Single-molecule Observation of Protein Folding in Symmetric GroEL-(GroES)2 Complexes

The chaperonin, GroEL, is an essential molecular chaperone that mediates protein folding together with its cofactor, GroES, in Escherichia coli. It is widely believed that the two rings of GroEL alternate between the folding active state coupled to GroES binding during the reaction cycle. In other words, an asymmetric GroEL-GroES complex (the bullet-shaped complex) is formed throughout the cycle, whereas a symmetric GroEL-(GroES)₂ complex (the football-shaped complex) is not formed. We have recently shown that the football-shaped complex coexists with the bullet-shaped complex during the reaction cycle. However, how protein folding proceeds in the football-shaped complex remains poorly understood. Here, we used GFP as a substrate to visualize protein folding in the football-shaped complex by single-molecule fluorescence techniques. We directly showed that GFP folding occurs in both rings of the football-shaped complex. Remarkably, the folding was a sequential two-step reaction, and the kinetics were in excellent agreement with those in the bullet-shaped complex. These results demonstrate that the same reactions take place independently in both rings of the football-shaped complex to facilitate protein folding.     

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.     

Asp-52 in Combination with Asp-398 Plays a Critical Role in ATP Hydrolysis of Chaperonin GroEL

The Escherichia coli chaperonin GroEL is a double-ring chaperone that assists protein folding with the aid of GroES and ATP. Asp-398 in GroEL is known as one of the critical residues on ATP hydrolysis because GroEL(D398A) mutant is deficient in ATP hydrolysis (<2% of the wild type) but not in ATP binding. In the archaeal Group II chaperonin, another aspartate residue, Asp-52 in the corresponding E. coli GroEL, in addition to Asp-398 is also important for ATP hydrolysis. We investigated the role of Asp-52 in GroEL and found that ATPase activity of GroEL(D52A) and GroEL(D52A/D398A) mutants was ∼20% and <0.01% of wild-type GroEL, respectively, indicating that Asp-52 in E. coli GroEL is also involved in the ATP hydrolysis. GroEL(D52A/D398A) formed a symmetric football-shaped GroEL-GroES complex in the presence of ATP, again confirming the importance of the symmetric complex during the GroEL ATPase cycle. Notably, the symmetric complex of GroEL(D52A/D398A) was extremely stable, with a half-time of ∼150 h (∼6 days), providing a good model to characterize the football-shaped complex.     

Anisotropic intersubunit and inter-ring interactions revealed in the native bullet-shaped chaperonin complex from Thermus thermophilus

Background

The recent morphological studies on chaperonins have revealed that nearly equivalent amount of symmetric GroEL–(GroES)₂ (football-shaped) and asymmetric GroEL–GroES (bullet-shaped) complexes coexist during the chaperonin reaction cycle, which prompted us to reexamine the equatorial split observed for chaperonin from Thermus thermophilus by implementing semi-empirical molecular orbital (MO) calculations, since it is now believed that the symmetric formation is a precursor to the equatorial split.

Methods

Semi-empirical MO calculations were employed to investigate the intersubunit interactions within the bullet-shaped T. thermophilus chaperonin capturing the substrate of folding intermediates. Interaction energies between each cis-GroEL subunit and closely related remaining subunits in cis-GroEL ring, or in trans-GroEL ring across the equatorial plane, and further, interaction energies between each GroES subunit and adjacent subunits in the same GroES ring and in cis-GroEL ring were simulated.

Results

Anisotropic intensities and energy distribution of the subunits were revealed by the calculations, which are consistent with two conformations of the subunits forming cis-GroEL ring as revealed by X-ray crystal structure, and with an anisotropic critical binding site on cis-GroEL ring for chaperonin functioning.

Conclusions

This is the first application of semi-empirical MO calculations to the macromolecular complex of the native bullet-shaped chaperonin (GroEL–GroES–ADP homolog) from T. thermophilus.

General significance

The results also appear to support the occurrence of the equatorial split for T. thermophilus chaperonin observed via electron microscopy, but has not yet been fully observed for Escherichia coli GroEL–GroES system.     

