GroEL-mediated protein folding: making the impossible, possible

Protein folding is a spontaneous process that is essential for life, yet the concentrated and complex interior of a cell is an inherently hostile environment for the efficient folding of many proteins. Some proteins-constrained by sequence, topology, size, and function-simply cannot fold by themselves and are instead prone to misfolding and aggregation. This problem is so deeply entrenched that a specialized family of proteins, known as molecular chaperones, evolved to assist in protein folding. Here we examine one essential class of molecular chaperones, the large, oligomeric, and energy utilizing chaperonins or Hsp60s. The bacterial chaperonin GroEL, along with its co-chaperonin GroES, is probably the best-studied example of this family of protein-folding machine. In this review, we examine some of the general properties of proteins that do not fold well in the absence of GroEL and then consider how folding of these proteins is enhanced by GroEL and GroES. Recent experimental and theoretical studies suggest that chaperonins like GroEL and GroES employ a combination of protein isolation, unfolding, and conformational restriction to drive protein folding under conditions where it is otherwise not possible.     

Co-translational binding of GroEL to nascent polypeptides is followed by post-translational encapsulation by GroES to mediate protein folding

The eubacterial chaperonins GroEL and GroES are essential chaperones and primarily assist protein folding in the cell. Although the molecular mechanism of the GroEL system has been examined previously, the mechanism by which GroEL and GroES assist folding of nascent polypeptides during translation is still poorly understood. We previously demonstrated a co-translational involvement of the Escherichia coli GroEL in folding of newly synthesized polypeptides using a reconstituted cell-free translation system (Ying, B. W., Taguchi, H., Kondo, M., and Ueda, T. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 12035-12040). Employing the same system here, we further characterized the mechanism by which GroEL assists folding of translated proteins via encapsulation into the GroEL-GroES cavity. The stable co-translational association between GroEL and the newly synthesized polypeptide is dependent on the length of the nascent chain. Furthermore, GroES is capable of interacting with the GroEL-nascent peptide-ribosome complex, and experiments using a single-ring variant of GroEL clearly indicate that GroES association occurs only at the trans-ring, not the cis-ring, of GroEL. GroEL holds the nascent chain on the ribosome in a polypeptide length-dependent manner and post-translationally encapsulates the polypeptide using the GroES cap to accomplish the chaperonin-mediated folding process.     

Molecular chaperone GroEL/ES: Unfolding and refolding processes

Molecular chaperones are a special class of heat shock proteins (Hsp) that assist the folding and formation of the quaternary structure of other proteins both in vivo and in vitro. However, some chaperones are complex oligomeric proteins, and one of the intriguing questions is how the chaperones fold. The representatives of the Escherichia coli chaperone system GroEL (Hsp60) and GroES (Hsp10) have been studied most intensively. GroEL consists of 14 identical subunits combined into two interacting ring-like structures of seven subunits each, while the co-chaperone GroES interacting with GroEL consists of seven identical subunits combined into a dome-like oligomeric structure. In spite of their complex quaternary structure, GroEL and GroES fold well both in vivo and in vitro. However, the specific oligomerization of GroEL subunits is dependent on ligands and external conditions. This review analyzes the literature and our own data on the study of unfolding (denaturation) and refolding (renaturation) processes of these molecular chaperones and the effect of ligands and solvent composition. Such analysis seems to be useful for understanding the folding mechanism not only of the GroEL/GroES complex, but also of other oligomeric protein complexes.     

Proteome-wide analysis of chaperonin-dependent protein folding in Escherichia coli

The E. coli chaperonin GroEL and its cofactor GroES promote protein folding by sequestering nonnative polypeptides in a cage-like structure. Here we define the contribution of this system to protein folding across the entire E. coli proteome. Approximately 250 different proteins interact with GroEL, but most of these can utilize either GroEL or the upstream chaperones trigger factor (TF) and DnaK for folding. Obligate GroEL-dependence is limited to only approximately 85 substrates, including 13 essential proteins, and occupying more than 75% of GroEL capacity. These proteins appear to populate kinetically trapped intermediates during folding; they are stabilized by TF/DnaK against aggregation but reach native state only upon transfer to GroEL/GroES. Interestingly, substantially enriched among the GroEL substrates are proteins with (betaalpha)8 TIM-barrel domains. We suggest that the chaperonin system may have facilitated the evolution of this fold into a versatile platform for the implementation of numerous enzymatic functions.     

