Conversion of a Chaperonin GroEL-independent Protein into an Obligate Substrate

Chaperones assist protein folding by preventing unproductive protein aggregation in the cell. In Escherichia coli, chaperonin GroEL/GroES (GroE) is the only indispensable chaperone and is absolutely required for the de novo folding of at least ∼60 proteins. We previously found that several orthologs of the obligate GroE substrates in Ureaplasma urealyticum, which lacks the groE gene in the genome, are E. coli GroE-independent folders, despite their significant sequence identities. Here, we investigated the key features that define the GroE dependence. Chimera or random mutagenesis analyses revealed that independent multiple point mutations, and even single mutations, were sufficient to confer GroE dependence on the Ureaplasma MetK. Strikingly, the GroE dependence was well correlated with the propensity to form protein aggregates during folding. The results reveal the delicate balance between GroE dependence and independence. The function of GroE to buffering the aggregation-prone mutations plays a role in maintaining higher genetic diversity of proteins.     

Contact Order Is a Determinant for the Dependence of GFP Folding on the Chaperonin GroEL

The GroE chaperonin system facilitates protein folding in an ATP-dependent manner. It has remained unclear why some proteins are obligate clients of the GroE system, whereas other closely related proteins are able to fold efficiently in its absence. Factors that cause folding to be slower affect kinetic partitioning between spontaneous folding and chaperone binding in favor of the latter. One such potential factor is contact order (CO), which is the average separation in sequence between residues that are in contact in the native structure. Here, we generated variants of enhanced green fluorescent protein with different COs using circular permutations. We found that GroE dependence in vitro and in vivo increases with increasing CO. Thus, our results show that CO is relevant not only for folding in vitro of relatively simple model systems but also for chaperonin dependence and folding in vivo.     

What distinguishes GroEL substrates from other Escherichia coli proteins?

Experimental studies and theoretical considerations have shown that only a small subset of Escherichia coli proteins fold in vivo with the help of the GroE chaperone system. These proteins, termed GroE substrates, have been divided into three classes: (a) proteins that can fold independently, but are found to associate with GroEL; (b) proteins that require GroE when the cell is under stress; and (c) 'obligatory' proteins that require GroE assistance even under normal conditions. It remains unclear, however, why some proteins need GroE and others do not. Here, we review experimental and computational studies that addressed this question by comparing the sequences and structural, biophysical and evolutionary properties of GroE substrates with those of nonsubstrates. In general, obligatory substrates are found to have lower folding propensities and be more aggregation prone. GroE substrates are also more conserved than other proteins and tend to utilize more optimal codons, but this latter feature is less apparent for obligatory substrates. There is no evidence, however, for any specific sequence signatures although there is a tendency for sequence periodicity. Our review shows that reliable sequence- or structure-based predictions of GroE dependency remain a challenge. We suggest that the different classes of GroE substrates be studied separately and that proper control test sets (e.g. TIM barrel proteins that need GroE for folding versus TIM barrels that fold independently) be used more extensively in such studies.     

High salt-induced conversion of Escherichia coli GroEL into a fully functional thermophilic chaperonin

The GroE chaperonin system can adapt to and function at various environmental folding conditions. To examine chaperonin-assisted protein folding at high salt concentrations, we characterized Escherichia coli GroE chaperonin activity in 1.2 m ammonium sulfate. Our data are consistent with GroEL undergoing a conformational change at this salt concentration, characterized by elevated ATPase activity and increased exposure of hydrophobic surface, as indicated by increased binding of the fluorophore bis-(5, 5')-8-anilino-1-naphthalene sulfonic acid to the chaperonin. The presence of the salt results in increased substrate stringency and dependence on the full GroE system for release and productive folding of substrate proteins. Surprisingly, GroEL is fully functional as a thermophilic chaperonin in high concentrations of ammonium sulfate and is stable at temperatures up to 75 degrees C. At these extreme conditions, GroEL can suppress aggregation and mediate refolding of non-native proteins.     

