BiP acts as a molecular ratchet during posttranslational transport of prepro-alpha factor across the ER membrane.

We have addressed the mechanism by which proteins are posttranslationally transported across the membrane of the yeast endoplasmic reticulum (ER). We demonstrate that BiP (Kar2p), a member of the Hsp70 family resident in the ER lumen, acts as a molecular ratchet during translocation of the secretory protein prepro-alpha factor through the channel formed by the Sec complex. Multiple BiP molecules associate with each translocation substrate following interaction with the J domain of the Sec63p component of the Sec complex. Bound BiP minimizes passive backward movements of the substrate through the channel, and BiP's subsequent dissociation results in a free polypeptide in the ER lumen. Antibodies against the substrate can replace BiP, indicating that a Brownian ratchet is sufficient to achieve translocation.     

Posttranslational protein translocation across the membrane of the endoplasmic reticulum

Posttranslational protein translocation across the membrane of the endoplasmic reticulum is mediated by the Sec complex. This complex includes a transmembrane channel formed by multiple copies of the Sec61 protein. Translocation of a polypeptide begins when the signal sequence binds at a specific site within the channel. Binding results in the insertion of the substrate into the channel, possibly as a loop with a small segment exposed to the lumen. While bound, the signal sequence is in contact with both protein components of the channel and the lipid of the membrane. Subsequent movement of the polypeptide through the channel occurs when BiP molecules interact transiently with a luminal domain of the Sec complex, hydrolyze ATP, and bind to the substrate. Bound BiP promotes translocation by preventing the substrate from diffusing backwards through the channel, and thus acts as a molecular ratchet.     

The plug domain of yeast Sec61p is important for efficient protein translocation, but is not essential for cell viability

The Sec61/SecY translocon mediates translocation of proteins across the membrane and integration of membrane proteins into the lipid bilayer. The structure of the translocon revealed a plug domain blocking the pore on the lumenal side. It was proposed to be important for gating the protein conducting channel and for maintaining the permeability barrier in its unoccupied state. Here, we analyzed in yeast the effect of introducing destabilizing point mutations in the plug domain or of its partial or complete deletion. Unexpectedly, even when the entire plug domain was deleted, cells were viable without growth phenotype. They showed an effect on signal sequence orientation of diagnostic signal-anchor proteins, a minor defect in cotranslational and a significant deficiency in posttranslational translocation. Steady-state levels of the mutant protein were reduced, and when coexpressed with wild-type Sec61p, the mutant lacking the plug competed poorly for complex partners. The results suggest that the plug is unlikely to be important for sealing the translocation pore in yeast but that it plays a role in stabilizing Sec61p during translocon formation.     

Interactions between Sec complex and prepro-alpha-factor during posttranslational protein transport into the endoplasmic reticulum

Posttranslational translocation of prepro-alpha-factor (ppalphaF) across the yeast endoplasmic reticulum membrane begins with the binding of the signal sequence to the Sec complex, a membrane component consisting of the trimeric Sec61p complex and the tetrameric Sec62p/63p complex. We show by photo-cross-linking that the signal sequence is bound directly to a site where it contacts simultaneously Sec61p and Sec62p, suggesting that there is a single signal sequence recognition step. We found no evidence for the simultaneous contact of the signal sequence with two Sec61p molecules. To identify transmembrane segments of Sec61p that line the actual translocation pore, a late translocation intermediate of ppalphaF was generated with photoreactive probes incorporated into the mature portion of the polypeptide. Cross-linking to multiple regions of Sec61p was observed. In contrast to the signal sequence, neighboring positions of the mature portion of ppalphaF had similar interactions with Sec61p. These data suggest that the channel pore is lined by several transmembrane segments, which have no significant affinity for the translocating polypeptide chain.     