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.     

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.     

Requirement for GroEL/GroES-dependent protein folding under nonpermissive conditions of macromolecular crowding

Macromolecular crowding is a critical parameter affecting the efficiency of cellular protein folding. Here we show that the proteins dihydrofolate reductase, enolase, and green fluorescent protein, which can fold spontaneously in diluted buffer, lose this ability in a crowded environment. Instead, they accumulate as soluble, protease-sensitive non-native species. Their folding becomes dependent on the complete GroEL/GroES chaperonin system and is not affected by trap-GroEL, indicating that folding has to occur in the chaperonin cavity with release of nativelike proteins into the bulk solution. In addition, we demonstrate that efficient folding in the chaperonin cavity requires ATP hydrolysis, as formation of ternary GroEL/GroES complexes with substrate proteins in the presence of ADP results only in very inefficient reactivation. However, protein refolding reactions using ADP-fluoroaluminate complexes, or single-ring GroEL and GroES under conditions where only a single round of ATP hydrolysis occurs, yield large amounts of refolded enzymes. Thus, the mode of initial ternary complex formation appears to be critical for subsequent productive release of substrate into the cavity under certain crowding conditions, and is only efficient when triggered by ATP hydrolysis. Our data indicate that stringent conditions of crowding can impart a stronger dependence of folding proteins on the assistance by chaperonins.     

Different mechanistic requirements for prokaryotic and eukaryotic chaperonins: a lattice study

MOTIVATION: The folding of many proteins in vivo and in vitro is assisted by molecular chaperones. A well-characterized molecular chaperone system is the chaperonin GroEL/GroES from Escherichia coli which has a homolog found in the eukaryotic cytosol called CCT. All chaperonins have a ring structure with a cavity in which the substrate protein folds. An interesting difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic chaperonins is in the nature of the ATP-mediated conformational changes that their ring structures undergo during their reaction cycle. Prokaryotic chaperonins are known to exhibit a highly cooperative concerted change of their cavity surface while in eukaryotic chaperonins the change is sequential. Approximately 70% of proteins in eukaryotic cells are multi-domain whereas in prokaryotes single-domain proteins are more common. Thus, it was suggested that the different modes of action of prokaryotic and eukaryotic chaperonins can be explained by the need of eukaryotic chaperonins to facilitate folding of multi-domain proteins. RESULTS: Using a 2D square lattice model, we generated two large populations of single-domain and double-domain substrate proteins. Chaperonins were modeled as static structures with a cavity wall with which the substrate protein interacts. We simulated both concerted and sequential changes of the cavity surfaces and demonstrated that folding of single-domain proteins benefits from concerted but not sequential changes whereas double-domain proteins benefit also from sequential changes. Thus, our results support the suggestion that the different modes of allosteric switching of prokaryotic and eukaryotic chaperonin rings have functional implications as it enables eukaryotic chaperonins to better assist multi-domain protein folding.     

Monitoring protein conformation along the pathway of chaperonin-assisted folding

The GroEL/GroES chaperonin system mediates protein folding in the bacterial cytosol. Newly synthesized proteins reach GroEL via transfer from upstream chaperones such as DnaK/DnaJ (Hsp70). Here we employed single molecule and ensemble FRET to monitor the conformational transitions of a model substrate as it proceeds along this chaperone pathway. We find that DnaK/DnaJ stabilizes the protein in collapsed states that fold exceedingly slowly. Transfer to GroEL results in unfolding, with a fraction of molecules reaching locally highly expanded conformations. ATP-induced domain movements in GroEL cause transient further unfolding and rapid mobilization of protein segments with moderate hydrophobicity, allowing partial compaction on the GroEL surface. The more hydrophobic regions are released upon subsequent protein encapsulation in the central GroEL cavity by GroES, completing compaction and allowing rapid folding. Segmental chain release and compaction may be important in avoiding misfolding by proteins that fail to fold efficiently through spontaneous hydrophobic collapse.     

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.     

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.     

