Monitoring macromolecular complexes involved in the chaperonin-assisted protein folding cycle by mass spectrometry

We have used native mass spectrometry to analyze macromolecular complexes involved in the chaperonin-assisted refolding of gp23, the major capsid protein of bacteriophage T4. Adapting the instrumental methods allowed us to monitor all intermediate complexes involved in the chaperonin folding cycle. We found that GroEL can bind up to two unfolded gp23 substrate molecules. Notably, when GroEL is in complex with the cochaperonin gp31, it binds exclusively one gp23. We also demonstrated that the folding and assembly of gp23 into 336-kDa hexamers by GroEL-gp31 can be monitored directly by electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS). These data reinforce the great potential of ESI-MS as a technique to investigate structure-function relationships of protein assemblies in general and the chaperonin-protein folding machinery in particular. A major advantage of native mass spectrometry is that, given sufficient resolution, it allows the analysis at the picomole level of sensitivity of heterogeneous protein complexes with molecular masses up to several million daltons.     

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.     

Co-expression of gene 31 and 23 products of bacteriophage T4

Folding of the major capsid protein of bacteriophage T4 encoded by gene 23 is aided by Escherichia coli GroEL chaperonin and phage co-chaperonin gp31. In the absence of gene product (gp) 31, aggregates of recombinant gp23 accumulate in the cell similar to inclusion bodies. These aggregates can be solubilized with 6 M urea. However, the protein cannot form regular structures in solution. A system of co-expression of gp31 and gp23 under the control of phage T7 promoter in E. coli cells has been constructed. Folding of entire-length gp23 (534 amino acid residues) in this system results in the correctly folded recombinant gp23, which forms long regular structures (polyheads) in the cell.     

Inter-ring communication allows the GroEL chaperonin complex to distinguish between different substrates

The productive folding of substrate proteins by the GroEL complex of Escherichia coli requires the activity of both the chaperonin rings. These heptameric rings were shown to regulate the chaperonins' affinity for substrates and co-chaperonin via inter-ring communications; however, the molecular details of the interactions are not well understood. We have investigated the effect of substrate binding on inter-ring communications of the chaperonin complex, both the double-ring GroEL as well as the single-ring SR1 chaperonin in complex with four different substrates by using mass spectrometry. This approach shows that whereas SR1 is unable to distinguish between Rubisco, gp23, gp5, and MDH, GroEL shows clear differences upon binding these substrates. The most distinctive binding behavior is observed for Rubisco, which only occupies one GroEL ring. Both bacteriophage capsid proteins (gp23 and gp5) as well as MDH are able to bind to the two GroEL rings simultaneously. Our data suggest that inter-ring communication allows the chaperonin complex to differentiate between substrates. Using collision induced dissociation in the gas phase, differences between the chaperonin(substrate) complexes are observed only when both rings are present. The data indicate that the size of the substrate is an important factor that determines the degree of stabilization of the chaperonin complex.     

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.     

Chaperonin-mediated folding of bacteriophage T4 major capsid protein. II. Production of gene product 23 deletion mutants

Folding of bacteriophage T4 major capsid protein, gene product 23 (534 a.a.), is aided by two proteins: E. coli GroEL chaperonin and viral gp31 co-chaperonin. In the present work a set of mutants with extensive deletions inside gene 23 using controlled digestion with Bal31 nuclease has been constructed. Proteins with deletions were co-expressed from plasmid vectors with phage gp31 co-chaperonin. Deletions from 8 to 33 a.a. in the N-terminal region of the gp23 molecule covering the protein proteolytic cleavage site during capsid maturation have no influence on the mutants' ability to produce in E. coli cells proteins which form regular structures—polyheads. Deletions in other regions of the polypeptide chain (187-203 and 367-476 a.a.) disturb the correct folding and subsequent assembly of gp23 into polyheads.     

