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.     

Role of the gamma-phosphate of ATP in triggering protein folding by GroEL-GroES: function, structure and energetics

Productive cis folding by the chaperonin GroEL is triggered by the binding of ATP but not ADP, along with cochaperonin GroES, to the same ring as non-native polypeptide, ejecting polypeptide into an encapsulated hydrophilic chamber. We examined the specific contribution of the gamma-phosphate of ATP to this activation process using complexes of ADP and aluminium or beryllium fluoride. These ATP analogues supported productive cis folding of the substrate protein, rhodanese, even when added to already-formed, folding-inactive cis ADP ternary complexes, essentially introducing the gamma-phosphate of ATP in an independent step. Aluminium fluoride was observed to stabilize the association of GroES with GroEL, with a substantial release of free energy (-46 kcal/mol). To understand the basis of such activation and stabilization, a crystal structure of GroEL-GroES-ADP.AlF3 was determined at 2.8 A. A trigonal AlF3 metal complex was observed in the gamma-phosphate position of the nucleotide pocket of the cis ring. Surprisingly, when this structure was compared with that of the previously determined GroEL-GroES-ADP complex, no other differences were observed. We discuss the likely basis of the ability of gamma-phosphate binding to convert preformed GroEL-GroES-ADP-polypeptide complexes into the folding-active state.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Chaperonin-mediated protein folding: fate of substrate polypeptide

Chaperonins are megadalton ring assemblies that mediate essential ATP-dependent assistance of protein folding to the native state in a variety of cellular compartments, including the mitochondrial matrix, the eukaryotic cytosol, and the bacterial cytoplasm. Structural studies of the bacterial chaperonin, GroEL, both alone and in complex with its co-chaperonin, GroES, have resolved the states of chaperonin that bind and fold non-native polypeptides. Functional studies have resolved the action of ATP binding and hydrolysis in driving the GroEL-GroES machine through its folding-active and binding-active states, respectively. Yet the exact fate of substrate polypeptide during these steps is only poorly understood. For example, while binding involves multivalent interactions between hydrophobic side-chains facing the central cavity of GroEL and exposed hydrophobic surfaces of the non-native protein, the structure of any polypeptide substrate while bound to GroEL remains unknown. It is also unclear whether binding to an open GroEL ring is accompanied by structural changes in the non-native substrate, in particular whether there is an unfolding action. As a polypeptide-bound ring becomes associated with GroES, do the large rigid-body movements of the GroEL apical domains serve as another source of a potential unfolding action? Regarding the encapsulated folding-active state, how does the central cavity itself influence the folding trajectory of a substrate? Finally, how do GroEL and GroES serve, as recently recognized, to assist the folding of substrates too large to be encapsulated inside the machine? Here, such questions are addressed with the findings available to date, and means of further resolving the states of chaperonin-associated polypeptide are discussed.     

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.     

Multivalent binding of nonnative substrate proteins by the chaperonin GroEL

The chaperonin GroEL binds nonnative substrate protein in the central cavity of an open ring through exposed hydrophobic residues at the inside aspect of the apical domains and then mediates productive folding upon binding ATP and the cochaperonin GroES. Whether nonnative proteins bind to more than one of the seven apical domains of a GroEL ring is unknown. We have addressed this using rings with various combinations of wild-type and binding-defective mutant apical domains, enabled by their production as single polypeptides. A wild-type extent of binary complex formation with two stringent substrate proteins, malate dehydrogenase or Rubisco, required a minimum of three consecutive binding-proficient apical domains. Rhodanese, a less-stringent substrate, required only two wild-type domains and was insensitive to their arrangement. As a physical correlate, multivalent binding of Rubisco was directly observed in an oxidative cross-linking experiment.     