Hetero‐oligomeric CPN60 resembles highly symmetric group‐I chaperonin structure revealed by Cryo‐EM

The chloroplast chaperonin system is indispensable for the biogenesis of Rubisco, the key enzyme in photosynthesis. Using Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as a model system, we found that in vivo the chloroplast chaperonin consists of CPN60α, CPN60β1 and CPN60β2 and the co‐chaperonin of the three subunits CPN20, CPN11 and CPN23. In Escherichia coli, CPN20 homo‐oligomers and all possible other chloroplast co‐chaperonin hetero‐oligomers are functional, but only that consisting of CPN11/20/23‐CPN60αβ1β2 can fully replace GroES/GroEL under stringent stress conditions. Endogenous CPN60 was purified and its stoichiometry was determined to be 6:2:6 for CPN60α:CPN60β1:CPN60β2. The cryo‐EM structures of endogenous CPN60αβ1β2/ADP and CPN60αβ1β2/co‐chaperonin/ADP were solved at resolutions of 4.06 and 3.82 Å, respectively. In both hetero‐oligomeric complexes the chaperonin subunits within each ring are highly symmetric. Through hetero‐oligomerization, the chloroplast co‐chaperonin CPN11/20/23 forms seven GroES‐like domains, which symmetrically interact with CPN60αβ1β2. Our structure also reveals an uneven distribution of roof‐forming domains in the dome‐shaped CPN11/20/23 co‐chaperonin and potentially diversified surface properties in the folding cavity of the CPN60αβ1β2 chaperonin that might enable the chloroplast chaperonin system to assist in the folding of specific substrates.     

Filamentous morphology in GroE-depleted Escherichia coli induced by impaired folding of FtsE

The chaperonin GroE (GroEL and the cochaperonin GroES) is the only chaperone system that is essential for the viability of Escherichia coli. It is known that GroE-depleted cells exhibit a filamentous morphology, suggesting that GroE is required for the folding of proteins involved in cell division. Although previous studies, including proteome-wide analyses of GroE substrates, have suggested several targets of GroE in cell division, there is no direct in vivo evidence to identify which substrates exhibit obligate dependence on GroE for folding. Among the candidate substrates, we found that prior excess production of FtsE, a protein engaged in cell division, completely suppressed the filamentation of GroE-depleted E. coli. The GroE depletion led to a drastic decrease in FtsE, and the cells exhibited a known phenotype associated with impaired FtsE function. In the GroE-depleted filamentous cells, the localizations of FtsA and ZipA, both of which assemble with the FtsZ septal ring before FtsE, were normal, whereas FtsX, the interaction partner of FtsE, and FtsQ, which is recruited after FtsE, did not localize to the ring, suggesting that the decrease in FtsE is a cause of the filamentous morphology. Finally, a reconstituted cell-free translation system revealed that the folding of newly translated FtsE was stringently dependent on GroEL/GroES. Based on these findings, we concluded that FtsE is a target substrate of the GroE system in E. coli cell division.     

Differential substrate specificity of group I and group II chaperonins in the archaeon Methanosarcina mazei

Chaperonins are macromolecular machines that assist in protein folding. The archaeon Methanosarcina mazei has acquired numerous bacterial genes by horizontal gene transfer. As a result, both the bacterial group I chaperonin, GroEL, and the archaeal group II chaperonin, thermosome, coexist. A proteome‐wide analysis of chaperonin interactors was performed to determine the differential substrate specificity of GroEL and thermosome. At least 13% of soluble M. mazei proteins interact with chaperonins, with the two systems having partially overlapping substrate sets. Remarkably, chaperonin selectivity is independent of phylogenetic origin and is determined by distinct structural and biochemical features of proteins. GroEL prefers well‐conserved proteins with complex α/β domains. In contrast, thermosome substrates comprise a group of faster‐evolving proteins and contain a much wider range of different domain folds, including small all‐α and all‐β modules, and a greater number of large multidomain proteins. Thus, the group II chaperonins may have facilitated the evolution of the highly complex proteomes characteristic of eukaryotic cells.     

Chaperonin 60: a paradoxical,evolutionarily conserved protein family with multiple moonlighting functions

Chaperonin 60 is the prototypic molecular chaperone, an essential protein in eukaryotes and prokaryotes, whose sequence conservation provides an excellent basis for phylogenetic analysis. Escherichia coli chaperonin 60 (GroEL), the prototype of this family of proteins, has an established oligomeric‐structure‐based folding mechanism and a defined population of folding partners. However, there is a growing number of examples of chaperonin 60 proteins whose crystal structures and oligomeric composition are at variance with GroEL, suggesting that additional complexities in the protein‐folding function of this protein should be expected. In addition, many organisms have multiple chaperonin 60 proteins, some of which have lost their protein‐folding ability. It is emerging that this highly conserved protein has evolved a bewildering variety of additional biological functions – known as moonlighting functions – both within the cell and in the extracellular milieu. Indeed, in some organisms, it is these moonlighting functions that have been left after the loss of the protein‐folding activity. This highlights the major paradox in the biology of chaperonin 60. This article reviews the relationship between the folding and non‐folding (moonlighting) activities of the chaperonin 60 family and discusses current knowledge on their molecular evolution focusing on protein domains involved in the non‐folding chaperonin functions in an attempt to understand the emerging biology of this evolutionarily ancient protein family.     