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

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

Active Cage Mechanism of Chaperonin-Assisted Protein Folding Demonstrated at Single-Molecule Level

The cylindrical chaperonin GroEL and its lid-shaped cofactor GroES of Escherichia coli have an essential role in assisting protein folding by transiently encapsulating non-native substrate in an ATP-regulated mechanism. It remains controversial whether the chaperonin system functions solely as an infinite dilution chamber, preventing off-pathway aggregation, or actively enhances folding kinetics by modulating the folding energy landscape. Here we developed single-molecule approaches to distinguish between passive and active chaperonin mechanisms. Using low protein concentrations (100 pM) to exclude aggregation, we measured the spontaneous and GroEL/ES-assisted folding of double-mutant maltose binding protein (DM-MBP) by single-pair fluorescence resonance energy transfer and fluorescence correlation spectroscopy. We find that GroEL/ES accelerates folding of DM-MBP up to 8-fold over the spontaneous folding rate. Accelerated folding is achieved by encapsulation of folding intermediate in the GroEL/ES cage, independent of repetitive cycles of protein binding and release from GroEL. Moreover, photoinduced electron transfer experiments provided direct physical evidence that the confining environment of the chaperonin restricts polypeptide chain dynamics. This effect is mediated by the net-negatively charged wall of the GroEL/ES cavity, as shown using the GroEL mutant EL(KKK2) in which the net-negative charge is removed. EL(KKK2)/ES functions as a passive cage in which folding occurs at the slow spontaneous rate. Taken together our findings suggest that protein encapsulation can accelerate folding by entropically destabilizing folding intermediates, in strong support of an active chaperonin mechanism in the folding of some proteins. Accelerated folding is biologically significant as it adjusts folding rates relative to the speed of protein synthesis.     

Pseudo-T-even bacteriophage RB49 encodes CocO, a cochaperonin for GroEL, which can substitute for Escherichia coli's GroES and bacteriophage T4's Gp31

Bacteriophage T4-encoded Gp31 is a functional ortholog of the Escherichia coli GroES cochaperonin protein. Both of these proteins form transient, productive complexes with the GroEL chaperonin, required for protein folding and other related functions in the cell. However, Gp31 is specifically required, in conjunction with GroEL, for the correct folding of Gp23, the major capsid protein of T4. To better understand the interaction between GroEL and its cochaperonin cognates, we determined whether the so-called "pseudo-T-even bacteriophages" are dependent on host GroEL function and whether they also encode their own cochaperonin. Here, we report the isolation of an allele-specific mutation of bacteriophage RB49, called epsilon22, which permits growth on the E. coli groEL44 mutant but not on the isogenic wild type host. RB49 epsilon22 was used in marker rescue experiments to identify the corresponding wild type gene, which we have named cocO (cochaperonin cognate). CocO has extremely limited identity to GroES but is 34% identical and 55% similar at the protein sequence level to T4 Gp31, sharing all of the structural features of Gp31 that distinguish it from GroES. CocO can substitute for Gp31 in T4 growth and also suppresses the temperature-sensitive phenotype of the E. coli groES42 mutant. CocO's predicted mobile loop is one residue longer than that of Gp31, with the epsilon22 mutation resulting in a Q36R substitution in this extra residue. Both the CocO wild type and epsilon22 proteins have been purified and shown in vitro to assist GroEL in the refolding of denatured citrate synthase.     

Structural features of the GroEL-GroES nano-cage required for rapid folding of encapsulated protein

GroEL and GroES form a chaperonin nano-cage for proteins up to approximately 60 kDa to fold in isolation. Here we explored the structural features of the chaperonin cage critical for rapid folding of encapsulated substrates. Modulating the volume of the GroEL central cavity affected folding speed in accordance with confinement theory. Small proteins (approximately 30 kDa) folded more rapidly as the size of the cage was gradually reduced to a point where restriction in space slowed folding dramatically. For larger proteins (approximately 40-50 kDa), either expanding or reducing cage volume decelerated folding. Additionally, interactions with the C-terminal, mildly hydrophobic Gly-Gly-Met repeat sequences of GroEL protruding into the cavity, and repulsion effects from the negatively charged cavity wall were required for rapid folding of some proteins. We suggest that by combining these features, the chaperonin cage provides a physical environment optimized to catalyze the structural annealing of proteins with kinetically complex folding pathways.     

On the role of symmetrical and asymmetrical chaperonin complexes in assisted protein folding.