The Brl domain in Sec63p is required for assembly of functional endoplasmic reticulum translocons

Protein translocation into the endoplasmic reticulum occurs at pore-forming structures known as translocons. In yeast, two different targeting pathways converge at a translocation pore formed by the Sec61 complex. The signal recognition particle-dependent pathway targets nascent precursors co-translationally, whereas the Sec62p-dependent pathway targets polypeptides post-translationally. In addition to the Sec61 complex, both pathways also require Sec63p, an integral membrane protein of the Hsp40 family, and Kar2p, a soluble Hsp70 located in the ER lumen. Using a series of mutant alleles, we demonstrate that a conserved Brl (Brr2-like) domain in the COOH-terminal cytosolic region of Sec63p is essential for function both in vivo and in vitro. We further demonstrate that this domain is required for assembly of two oligomeric complexes of 350 and 380 kDa, respectively. The larger of these corresponds to the heptameric "SEC complex" required for post-translational translocation. However, the 350-kDa complex represents a newly defined hexameric SEC' complex comprising Sec61p, Sss1p, Sbh1p, Sec63p, Sec71p, and Sec72p. Our data indicate that the SEC' complex is required for co-translational protein translocation across the yeast ER membrane.     

Reconstitution of protein translocation from solubilized yeast membranes reveals topologically distinct roles for BiP and cytosolic Hsc70

We reconstituted prepro-alpha-factor translocation and signal peptide processing using a yeast microsomal detergent soluble fraction formed into vesicles with soybean phospholipids. Reconstituted translocation required ATP, and was deficient when sec63 and kar2 (BiP) mutant cells were used as a source of membranes. Normal translocation was observed with vesicles reconstituted from a mixture of pure wild-type yeast BiP and a soluble fraction of kar2 mutant membranes. Two other heat-shock cognate (hsc) 70 homologs, yeast cytosolic hsc70 (Ssalp) and E. coli dnaK protein did not replace BiP. Conversely, BiP was not active under conditions where translocation into native ER vesicles required cytosolic hsc70. We conclude that cytosolic hsc70 and BiP serve noninterchangeable roles in polypeptide translocation, possibly because distinct, asymmetrically oriented membrane proteins are required to recruit each protein to opposing surfaces of the ER membrane.     

Rapid inactivation of the yeast Sec complex selectively blocks transport of post-translationally translocated proteins

The yeast endoplasmic reticulum has three distinct protein translocation channels. The heterotrimeric Sec61 and Ssh1 complexes, which bind translating ribosomes, mediate cotranslational translocation of proteins targeted to the endoplasmic reticulum by the signal recognition particle (SRP) and SRP receptor targeting pathway, whereas the heptameric Sec complex has been proposed to mediate ribosome-independent post-translational translocation of proteins with less hydrophobic signal sequences that escape recognition by the SRP. However, multiple reports have proposed that the Sec complex may function cotranslationally and be involved in translocation or integration of SRP-dependent protein translocation substrates. To provide insight into these conflicting views, we induced expression of the tobacco etch virus protease to achieve rapid inactivation of the Sec complex by protease-mediated cleavage within the cytoplasmic domain of the Sec63 protein. Protein translocation assays conducted after tobacco etch virus protease induction revealed a complete block in translocation of two well-characterized substrates of the Sec complex, carboxypeptidase Y (CPY) and Gas1p, when the protease cleavage sites were located at structural domain boundaries in Sec63. However, integration of SRP-dependent membrane protein substrates was not detectably impacted. Moreover, redirecting CPY to the cotranslational pathway by increasing the hydrophobicity of the signal sequence rendered translocation of CPY insensitive to inactivation of the Sec complex. We conclude that the Sec complex is primarily responsible for the translocation of yeast secretome proteins with marginally hydrophobic signal sequences.     