A comparison of the GroE chaperonin requirements for sequentially and structurally homologous malate dehydrogenases: the importance of folding kinetics and solution environment

Escherichia coli malate dehydrogenase (EcMDH) and its eukaryotic counterpart, porcine mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase (PmMDH), are highly homologous proteins with significant sequence identity (60%) and virtually identical native structural folds. Despite this homology, EcMDH folds rapidly and efficiently in vitro and does not seem to interact with GroE chaperonins at physiological temperatures (37 degrees C), whereas PmMDH folds much slower than EcMDH and requires these chaperonins to fold to the native state at 37 degrees C. Double jump experiments indicate that the slow folding behavior of PmMDH is not limited by proline isomerization. Although the folding enhancer glycerol (<5 m) does not alter the renaturation kinetics of EcMDH, it dramatically accelerates the spontaneous renaturation of PmMDH at all temperatures tested. Kinetic analysis of PmMDH renaturation with increasing glycerol concentrations suggests that this osmolyte increases the on-pathway kinetics of the monomer folding to assembly-competent forms. Other osmolytes such as trimethylamine N-oxide, sucrose, and betaine also reactivate PmMDH at nonpermissive temperatures (37 degrees C). Glycerol jump experiments with preformed GroEL.PmMDH complexes indicate that the shift between stringent (requires ATP and GroES) and relaxed (only requires ATP) complex conformations is rapid (<3-5 s). The similarity in irreversible misfolding kinetics of PmMDH measured with glycerol or the activated chaperonin complex (GroEL.GroES.ATP) suggests that these folding aids may influence the same step in the PmMDH folding reaction. Moreover, the interactions between glycerol-induced PmMDH folding intermediates and GroEL.GroES.ATP are diminished. Our results support the notion that the protein folding kinetics of sequentially and structurally homologous proteins, rather than the structural fold, dictates the GroE chaperonin requirement.     

Designing a High Throughput Refolding Array Using a Combination of the GroEL Chaperonin and Osmolytes

Although GroE chaperonins and osmolytes had been used separately as protein folding aids, combining these two methods provides a considerable advantage for folding proteins that cannot fold with either osmolytes or chaperonins alone. This technique rapidly identifies superior folding solution conditions for a broad array of proteins that are difficult or impossible to fold by other methods. While testing the broad applicability of this technique, we have discovered that osmolytes greatly simplify the chaperonin reaction by eliminating the requirement for the co-chaperonin GroES which is normally involved in encapsulating folding proteins within the GroEL–GroES cavity. Therefore, combinations of soluble or immobilized GroEL, osmolytes and ATP or even ADP are sufficient to refold the test proteins. The first step in the chaperonin/osmolyte process is to form a stable long-lived chaperonin–substrate protein complex in the absence of nucleotide. In the second step, different osmolyte solutions are added along with nucleotides, thus forming a ‘folding array’ to identify superior folding conditions. The stable chaperonin–substrate protein complex can be concentrated or immobilized prior to osmolyte addition. This procedure prevents-off pathway aggregation during folding/refolding reactions and more importantly allows one to refold proteins at concentrations (~mg/ml) that are substantially higher than the critical aggregation concentration for given protein. This technique can be used for successful refolding of proteins from purified inclusion bodies. Recently, other investigators have used our chaperonin/osmolyte method to demonstrate that a mutant protein that misfolds in human disease can be rescued by GroEL/osmolyte system. Soluble or immobilized GroEL can be easily removed from the released folded protein using simple separation techniques. The method allows for isolation of folded monomeric or oligomeric proteins in quantities sufficient for X-ray crystallography or NMR structural determinations.     