Iterative annealing mechanism explains the functions of the GroEL and RNA chaperones

Molecular chaperones are ATP‐consuming machines, which facilitate the folding of proteins and RNA molecules that are kinetically trapped in misfolded states. Unassisted folding occurs by the kinetic partitioning mechanism according to which folding to the native state, with low probability as well as misfolding to one of the many metastable states, with high probability, occur rapidly. GroEL is an all‐purpose stochastic machine that assists misfolded substrate proteins to fold. The RNA chaperones such as CYT‐19, which are ATP‐consuming enzymes, help the folding of ribozymes that get trapped in metastable states for long times. GroEL does not interact with the folded proteins but CYT‐19 disrupts both the folded and misfolded ribozymes. The structures of GroEL and RNA chaperones are strikingly different. Despite these differences, the iterative annealing mechanism (IAM) quantitatively explains all the available experimental data for assisted folding of proteins and ribozymes. Driven by ATP binding and hydrolysis and GroES binding, GroEL undergoes a catalytic cycle during which it samples three allosteric states, T (apo), R (ATP bound), and R^″ (ADP bound). Analyses of the experimental data show that the efficiency of the GroEL–GroES machinery and mutants is determined by the resetting rate k _{R ″ → T} , which is largest for the wild‐type (WT) GroEL. Generalized IAM accurately predicts the folding kinetics of Tetrahymena ribozyme and its variants. Chaperones maximize the product of the folding rate and the steady‐state native state fold by driving the substrates out of equilibrium. Neither the absolute yield nor the folding rate is optimized.     

Functional characterization of an archaeal GroEL/GroES chaperonin system: significance of substrate encapsulation

In all three kingdoms of life chaperonins assist the folding of a range of newly synthesized proteins. As shown recently, Archaea of the genus Methanosarcina contain both group I (GroEL/GroES) and group II (thermosome) chaperonins in the cytosol. Here we report on a detailed functional analysis of the archaeal GroEL/GroES system of Methanosarcina mazei (Mm) in comparison to its bacterial counterpart from Escherichia coli (Ec). We find that the groESgroEL operon of M. mazei is unable to functionally replace groESgroEL in E. coli. However, the MmGroES protein can largely complement a mutant EcGroES protein in vivo. The ATPase rate of MmGroEL is very low and the dissociation of MmGroES from MmGroEL is 15 times slower than for the EcGroEL/GroES system. This slow ATPase cycle results in a prolonged enclosure time for model substrate proteins, such as rhodanese, in the MmGroEL:GroES folding cage before their release into the medium. Interestingly, optimal functionality of MmGroEL/GroES and its ability to encapsulate larger proteins, such as malate dehydrogenase, requires the presence of ammonium sulfate in vitro. In the absence of ammonium sulfate, malate dehydrogenase fails to be encapsulated by GroES and rather cycles on and off the GroEL trans ring in a non-productive reaction. These results indicate that the archaeal GroEL/GroES system has preserved the basic encapsulation mechanism of bacterial GroEL and suggest that it has adjusted the length of its reaction cycle to the slower growth rates of Archaea. Additionally, the release of only the folded protein from the GroEL/GroES cage may prevent adverse interactions of the GroEL substrates with the thermosome, which is not normally located within the same compartment.     

Translocation boost protein-folding efficiency of double-barreled chaperonins

Incorrect folding of proteins in living cells may lead to malfunctioning of the cell machinery. To prevent such cellular disasters from happening, all cells contain molecular chaperones that assist nonnative proteins in folding into the correct native structure. One of the most studied chaperone complexes is the GroEL-GroES complex. The GroEL part has a "double-barrel" structure, which consists of two cylindrical chambers joined at the bottom in a symmetrical fashion. The hydrophobic rim of one of the GroEL chambers captures nonnative proteins. The GroES part acts as a lid that temporarily closes the filled chamber during the folding process. Several capture-folding-release cycles are required before the nonnative protein reaches its native state. Here we report molecular simulations that suggest that translocation of the nonnative protein through the equatorial plane of the complex boosts the efficiency of the chaperonin action. If the target protein is correctly folded after translocation, it is released. However, if it is still nonnative, it is likely to remain trapped in the second chamber, which then closes to start a reverse translocation process. This shuttling back and forth continues until the protein is correctly folded. Our model provides a natural explanation for the prevalence of double-barreled chaperonins. Moreover, we argue that internal folding is both more efficient and safer than a scenario where partially refolded proteins escape from the complex before being recaptured.     