Single-molecule observation of protein-protein interactions in the chaperonin system

We have analyzed the dynamics of the chaperonin (GroEL)-cochaperonin (GroES) interaction at the single-molecule level. In the presence of ATP and non-native protein, binding of GroES to the immobilized GroEL occurred at a rate that is consistent with bulk kinetics measurements. However, the release of GroES from GroEL occurred after a lag period ( approximately 3 s) that was not recognized in earlier bulk-phase studies. This observation suggests a new kinetic intermediate in the GroEL-GroES reaction pathway.     

Probing Open Conformation of GroEL Rings by Cross-linking Reveals Single and Double Open Ring Structures of GroEL in ADP and ATP

Two heptamer rings of chaperonin GroEL undergo opening-closing conformational transition in the reaction cycle with the aid of GroES and ATP. We introduced Cys into the GroEL subunit at Ala-384 and Ser-509, which are very close between adjacent GroEL subunits in the open heptamer ring but far apart in the closed heptamer ring. The open ring-specific inter-subunit cross-linking between these Cys indicated that the number of rings in open conformation in GroEL was two in ATP (GroEL_OO), one in ADP (GroEL_O), and none in the absence of nucleotide. ADP showed an inhibitory effect on ATP-induced generation of GroEL_OO. The isolated GroEL_O and GroEL_OO, which lost any bound nucleotide, could bind GroES to form a bullet-shaped 1:1 GroEL-GroES complex and a football-shaped 1:2 GroEL-GroES complex, respectively, even without the addition of any nucleotide. Substrate protein was unable to form a stable complex with GroEL_OO and did not stimulate ATPase activity of GroEL. These results favor a model of the GroEL reaction cycle that includes a football complex as a critical intermediate.Chaperonin facilitates the folding of other proteins using the energy of ATP hydrolysis (1–4). GroEL, an Escherichia coli chaperonin, consists of 14 identical 57-kDa subunits arranged in two heptamer rings. Each ring contains a central open cavity, and the two rings are stacked back-to-back (5). Denatured protein binds to the apical end of the central cavity of the heptamer ring of GroEL (6–10). In the presence of ATP, a disk-shaped GroES binds to the same apical end as a lid to seal the cavity and generates a chamber. The denatured protein is discharged into the chamber, making this heptamer ring folding-active, where productive folding proceeds (11, 12). After several seconds, the GroES lid is detached from GroEL, and the substrate protein is free to escape into solution.Two heptamer rings of GroEL undergo opening-closing conformational transition, coupled with attachment and detachment of GroES, in the functional cycle (13). In the transition from “closed” to “open” conformation, apical domain of each GroEL subunit in the ring is shifted upward and outward, and the cleft between apical and equatorial domains opens. GroES is associated with the open ring, and two kinds of GroEL-GroES complexes are formed. An asymmetric “bullet”-shaped complex is a 1:1 GroEL-GroES complex in which GroES attached to one of two heptamer rings in GroEL (14–16). A symmetric “football”-shaped complex is a 1:2 GroEL-GroES complex in which GroES attached to both heptamer rings of GroEL (17–22). The football complex contains two open rings; the bullet complex contains one closed and one open ring, and free GroEL is made up of two closed rings.Previously, we generated the GroEL in which two rings in GroEL were locked in a closed conformation by disulfide cross-link between apical and equatorial domains in the same GroEL subunits (23). This GroEL can bind ATP and denatured protein but fails to process further reaction steps such as ATP hydrolysis, GroES binding, and release of substrate protein. We report here the opposite version; open conformation-specific inter-subunit cross-links were introduced into the GroEL ring. Using this cross-linking as a probe of open conformation, we found that one ring was open in ADP (GroEL_O), although two rings were open in ATP (GroEL_OO). The isolated GroEL_O and GroEL_OO, which were nucleotide-free, formed a stable bullet and football complex with GroES even in the absence of any nucleotide. These results support a GroEL mechanism that includes a football complex as a critical intermediate.     