Purification and characterization of chaperonins 60 and 10 from Methylobacillus glycogenes

Two proteins belonging to the group I chaperonin family were isolated from an obligate methanotroph, Methylobacillus glycogenes. The two proteins, one a GroEL homologue (cpn60: M. glycogenes 60 kDa chaperonin) and the other a GroES homologue (cpn10: M. glycogenes 10 kDa chaperonin), composed a heteropolymeric complex in the presence of ATP. Both proteins were purified from crude extracts of M. glycogenes by anion-exchange (DEAE-Toyopearl) and gel-filtration (Sephacryl S-400) chromatography. The native molecular weights of each chaperonin protein as determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) gel-filtration were 820 000 for cpn60 and 65 000 for cpnl0. Sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis revealed that the subunit molecular weights of cpn60 and cpnl0 were 58 000 and 10 000, respectively. Both cpn60 and cpnl0 possessed amino acid sequences which were highly homologous to other group I chaperonins. M. glycogenes cpn60 displayed an ATPase activity which was inhibited in the presence of cpn10. The chaperonins also displayed an ability to interact with and facilitate the refolding of Thermus malate dehydrogenase and yeast enolase in a manner similar to that of GroEL/ES. The similarities between the Escherichia coli GroE proteins are discussed.     

An archaeal chaperonin-based reactor for renaturation of denatured proteins

We describe an original chaperonin-based reactor that yields folded and active proteins from denatured materials. We used the 920-kDa chaperonin of the archaeon Sulfolobus solfataricus, which does not require any protein partner for its full activity and assists in vitro folding with low substrate specificity. The reactor consists of an ultrafiltration cell equipped with a membrane that retains the chaperonin in a functional state for folding in solution and permits the flowthrough of the folded substrates. By studying the ATP-dependent functional cycle of the chaperonin, we were able to use the reactor for repeated refolding processes. The scale-up of the reactor is made possible by the overproduction of chaperonin in Sulfolobus solfataricus cells that acquired thermotolerance upon appropriate heat shock. Received: January 24, 1999 / Accepted: August 7, 1999     

Transient conformational remodeling of folding proteins by GroES—individually and in concert with GroEL

The commonly accepted dogma of the bacterial GroE chaperonin system entails protein folding mediated by cycles of several ATP-dependent sequential steps where GroEL interacts with the folding client protein. In contrast, we herein report GroES-mediated dynamic remodeling (expansion and compression) of two different protein substrates during folding: the endogenous substrate MreB and carbonic anhydrase (HCAII), a well-characterized protein folding model. GroES was also found to influence GroEL binding induced unfolding and compression of the client protein underlining the synergistic activity of both chaperonins, even in the absence of ATP. This previously unidentified activity by GroES should have important implications for understanding the chaperonin mechanism and cellular stress response. Our findings necessitate a revision of the GroEL/ES mechanism.     

GroE-mediated folding of bacterial luciferases in vivo

In this study we present evidence indicating that GroE chaperonins mediate de novo protein folding of heterodimeric and monomeric luciferases under heat shock or sub-heat shock conditions in vivo. The effects of additional groESL and groEL genes on the bioluminescence of Escherichia coli cells expressing different bacterial luciferase genes at various temperatures were directly studied in cells growing in liquid culture. Data indicate that at 42° C GroESL chaperonins are required for the folding of the subunit polypeptide of the heterodimeric luciferase from the mesophilic bacterium Vibrio harveyi MAV (B392). In contrast, the small number of amino acid substitutions present in the luciferase subunit polypeptide from the thermotolerant V. harveyi CTP5 suppresses this requirement for GroE chaperonins, and greatly reduces interaction between the subunit polypeptide and GroEL chaperonin. In addition, GroESL are required for the de novo folding at 37° C of a MAV luciferase fusion polypeptide that is functional as a monomer. No such requirement for luciferase activity is observed at that temperature with a fusion of the CTP5 and subunit polypeptides, although GroE chaperonins can still mediate folding of the CTP5 fusion luciferase. Bacterial luciferases provide a unique system for direct observation of the effects of GroE chaperonins on protein folding and enzyme assembly in living cells. Furthermore, they offer a sensitive and simple assay system for the identification of polypeptide domains required for GroEL protein binding.     

