in diverse eukaryotes. However, whether this loading also occurs independently of Hsp90 and ATP remains unclear. We show that the Tetrahymena Hsp90 co‐chaperone Coi12p promotes siRNA loading into the Argonaute protein Twi1p in both ATP‐dependent and ATP‐independent manners in vitro. The ATP‐dependent activity requires Hsp90 and the tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) domain of Coi12p, whereas these factors are dispensable for the ATP‐independent activity. Both activities facilitate siRNA loading by counteracting the Twi1p‐binding protein Giw1p, which is important to specifically sort the 26‐ to 32‐nt siRNAs to Twi1p. Although Coi12p lacking its TPR domain does not bind to Hsp90, it can partially restore the siRNA loading and DNA elimination defects of COI12 knockout cells, suggesting that Hsp90‐ and ATP‐independent loading of siRNA occurs in vivo and plays a physiological role in Tetrahymena.     

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.     

Structure and interaction of ubiquitin‐associated domain of human Fas‐associated factor 1

Fas‐associated factor (FAF)‐1 is a multidomain protein that was first identified as a member of the Fas death‐inducing signaling complex, but later found to be involved in various biological processes. Although the exact mechanisms are not clear, FAF1 seems to play an important role in cancer, asbestos‐induced mesotheliomas, and Parkinson's disease. It interacts with polyubiquitinated proteins, Hsp70, and p97/VCP (valosin‐containing protein), in addition to the proteins of the Fas‐signaling pathway. We have determined the crystal structure of the ubiquitin‐associated domain of human FAF1 (hFAF1‐UBA) and examined its interaction with ubiquitin and ubiquitin‐like proteins using nuclear magnetic resonance. hFAF1‐UBA revealed a canonical three‐helical bundle that selectively binds to mono‐ and di‐ubiquitin (Lys48‐linked), but not to SUMO‐1 (small ubiquitin‐related modifier 1) or NEDD8 (neural precursor cell expressed, developmentally down‐regulated 8). The interaction between hFAF1‐UBA and di‐ubiquitin involves hydrophobic interaction accompanied by a transition in the di‐ubiquitin conformation. These results provide structural insight into the mechanism of polyubiquitin recognition by hFAF1‐UBA.     

A conditional yeast E1 mutant blocks the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway and reveals a role for ubiquitin conjugates in targeting Rad23 to the proteasome

E1 ubiquitin activating enzyme catalyzes the initial step in all ubiquitin-dependent processes. We report the isolation of uba1-204, a temperature-sensitive allele of the essential Saccharomyces cerevisiae E1 gene, UBA1. Uba1-204 cells exhibit dramatic inhibition of the ubiquitin-proteasome system, resulting in rapid depletion of cellular ubiquitin conjugates and stabilization of multiple substrates. We have employed the tight phenotype of this mutant to investigate the role ubiquitin conjugates play in the dynamic interaction of the UbL/UBA adaptor proteins Rad23 and Dsk2 with the proteasome. Although proteasomes purified from mutant cells are intact and proteolytically active, they are depleted of ubiquitin conjugates, Rad23, and Dsk2. Binding of Rad23 to these proteasomes in vitro is enhanced by addition of either free or substrate-linked ubiquitin chains. Moreover, association of Rad23 with proteasomes in mutant and wild-type cells is improved upon stabilizing ubiquitin conjugates with proteasome inhibitor. We propose that recognition of polyubiquitin chains by Rad23 promotes its shuttling to the proteasome in vivo.     