Specific Molecular Chaperone Interactions and an ATP-dependent Conformational Change Are Required during Posttranslational Protein Translocation into the Yeast ER

The posttranslational translocation of proteins across the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane in yeast requires ATP hydrolysis and the action of hsc70s (DnaK homologues) and DnaJ homologues in both the cytosol and ER lumen. Although the cytosolic hsc70 (Ssa1p) and the ER lumenal hsc70 (BiP) are homologous, they cannot substitute for one another, possibly because they interact with specific DnaJ homologues on each side of the ER membrane. To investigate this possibility, we purified Ssa1p, BiP, Ydj1p (a cytosolic DnaJ homologue), and a GST–63Jp fusion protein containing the lumenal DnaJ region of Sec63p. We observed that BiP, but not Ssa1p, is able to associate with GST–63Jp and that Ydj1p stimulates the ATPase activity of Ssa1p up to 10-fold but increases the ATPase activity of BiP by <2-fold. In addition, Ydj1p and ATP trigger the release of an unfolded polypeptide from Ssa1p but not from BiP. To understand further how BiP drives protein translocation, we purified four dominant lethal mutants of BiP. We discovered that each mutant is defective for ATP hydrolysis, fails to undergo an ATP-dependent conformational change, and cannot interact with GST–63Jp. Measurements of protein translocation into reconstituted proteoliposomes indicate that the mutants inhibit translocation even in the presence of wild-type BiP. We conclude that a conformation- and ATP-dependent interaction of BiP with the J domain of Sec63p is essential for protein translocation and that the specificity of hsc70 action is dictated by their DnaJ partners.     

Architecture of the active post‐translational Sec translocon

In eukaryotes, most secretory and membrane proteins are targeted by an N‐terminal signal sequence to the endoplasmic reticulum, where the trimeric Sec61 complex serves as protein‐conducting channel (PCC). In the post‐translational mode, fully synthesized proteins are recognized by a specialized channel additionally containing the Sec62, Sec63, Sec71, and Sec72 subunits. Recent structures of this Sec complex in the idle state revealed the overall architecture in a pre‐opened state. Here, we present a cryo‐EM structure of the yeast Sec complex bound to a substrate, and a crystal structure of the Sec62 cytosolic domain. The signal sequence is inserted into the lateral gate of Sec61α similar to previous structures, yet, with the gate adopting an even more open conformation. The signal sequence is flanked by two Sec62 transmembrane helices, the cytoplasmic N‐terminal domain of Sec62 is more rigidly positioned, and the plug domain is relocated. We crystallized the Sec62 domain and mapped its interaction with the C‐terminus of Sec63. Together, we obtained a near‐complete and integrated model of the active Sec complex.     

How does Sec63 affect the conformation of Sec61 in yeast?

The Sec complex catalyzes the translocation of proteins of the secretory pathway into the endoplasmic reticulum and the integration of membrane proteins into the endoplasmic reticulum membrane. Some substrate peptides require the presence and involvement of accessory proteins such as Sec63. Recently, a structure of the Sec complex from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, consisting of the Sec61 channel and the Sec62, Sec63, Sec71 and Sec72 proteins was determined by cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM). Here, we show by co-precipitation that the Sec61 channel subunit Sbh1 is not required for formation of stable Sec63-Sec61 contacts. Molecular dynamics simulations started from the cryo-EM conformation of Sec61 bound to Sec63 and of unbound Sec61 revealed how Sec63 affects the conformation of Sec61 lateral gate, plug, pore region and pore ring diameter via three intermolecular contact regions. Molecular docking of SRP-dependent vs. SRP-independent signal peptide chains into the Sec61 channel showed that the pore regions affected by presence/absence of Sec63 play a crucial role in positioning the signal anchors of SRP-dependent substrates nearby the lateral gate.     