GroEL assisted folding of large polypeptide substrates in Escherichia coli: Present scenario and assignments for the future

Escherichia coli chaperonins GroEL and GroES are indispensable for survival and growth of the cell since they provide essential assistance to the folding of many newly translated proteins in the cell. Recent studies indicate that a substantial portion of the proteins involved in the host pathways are completely dependent on GroEL–GroES for their folding and hence providing some explanation for why GroEL is essential for cell growth. Many proteins either small-single domain or large multidomains require assistance from GroEL–ES during their lifetime. Proteins of size up to 70 kDa can fold via the cis mechanism during GroEL–ES assisted pathway, but other proteins (>70 kDa) that cannot be pushed inside the cavity of GroEL–ATP complex upon binding of GroES fold by an evolved mechanism called trans. In recent years, much work has been done on revealing facts about the cis mechanism involving the GroEL assisted folding of small proteins whereas the trans mechanism with larger polypeptide substrates still remains under cover. In order to disentangle the role of chaperonin GroEL–GroES in the folding of large E. coli proteins, this review discusses a number of issues like the range of large polypeptide substrates acted on by GroEL. Do all these substrates need the complete chaperonin system along with ATP for their folding? Does GroEL act as foldase or holdase during the process? We conclude with a discussion of the various queries that need to be resolved in the future for an extensive understanding of the mechanism of GroEL mediated folding of large substrate proteins in E. coli cytosol.     

Bacteriophage-encoded cochaperonins can substitute for Escherichia coli's essential GroES protein

The Escherichia coli chaperonin machine is composed of two members, GroEL and GroES. The GroEL chaperonin can bind 10–15% of E. coli’s unfolded proteins in one of its central cavities and help them fold in cooperation with the GroES cochaperonin. Both proteins are absolutely essential for bacterial growth. Several large, lytic bacteriophages, such as T4 and RB49, use the host-encoded GroEL in conjunction with their own bacteriophage-encoded cochaperonin for the correct assembly of their major capsid protein, suggesting a cochaperonin specificity for the in vivo folding of certain substrates. Here, we demonstrate that, when the cochaperonin of either bacteriophage T4 (Gp31) or RB49 (CocO) is expressed in E. coli, the otherwise essential groES gene can be deleted. Thus, it appears that, despite very little sequence identity with groES, the bacteriophage-encoded Gp31 and CocO proteins are capable of replacing GroES in the folding of E. coli’s essential, housekeeping proteins.     

Deletion of dop in Mycobacterium smegmatis abolishes pupylation of protein substrates in vivo

Proteasome‐bearing bacteria make use of a ubiquitin‐like modification pathway to target proteins for proteasomal turnover. In a process termed pupylation, proteasomal substrates are covalently modified with the small protein Pup that serves as a degradation signal. Pup is attached to substrate proteins by action of PafA. Prior to its attachment, Pup needs to undergo deamidation at its C‐terminal residue, converting glutamine to glutamate. This step is catalysed in vitro by Dop. In order to characterize Dop activity in vivo, we generated a dop deletion mutant in Mycobacterium smegmatis. In the Δdop strain, pupylation is severely impaired and the steady‐state levels of two known proteasomal substrates are drastically increased. Pupylation can be re‐established by complementing the mutant with either DopWt or a Pup variant carrying a glutamate at its ultimate C‐terminal position (PupGGE). Our data show that Pup is deamidated by Dop in vivo and that likely Dop alone is responsible for this activity. Furthermore, we demonstrate that a putative N‐terminal ATP‐binding motif is crucial for catalysis, as a single point mutation (E10A) in this motif abolishes Dop activity both in vivo and in vitro.     

The TatC component of the twin‐arginine protein translocase functions as an obligate oligomer

The Tat protein export system translocates folded proteins across the bacterial cytoplasmic membrane and the plant thylakoid membrane. The Tat system in Escherichia coli is composed of TatA, TatB and TatC proteins. TatB and TatC form an oligomeric, multivalent receptor complex that binds Tat substrates, while multiple protomers of TatA assemble at substrate‐bound TatBC receptors to facilitate substrate transport. We have addressed whether oligomerisation of TatC is an absolute requirement for operation of the Tat pathway by screening for dominant negative alleles of tatC that inactivate Tat function in the presence of wild‐type tatC. Single substitutions that confer dominant negative TatC activity were localised to the periplasmic cap region. The variant TatC proteins retained the ability to interact with TatB and with a Tat substrate but were unable to support the in vivo assembly of TatA complexes. Blue‐native PAGE analysis showed that the variant TatC proteins produced smaller TatBC complexes than the wild‐type TatC protein. The substitutions did not alter disulphide crosslinking to neighbouring TatC molecules from positions in the periplasmic cap but abolished a substrate‐induced disulphide crosslink in transmembrane helix 5 of TatC. Our findings show that TatC functions as an obligate oligomer.     

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.