Analysis of peptides and proteins in their binding to GroEL

The GroEL–GroES is an essential molecular chaperon system that assists protein folding in cell. Binding of various substrate proteins to GroEL is one of the key aspects in GroEL‐assisted protein folding. Small peptides may mimic segments of the substrate proteins in contact with GroEL and allow detailed structural analysis of the interactions. A model peptide SBP has been shown to bind to a region in GroEL that is important for binding of substrate proteins. Here, we investigated whether the observed GroEL–SBP interaction represented those of GroEL–substrate proteins, and whether SBP was able to mimic various aspects of substrate proteins in GroE‐assisted protein folding cycle. We found that SBP competed with substrate proteins, including α‐lactalbumin, rhodanese, and malate dehydrogenase, in binding to GroEL. SBP stimulated GroEL ATP hydrolysis rate in a manner similar to that of α‐lactalbumin. SBP did not prevent GroES from binding to GroEL, and GroES association reduced the ATPase rates of GroEL/SBP and GroEL/α‐lactalbumin to a comparable extent. Binding of both SBP and α‐lactalbumin to apo GroEL was dominated by hydrophobic interaction. Interestingly, association of α‐lactalbumin to GroEL/GroES was thermodynamically distinct from that to GroEL with reduced affinity and decreased contribution from hydrophobic interaction. However, SBP did not display such differential binding behaviors to apo GroEL and GroEL/GroES, likely due to the lack of a contiguous polypeptide chain that links all of the bound peptide fragments. Nevertheless, studies using peptides provide valuable information on the nature of GroEL–substrate protein interaction, which is central to understand the mechanism of GroEL‐assisted protein folding. Copyright © 2010 European Peptide Society and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Intracellular localization of the proteasome in response to stress conditions

The ubiquitin–proteasome system fulfills an essential role in regulating protein homeostasis by spatially and temporally controlling proteolysis in an ATP- and ubiquitin-dependent manner. However, the localization of proteasomes is highly variable under diverse cellular conditions. In yeast, newly synthesized proteasomes are primarily localized to the nucleus during cell proliferation. Yeast proteasomes are transported into the nucleus through the nuclear pore either as immature subcomplexes or as mature enzymes via adapter proteins Sts1 and Blm10, while in mammalian cells, postmitotic uptake of proteasomes into the nucleus is mediated by AKIRIN2, an adapter protein essentially required for nuclear protein degradation. Stressful growth conditions and the reversible halt of proliferation, that is quiescence, are associated with a decline in ATP and the reorganization of proteasome localization. Cellular stress leads to proteasome accumulation in membraneless granules either in the nucleus or in the cytoplasm. In quiescence, yeast proteasomes are sequestered in an ubiquitin-dependent manner into motile and reversible proteasome storage granules in the cytoplasm. In cancer cells, upon amino acid deprivation, heat shock, osmotic stress, oxidative stress, or the inhibition of either proteasome activity or nuclear export, reversible proteasome foci containing polyubiquitinated substrates are formed by liquid–liquid phase separation in the nucleus. In this review, we summarize recent literature revealing new links between nuclear transport, ubiquitin signaling, and the intracellular organization of proteasomes during cellular stress conditions.     

New aspects on the mechanism of GroEL-assisted protein folding

The mechanism of assisted protein folding by the chaperonin GroEL alone or in complex with the co-chaperonin GroES and in the presence or absence of nucleotides has been subject to extensive investigations during the last years. In this paper we present data where we have inactivated GroEL by stepwise blocking the nucleotide binding sites using the non-hydrolyzable ATP analogue, (Cr(H2O)4)3+ATP. We correlated the amount of accessible nucleotide binding sites with the residual ATP hydrolysis activity of GroEL as well as the residual refolding activity for two different model substrates. Under the conditions used, folding of the substrate proteins and ATP hydrolysis were directly proportional to the residual, accessible nucleotide binding sites. In the presence of GroES, 50% of the nucleotide binding sites were protected from inactivation by CrATP and the resulting protein retains 50% of both ATPase and refolding activity. The results strongly suggest that under the conditions used in our experiments, the nucleotide binding sites are additive in character and that by blocking of a certain number of binding sites a proportional amount of ATP hydrolysis and refolding activities are inactivated. The experiments including GroES suggest that full catalytic activity of GroEL requires both rings of the chaperonin. Blocking of the nucleotide binding sites of one ring still allows function of the second ring.     