Preferential targeting of a signal recognition particle-dependent precursor to the Ssh1p translocon in yeast

Protein translocation across the endoplasmic reticulum membrane occurs via a "translocon" channel formed by the Sec61p complex. In yeast, two channels exist: the canonical Sec61p channel and a homolog called Ssh1p. Here, we used trapped translocation intermediates to demonstrate that a specific signal recognition particle-dependent substrate, Sec71p, is targeted exclusively to Ssh1p. Strikingly, we found that, in the absence of Ssh1p, precursor could be successfully redirected to canonical Sec61p, demonstrating that the normal targeting reaction must involve preferential sorting to Ssh1p. Our data therefore demonstrate that Ssh1p is the primary translocon for Sec71p and reveal a novel sorting mechanism at the level of the endoplasmic reticulum membrane enabling precursors to be directed to distinct translocons. Interestingly, the Ssh1p-dependent translocation of Sec71p was found to be dependent upon Sec63p, demonstrating a previously unappreciated functional interaction between Sec63p and the Ssh1p translocon.     

Systematic probing of the environment of a translocating secretory protein during translocation through the ER membrane.

We have extended a previously developed photo-crosslinking approach to systematically probe the protein environment of the secretory protein preprolactin, trapped during its transfer through the endoplasmic reticulum membrane. Single photoreactive groups were placed at various positions of nascent polypeptide chains of various length, corresponding to different stages of the transport process, and photo-crosslinks to membrane proteins were analyzed. In all cases, the polypeptide segment extending from the ribosome was found to be located in a membrane environment that is formed almost exclusively from Sec61 alpha, the multi-spanning subunit of the Sec61p complex that is essential for translocation. At early stages of the translocation process, before cleavage of the signal sequence, almost the entire nascent chain emerged from the ribosome contacts Sec61 alpha. The 'translocating chain-associating membrane' protein interacts mainly with the region of the signal sequence preceding its hydrophobic core. Our results suggest that the nascent chain is transferred directly from the ribosome into a protein-conducting channel, the major constituent of which is Sec61 alpha.     

Identification of cytoplasmic residues of Sec61p involved in ribosome binding and cotranslational translocation

The cytoplasmic surface of Sec61p is the binding site for the ribosome and has been proposed to interact with the signal recognition particle receptor during targeting of the ribosome nascent chain complex to the translocation channel. Point mutations in cytoplasmic loops six (L6) and eight (L8) of yeast Sec61p cause reductions in growth rates and defects in the translocation of nascent polypeptides that use the cotranslational translocation pathway. Sec61 heterotrimers isolated from the L8 sec61 mutants have a greatly reduced affinity for 80S ribosomes. Cytoplasmic accumulation of protein precursors demonstrates that the initial contact between the large ribosomal subunit and the Sec61 complex is important for efficient insertion of a nascent polypeptide into the translocation pore. In contrast, point mutations in L6 of Sec61p inhibit cotranslational translocation without significantly reducing the ribosome-binding activity, indicating that the L6 and L8 sec61 mutants affect different steps in the cotranslational translocation pathway.     

Translocation of the C terminus of a tail-anchored protein across the endoplasmic reticulum membrane in yeast mutants defective in signal peptide-driven translocation

C-tail-anchored proteins are defined by an N-terminal cytosolic domain followed by a transmembrane anchor close to the C terminus. Their extreme C-terminal polar residues are translocated across membranes by poorly understood post-translational mechanism(s). Here we have used the yeast system to study translocation of the C terminus of a tagged form of mammalian cytochrome b(5), carrying an N-glycosylation site in its C-terminal domain (b(5)-Nglyc). Utilization of this site was adopted as a rigorous criterion for translocation across the ER membrane of yeast wild-type and mutant cells. The C terminus of b(5)-Nglyc was rapidly glycosylated in mutants where Sec61p was defective and incapable of translocating carboxypeptidase Y, a well known substrate for post-translational translocation. Likewise, inactivation of several other components of the translocon machinery had no effect on b(5)-Nglyc translocation. The kinetics of translocation were faster for b(5)-Nglyc than for a signal peptide-containing reporter. Depletion of the cellular ATP pool to a level that retarded Sec61p-dependent post-translational translocation still allowed translocation of b(5)-Nglyc. Similarly, only low ATP concentrations (below 1 microm), in addition to cytosolic protein(s), were required for in vitro translocation of b(5)-Nglyc into mammalian microsomes. Thus, translocation of tail-anchored b(5)-Nglyc proceeds by a mechanism different from that of signal peptide-driven post-translational translocation.     