Exploring the structural dynamics of the E.coli chaperonin GroEL using translation-libration-screw crystallographic refinement of intermediate states

Large rigid-body domain movements are critical to GroEL-mediated protein folding, especially apical domain elevation and twist associated with the formation of a folding chamber upon binding ATP and co-chaperonin GroES. Here, we have modeled the anisotropic displacements of GroEL domains from various crystallized states, unliganded GroEL, ATPgammaS-bound, ADP-AlFx/GroES-bound, and ADP/GroES bound, using translation-libration-screw (TLS) analysis. Remarkably, the TLS results show that the inherent motions of unliganded GroEL, a polypeptide-accepting state, are biased along the transition pathway that leads to the folding-active state. In the ADP-AlFx/GroES-bound folding-active state the dynamic modes of the apical domains become reoriented and coupled to the motions of bound GroES. The ADP/GroES complex exhibits these same motions, but they are increased in magnitude, potentially reflecting the decreased stability of the complex after nucleotide hydrolysis. Our results have allowed the visualization of the anisotropic molecular motions that link the static conformations previously observed by X-ray crystallography. Application of the same analyses to other macromolecules where rigid body motions occur may give insight into the large scale dynamics critical for function and thus has the potential to extend our fundamental understanding of molecular machines.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Mechanisms of protein folding

The strong correlation between protein folding rates and the contact order suggests that folding rates are largely determined by the topology of the native structure. However, for a given topology, there may be several possible low free energy paths to the native state and the path that is chosen (the lowest free energy path) may depend on differences in interaction energies and local free energies of ordering in different parts of the structure. For larger proteins whose folding is assisted by chaperones, such as the Escherichia coli chaperonin GroEL, advances have been made in understanding both the aspects of an unfolded protein that GroEL recognizes and the mode of binding to the chaperonin. The possibility that GroEL can remove non-native proteins from kinetic traps by unfolding them either during polypeptide binding to the chaperonin or during the subsequent ATP-dependent formation of folding-active complexes with the co-chaperonin GroES has also been explored.     

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.     

Dual function of protein confinement in chaperonin-assisted protein folding.

The GroEL/GroES chaperonin system mediates the folding of a range of newly synthesized polypeptides in the bacterial cytosol. Using a rapid biotin-streptavidin-based inhibition of chaperonin function, we show that the cage formed by GroEL and its cofactor GroES can have a dual role in promoting folding. First, enclosure of nonnative protein in the GroEL:GroES complex is essential for folding to proceed unimpaired by aggregation. Second, folding inside the cage can be significantly faster than folding in free solution, independently of ATP-driven cycles of GroES binding and release. This suggests that confinement of unfolded protein in the narrow hydrophilic space of the chaperonin cage smoothes the energy landscape for the folding of some proteins, increasing the flux of folding intermediates toward the native state.     

Conformational rearrangements of an archaeal chaperonin upon ATPase cycling

Chaperonins are double-ring protein assemblies with a central cavity that provides a sequestered environment for in vivo protein folding. Their reaction cycle is thought to consist of a nucleotide-regulated alternation between an open substrate-acceptor state and a closed folding-active state. The cavity of ATP-charged group I chaperonins, typified by Escherichia coli GroEL [1], is sealed off by a co-chaperonin, whereas group II chaperonins--the archaeal thermosome and eukaryotic TRiC/CCT [2]--possess a built-in lid [3-5]. The mechanism of the lid's rearrangements requires clarification, as even in the absence of nucleotides, thermosomes of Thermoplama acidophilum appear open in vitrified ice [6] and closed in crystals [4]. Here we analyze the conformation of the thermosome at each step of the ATPase cycle by small-angle neutron scattering. The apo-chaperonin is open in solution, and ATP binding induces its further expansion. Closure seems to occur during ATP hydrolysis and before phosphate release, and represents the rate-limiting step of the cycle. The same closure can be triggered by the crystallization buffer. Thus, the allosteric regulation of group II chaperonins appears different from that of their group I counterparts.     

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.     

The crystal structure of a GroEL/peptide complex: plasticity as a basis for substrate diversity

The chaperonin GroEL is a double toriodal assembly that with its cochaperonin GroES facilitates protein folding with an ATP-dependent mechanism. Nonnative conformations of diverse protein substrates bind to the apical domains surrounding the opening of the double toroid's central cavity. Using phage display, we have selected peptides with high affinity for the isolated apical domain. We have determined the crystal structures of the complexes formed by the most strongly bound peptide with the isolated apical domain, and with GroEL. The peptide interacts with the groove between paired alpha helices in a manner similar to that of the GroES mobile loop. Our structural analysis, combined with other results, suggests that various modes of molecular plasticity are responsible for tight promiscuous binding of nonnative substrates and their release into the shielded cis assembly.