USP4 inhibits SMAD4 monoubiquitination and promotes activin and BMP signaling

SMAD4 is a common intracellular effector for TGF‐β family cytokines, but the mechanism by which its activity is dynamically regulated is unclear. We demonstrated that ubiquitin‐specific protease (USP) 4 strongly induces activin/BMP signaling by removing the inhibitory monoubiquitination from SMAD4. This modification was triggered by the recruitment of the E3 ligase, SMURF2, to SMAD4 following ligand‐induced regulatory (R)‐SMAD–SMAD4 complex formation. Whereas the interaction of the negative regulator c‐SKI inhibits SMAD4 monoubiquitination, the ligand stimulates the recruitment of SMURF2 to the c‐SKI‐SMAD2 complex and triggers c‐SKI ubiquitination and degradation. Thus, SMURF2 has a role in termination and initiation of TGF‐β family signaling. An increase in monoubiquitinated SMAD4 in USP4‐depleted mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) decreased both the BMP‐ and activin‐induced changes in the embryonic stem cell fate. USP4 sustained SMAD4 activity during activin‐ and BMP‐mediated morphogenic events in early zebrafish embryos. Moreover, zebrafish depleted of USP4 exhibited defective cell migration and slower coordinated cell movement known as epiboly, both of which could be rescued by SMAD4. Therefore, USP4 is a critical determinant of SMAD4 activity.     

Catalysis, commitment and encapsulation during GroE-mediated folding.

The Escherichia coli GroE chaperones assist protein folding under conditions where no spontaneous folding occurs. To achieve this, the cooperation of GroEL and GroES, the two protein components of the chaperone system, is an essential requirement. While in many cases GroE simply suppresses unspecific aggregation of non-native proteins by encapsulation, there are examples where folding is accelerated by GroE.Using maltose-binding protein (MBP) as a substrate for GroE, it had been possible to define basic requirements for catalysis of folding. Here, we have analyzed key steps in the interaction of GroE and the MBP mutant Y283D during catalyzed folding. In addition to high temperature, high ionic strength was shown to be a restrictive condition for MBP Y283D folding. In both cases, the complete GroE system (GroEL, GroES and ATP) compensates the deceleration of MBP Y283D folding. Combining kinetic folding experiments and electron microscopy of GroE particles, we demonstrate that at elevated temperatures, symmetrical GroE particles with GroES bound to both ends of the GroEL cylinder play an important role in the efficient catalysis of MBP Y283D refolding. In principle, MBP Y283D folding can be catalyzed during one encapsulation cycle. However, because the commitment to reach the native state is low after only one cycle of ATP hydrolysis, several interaction cycles are required for catalyzed folding.     

Survival of mycobacteria depends on proteasome‐mediated amino acid recycling under nutrient limitation

Intracellular protein degradation is an essential process in all life domains. While in all eukaryotes regulated protein degradation involves ubiquitin tagging and the 26S‐proteasome, bacterial prokaryotic ubiquitin‐like protein (Pup) tagging and proteasomes are conserved only in species belonging to the phyla Actinobacteria and Nitrospira. In Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the Pup‐proteasome system (PPS) is important for virulence, yet its physiological role in non‐pathogenic species has remained an enigma. We now report, using Mycobacterium smegmatis as a model organism, that the PPS is essential for survival under starvation. Upon nitrogen limitation, PPS activity is induced, leading to accelerated tagging and degradation of many cytoplasmic proteins. We suggest a model in which the PPS functions to recycle amino acids under nitrogen starvation, thereby enabling the cell to maintain basal metabolic activities. We also find that the PPS auto‐regulates its own activity via pupylation and degradation of its components in a manner that promotes the oscillatory expression of PPS components. As such, the destructive activity of the PPS is carefully balanced to maintain cellular functions during starvation.