Effect of Sec62 on the conformation of the Sec61 channel in yeast

Most eukaryotic secretory and membrane proteins are funneled by the Sec61 complex into the secretory pathway. Furthermore, some substrate peptides rely on two essential accessory proteins, Sec62 and Sec63, being present to assist with their translocation via the Sec61 channel in post-translational translocation. Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) recently succeeded in determining atomistic structures of unbound and signal sequence-engaged Sec complexes from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, involving the Sec61 channel and the proteins Sec62, Sec63, Sec71 and Sec72. In this study, we investigated the conformational effects of Sec62 on Sec61. Indeed, we observed in molecular dynamics simulations that the conformational dynamics of lateral gate, plug and pore region of Sec61 are altered by the presence/absence of Sec62. In molecular dynamics simulations that were started from the cryo-EM structures of Sec61 coordinated to Sec62 or of apo Sec61, we observed that the luminal side of the lateral gate gradually adopts a closed conformation similar to the apo state during unbound state simulations. In contrast, it adopts a wider conformation in the bound state. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the conformation of the active (substrate-bound) state of the Sec61 channel shifts toward an alternative conformation in the absence of the substrate. We suggest that the signal peptide holds/stabilizes the active state conformation of Sec61 during post-translational translocation. Thus, our study explains the effect of Sec62 on the conformation of the Sec61 channel and describes the conformational transitions of Sec61 channel.     

Protein transport across the endoplasmic reticulum membrane

A decisive step in the biosynthesis of many eukaryotic proteins is their partial or complete translocation across the endoplasmic reticulum membrane. A similar process occurs in prokaryotes, except that proteins are transported across or are integrated into the plasma membrane. In both cases, translocation occurs through a protein-conducting channel that is formed from a conserved, heterotrimeric membrane protein complex, the Sec61 or SecY complex. Structural and biochemical data suggest mechanisms that enable the channel to function with different partners, to open across the membrane and to release laterally hydrophobic segments of membrane proteins into lipid.     

Hph1 and Hph2 are novel components of the Sec63/Sec62 posttranslational translocation complex that aid in vacuolar proton ATPase biogenesis

Hph1 and Hph2 are homologous integral endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane proteins required for Saccharomyces cerevisiae survival under environmental stress conditions. To investigate the molecular functions of Hph1 and Hph2, we carried out a split-ubiquitin-membrane-based yeast two-hybrid screen and identified their interactions with Sec71, a subunit of the Sec63/Sec62 complex, which mediates posttranslational translocation of proteins into the ER. Hph1 and Hph2 likely function in posttranslational translocation, as they interact with other Sec63/Sec62 complex subunits, i.e., Sec72, Sec62, and Sec63. hph1Δ hph2Δ cells display reduced vacuole acidification; increased instability of Vph1, a subunit of vacuolar proton ATPase (V-ATPase); and growth defects similar to those of mutants lacking V-ATPase activity. sec71Δ cells exhibit similar phenotypes, indicating that Hph1/Hph2 and the Sec63/Sec62 complex function during V-ATPase biogenesis. Hph1/Hph2 and the Sec63/Sec62 complex may act together in this process, as vacuolar acidification and Vph1 stability are compromised to the same extent in hph1Δ hph2Δ and hph1Δ hph2Δ sec71Δ cells. In contrast, loss of Pkr1, an ER protein that promotes posttranslocation assembly of Vph1 with V-ATPase subunits, further exacerbates hph1Δ hph2Δ phenotypes, suggesting that Hph1 and Hph2 function independently of Pkr1-mediated V-ATPase assembly. We propose that Hph1 and Hph2 aid Sec63/Sec62-mediated translocation of specific proteins, including factors that promote efficient biogenesis of V-ATPase, to support yeast cell survival during environmental stress.     