Essential role of the chaperonin folding compartment in vivo

The GroEL/GroES chaperonin system of Escherichia coli forms a nano-cage allowing single protein molecules to fold in isolation. However, as the chaperonin can also mediate folding independently of substrate encapsulation, it remained unclear whether the folding cage is essential in vivo. To address this question, we replaced wild-type GroEL with mutants of GroEL having either a reduced cage volume or altered charge properties of the cage wall. A stepwise reduction in cage size resulted in a gradual loss of cell viability, although the mutants bound non-native protein efficiently. Strikingly, a mild reduction in cage size increased the yield and the apparent rate of green fluorescent protein folding, consistent with the view that an effect of steric confinement can accelerate folding. As shown in vitro, the observed acceleration of folding was dependent on protein encapsulation by GroES but independent of GroES cycling regulated by the GroEL ATPase. Altering the net-negative charge of the GroEL cage wall also strongly affected chaperonin function. Based on these findings, the GroEL/GroES compartment is essential for protein folding in vivo.     

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.     

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.     

The chaperonin cycle and protein folding

The process of protein folding in the cell is now known to depend on the action of other proteins. These proteins include molecular chaperones, Which interact non-covalently with proteins as they fold and improve the final yields of active protein in the cell. The precise mechanism by which molecular chaperones act is obscure. Experiments reported recently⁽¹⁾ show that for one molecular chaperone (Cpn60, typified by the E. coli protein GroEL), the folding reaction is driven by cycles of binding and release of the co-chaperone Cpn10 (known as GroES in E. coli). These alternate with binding and release of the unfolded protein substrate. These cycles come about because of the opposite effects of Cpn10 and unfolded protein on the Cpn60 complex: the former stabilises the ADP-bound state of Cpn60, whereas the latter stimulates ADP-ATP exchange. This model proposes that the substrate protein goes through multiple cycles of binding and release, and is released into the cavity of the Cpn60 complex where it can undergo folding without interacting with other nearby folding intermediates. This is consistent with the ability of Cpn60 proteins to enhance folding by blocking pathways to aggregation.     

Low temperature of GroEL/ES overproduction permits growth of Escherichia coli cells lacking trigger factor DnaK

Escherichia coli trigger factor (TF) and DnaK cooperate in the folding of newly synthesized proteins. The combined deletion of the TF-encoding tig gene and the dnaK gene causes protein aggregation and synthetic lethality at 30 degrees C. Here we show that the synthetic lethality of deltatigdeltadnaK52 cells is abrogated either by growth below 30 degrees C or by overproduction of GroEL/GroES. At 23 degrees C deltatigdeltadnaK52 cells were viable and showed only minor protein aggregation. Overproduction of GroEL/GroES, but not of other chaperones, restored growth of deltatigdeltadnaK52 cells at 30 degrees C and suppressed protein aggregation including proteins >/= 60 kDa, which normally require TF and DnaK for folding. GroEL/GroES thus influences the folding of proteins previously identified as DnaK/TF substrates.     

Low temperature or GroEL/ES overproduction permits growth of Escherichia coli cells lacking trigger factor and DnaK

Escherichia coli trigger factor (TF) and DnaK cooperate in the folding of newly synthesized proteins. The combined deletion of the TF-encoding tig gene and the dnaK gene causes protein aggregation and synthetic lethality at 30 degrees C. Here we show that the synthetic lethality of DeltatigDeltadnaK52 cells is abrogated either by growth below 30 degrees C or by overproduction of GroEL/GroES. At 23 degrees C DeltatigDeltadnaK52 cells were viable and showed only minor protein aggregation. Overproduction of GroEL/GroES, but not of other chaperones, restored growth of DeltatigDeltadnaK52 cells at 30 degrees C and suppressed protein aggregation including proteins >/=60 kDa, which normally require TF and DnaK for folding. GroEL/GroES thus influences the folding of proteins previously identified as DnaK/TF substrates.