Revisiting the GroEL-GroES reaction cycle via the symmetric intermediate implied by novel aspects of the GroEL(D398A) mutant

The Escherichia coli chaperonin GroEL is a double-ring chaperone that assists in protein folding with the aid of GroES and ATP. It is believed that GroEL alternates the folding-active rings and that the substrate protein (and GroES) can bind to the open trans-ring only after ATP in the cis-ring is hydrolyzed. However, we found that a substrate protein prebound to the trans-ring remained bound during the first ATP cycle, and this substrate was assisted by GroEL-GroES when the second cycle began. Moreover, a slow ATP-hydrolyzing GroEL mutant (D398A) in the ATP-bound form bound a substrate protein and GroES to the trans-ring. The apparent discrepancy with the results from an earlier study (Rye, H. S., Roseman, A. M., Chen, S., Furtak, K., Fenton, W. A., Saibil, H. R., and Horwich, A. L. (1999) Cell 97, 325-338) can be explained by the previously unnoticed fact that the ATP-bound form of the D398A mutant exists as a symmetric 1:2 GroEL-GroES complex (the "football"-shaped complex) and that the substrate protein (and GroES) in the medium is incorporated into the complex only after the slow turnover. In light of these results, the current model of the GroEL-GroES reaction cycle via the asymmetric 1:1 GroEL-GroES complex deserves reexamination.     

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.     

Role of Denatured-State Properties in Chaperonin Action Probed by Single-Molecule Spectroscopy

The bacterial chaperonin GroEL/GroES assists folding of a broad spectrum of denatured and misfolded proteins. Here, we explore the limits of this remarkable promiscuity by mapping two denatured proteins with very different conformational properties, rhodanese and cyclophilin A, during binding and encapsulation by GroEL/GroES with single-molecule spectroscopy, microfluidic mixing, and ensemble kinetics. We find that both proteins bind to GroEL with high affinity in a reaction involving substantial conformational adaptation. However, whereas the compact denatured state of rhodanese is encapsulated efficiently upon addition of GroES and ATP, the more expanded and unstructured denatured cyclophilin A is not encapsulated but is expelled into solution. The origin of this surprising disparity is the weaker interactions of cyclophilin A with a transiently formed GroEL-GroES complex, which may serve as a crucial checkpoint for substrate discrimination.     

Asymmetry of the GroEL-GroES complex under physiological conditions as revealed by small-angle x-ray scattering

Despite the well-known functional importance of GroEL-GroES complex formation during the chaperonin cycle, the stoichiometry of the complex has not been clarified. The complex can occur either as an asymmetric 1:1 GroEL-GroES complex or as a symmetric 1:2 GroEL-GroES complex, although it remains uncertain which type is predominant under physiological conditions. To resolve this question, we studied the structure of the GroEL-GroES complex under physiological conditions by small-angle x-ray scattering, which is a powerful technique to directly observe the structure of the protein complex in solution. We evaluated molecular structural parameters, the radius of gyration and the maximum dimension of the complex, from the x-ray scattering patterns under various nucleotide conditions (3 mM ADP, 3 mM ATPγS, and 3 mM ATP in 10 mM MgCl₂ and 100 mM KCl) at three different temperatures (10°C, 25°C, and 37°C). We then compared the experimentally observed scattering patterns with those calculated from the known x-ray crystallographic structures of the GroEL-GroES complex. The results clearly demonstrated that the asymmetric complex must be the major species stably present in solution under physiological conditions. On the other hand, in the presence of ATP (3 mM) and beryllium fluoride (10 mM NaF and 300 μM BeCl₂), we observed the formation of a stable symmetric complex, suggesting the existence of a transiently formed symmetric complex during the chaperonin cycle.     

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.     

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.     