Signal Recognition Particle-dependent Targeting of Ribosomes to the Rough Endoplasmic Reticulum in the Absence and Presence of the Nascent Polypeptide-associated Complex

Proteins with RER-specific signal sequences are cotranslationally translocated across the rough endoplasmic reticulum through a proteinaceous channel composed of oligomers of the Sec61 complex. The Sec61 complex also binds ribosomes with high affinity. The dual function of the Sec61 complex necessitates a mechanism to prevent signal sequence-independent binding of ribosomes to the translocation channel. We have examined the hypothesis that the signal recognition particle (SRP) and the nascent polypeptide-associated complex (NAC), respectively, act as positive and negative regulatory factors to mediate the signal sequence-specific attachment of the ribosome-nascent chain complex (RNC) to the translocation channel. Here, SRP-independent translocation of a nascent secretory polypeptide was shown to occur in the presence of endogenous wheat germ or rabbit reticulocyte NAC. Furthermore, SRP markedly enhanced RNC binding to the translocation channel irrespective of the presence of NAC. Binding of RNCs, but not SRP-RNCs, to the Sec61 complex is competitively inhibited by 80S ribosomes. Thus, the SRP-dependent targeting pathway provides a mechanism for delivery of RNCs to the translocation channel that is not inhibited by the nonselective interaction between the ribosome and the Sec61 complex.     

Binding of Signal Recognition Particle Gives Ribosome/Nascent Chain Complexes a Competitive Advantage in Endoplasmic Reticulum Membrane Interaction

Most secretory and membrane proteins are sorted by signal sequences to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane early during their synthesis. Targeting of the ribosome-nascent chain complex (RNC) involves the binding of the signal sequence to the signal recognition particle (SRP), followed by an interaction of ribosome-bound SRP with the SRP receptor. However, ribosomes can also independently bind to the ER translocation channel formed by the Sec61p complex. To explain the specificity of membrane targeting, it has therefore been proposed that nascent polypeptide-associated complex functions as a cytosolic inhibitor of signal sequence- and SRP-independent ribosome binding to the ER membrane. We report here that SRP-independent binding of RNCs to the ER membrane can occur in the presence of all cytosolic factors, including nascent polypeptide-associated complex. Nontranslating ribosomes competitively inhibit SRP-independent membrane binding of RNCs but have no effect when SRP is bound to the RNCs. The protective effect of SRP against ribosome competition depends on a functional signal sequence in the nascent chain and is also observed with reconstituted proteoliposomes containing only the Sec61p complex and the SRP receptor. We conclude that cytosolic factors do not prevent the membrane binding of ribosomes. Instead, specific ribosome targeting to the Sec61p complex is provided by the binding of SRP to RNCs, followed by an interaction with the SRP receptor, which gives RNC–SRP complexes a selective advantage in membrane targeting over nontranslating ribosomes.     

Interactions between Spc2p and other components of the endoplasmic reticulum translocation sites of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae

In yeast, the endoplasmic reticulum membrane proteins Sec11p and Spc3p are essential for the cleavage of signal peptides of nascent polypeptide chains during their passage through translocation sites. Genetic and biochemical experiments demonstrate that Sec11p and Spc3p are tightly associated with two other proteins, Spc1p and Spc2p, whose functions are largely unknown. Using anti-Spc2p antibodies, we show here that this heterotetrameric complex associates with Sbh1p and Sbh2p, the beta-subunits of the Sec61p complex and the Ssh1p complex, respectively. Depletion of Spc2p decreased the enzymatic activity of the SPC in vitro, led to a loss of Spc1p, and led to a down-regulation of the amount of Sec11p and Spc3p in the endoplasmic reticulum. Moreover, the deletion of Spc2p also decreased the expression level of Sbh2p. These data implicate that Spc2p not only enhances the enzymatic activity of the SPC but also facilitates the interactions between different components of the translocation site.