Repetitive Protein Unfolding by the trans Ring of the GroEL-GroES Chaperonin Complex Stimulates Folding

A key constraint on the growth of most organisms is the slow and inefficient folding of many essential proteins. To deal with this problem, several diverse families of protein folding machines, known collectively as molecular chaperones, developed early in evolutionary history. The functional role and operational steps of these remarkably complex nanomachines remain subjects of active debate. Here we present evidence that, for the GroEL-GroES chaperonin system, the non-native substrate protein enters the folding cycle on the trans ring of the double-ring GroEL-ATP-GroES complex rather than the ADP-bound complex. The properties of this ATP complex are designed to ensure that non-native substrate protein binds first, followed by ATP and finally GroES. This binding order ensures efficient occupancy of the open GroEL ring and allows for disruption of misfolded structures through two phases of multiaxis unfolding. In this model, repeated cycles of partial unfolding, followed by confinement within the GroEL-GroES chamber, provide the most effective overall mechanism for facilitating the folding of the most stringently dependent GroEL substrate proteins.     

Crystal Structure of a Symmetric Football-Shaped GroEL:GroES2-ATP14 Complex Determined at 3.8 Å Reveals Rearrangement between Two GroEL Rings

The chaperonin GroEL is an essential chaperone that assists in protein folding with the aid of GroES and ATP. GroEL forms a double-ring structure, and both rings can bind GroES in the presence of ATP. Recent progress on the GroEL mechanism has revealed the importance of a symmetric 1:2 GroEL:GroES₂ complex (the “football”-shaped complex) as a critical intermediate during the functional GroEL cycle. We determined the crystal structure of the football GroEL:GroES₂-ATP₁₄ complex from Escherichia coli at 3.8 Å, using a GroEL mutant that is extremely defective in ATP hydrolysis. The overall structure of the football complex resembled the GroES-bound GroEL ring of the asymmetric 1:1 GroEL:GroES complex (the “bullet” complex). However, the two GroES-bound GroEL rings form a modified interface by an ~ 7° rotation about the 7-fold axis. As a result, the inter-ring contacts between the two GroEL rings in the football complex differed from those in the bullet complex. The differences provide a structural basis for the apparently impaired inter-ring negative cooperativity observed in several biochemical analyses.     

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.     

Polypeptide in the chaperonin cage partly protrudes out and then folds inside or escapes outside

The current mechanistic model of chaperonin-assisted protein folding assumes that the substrate protein in the cage, formed by GroEL central cavity capped with GroES, is isolated from outside and exists as a free polypeptide. However, using ATPase-deficient GroEL mutants that keep GroES bound, we found that, in the rate-limiting intermediate of a chaperonin reaction, the unfolded polypeptide in the cage partly protrudes through a narrow space near the GroEL/GroES interface. Then, the entire polypeptide is released either into the cage or to the outside medium. The former adopts a native structure very rapidly and the latter undergoes spontaneous folding. Partition of the in-cage folding and the escape varies among substrate proteins and is affected by hydrophobic interaction between the polypeptide and GroEL cavity wall. The ATPase-active GroEL with decreased in-cage folding produced less of a native model substrate protein in Escherichia coli cells. Thus, the polypeptide in the critical GroEL-GroES complex is neither free nor completely confined in the cage, but it is interacting with GroEL's apical region, partly protruding to outside.     

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.     

Electron Microscopy of Bacillus subtilis GroESL Chaperonin and Interaction with the Bacteriophage φ29 Head-Tail Connector

The Bacillus subtilis GroESL chaperonin was isolated by sucrose density gradient centrifugation and the constituent GroES and GroEL moieties were purified by electrophoresis in agarose. Electron microscopic images of negatively stained GroEL and GroES oligomers and GroESL complexes were averaged using a reference-free alignment method. The GroEL and GroES particles had the sevenfold symmetry characteristic of their Escherichia coli counterparts. GroESL complexes, reconstituted efficiently in vitro from GroEL and GroES in the absence of added ADP or ATP, had the characteristic bullet- and football-like shapes in side view. Purified bacteriophage φ29 head-tail connectors having a mass in excess of 0.4 MDa were shown to bind to GroESL at the end opposite to the GroES. The same GroESL-connector complexes were isolated from phage-infected cells in which capsid assembly was blocked, and thus the complex may have functional significance in φ29 morphogenesis.     

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.