The cylindrical chaperonin GroEL of E. coli and its ring-shaped cofactor GroES cooperate in mediating the ATP-dependent folding of a wide range of polypeptides in vivo and in vitro. By binding to the ends of the GroEL cylinder, GroES displaces GroEL-bound polypeptide into an enclosed folding cage, thereby preventing protein aggregation during folding. The dynamic interaction of GroEL and GroES is regulated by the GroEL ATPase and involves the formation of asymmetrical GroEL:GroES1 and symmetrical GroEL: GroES2 complexes. The proposed role of the symmetrical complex as a catalytic intermediate of the chaperonin mechanism has been controversial. It has also been suggested that the formation of GroEL:GroES2 complexes allows the folding of two polypeptide molecules per GroEL reaction cycle, one in each ring of GroEL. By making use of a procedure to stabilize chaperonin complexes by rapid crosslinking for subsequent analysis by native PAGE, we have quantified the occurrence of GroEL:GroES1 and GroEL:GroES2 complexes in active refolding reactions under a variety of conditions using mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase (mMDH) as a substrate. Our results show that the symmetrical complexes are neither required for chaperonin function nor does their presence significantly increase the rate of mMDH refolding. In contrast, chaperonin-assisted folding is strictly dependent on the formation of asymmetrical GroEL:GroES1 complexes. These findings support the view that GroEL:GroES2 complexes have no essential role in the chaperonin mechanism.     

Structural basis for cargo regulation of COPII coat assembly

Using cryo-electron microscopy, we have solved the structure of an icosidodecahedral COPII coat involved in cargo export from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) coassembled from purified cargo adaptor Sec23-24 and Sec13-31 lattice-forming complexes. The coat structure shows a tetrameric assembly of the Sec23-24 adaptor layer that is well positioned beneath the vertices and edges of the Sec13-31 lattice. Fitting the known crystal structures of the COPII proteins into the density map reveals a flexible hinge region stemming from interactions between WD40 beta-propeller domains present in Sec13 and Sec31 at the vertices. The structure shows that the hinge region can direct geometric cage expansion to accommodate a wide range of bulky cargo, including procollagen and chylomicrons, that is sensitive to adaptor function in inherited disease. The COPII coat structure leads us to propose a mechanism by which cargo drives cage assembly and membrane curvature for budding from the ER.     

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.     

GroEL: More than Just a folding cage

The chaperonin GroEL has been thought of as an important but passive player in protein folding, providing an encapsulated environment that allows folding to proceed unimpaired by aggregation. In this issue, Tang et al. (2006) redesign the GroEL central cavity and show that the chaperonin cage can alter the rate of folding and, for some proteins, could even alter the folding mechanism.     

Expression and functional characterization of the first bacteriophage-encoded chaperonin

Chaperonins promote protein folding in vivo and are ubiquitously found in bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. The first viral chaperonin GroEL ortholog, gene product 146 (gp146), whose gene was earlier identified in the genome of bacteriophage EL, has been shown to be synthesized during phage propagation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells. The recombinant gp146 has been expressed in Escherichia coli and characterized by different physicochemical methods for the first time. Using serum against the recombinant protein, gp146's native substrate, the phage endolysin gp188, has been immunoprecipitated from the lysate of EL-infected bacteria and identified by mass spectrometry. In vitro experiments have shown that gp146 has a protective effect against endolysin thermal inactivation and aggregation, providing evidence of its chaperonin function. The phage chaperonin has been found to have the architecture and some properties similar to those of GroEL but not to require cochaperonin for its functional activity.     

Structure of GroEL in Complex with an Early Folding Intermediate of Alanine Glyoxylate Aminotransferase

Primary hyperoxaluria type 1 is a rare autosomal recessive disease caused by mutations in the alanine glyoxylate aminotransferase gene (AGXT). We have previously shown that P11L and I340M polymorphisms together with I244T mutation (AGXT-LTM) represent a conformational disease that could be amenable to pharmacological intervention. Thus, the study of the folding mechanism of AGXT is crucial to understand the molecular basis of the disease. Here, we provide biochemical and structural data showing that AGXT-LTM is able to form non-native folding intermediates. The three-dimensional structure of a complex between the bacterial chaperonin GroEL and a folding intermediate of AGXT-LTM mutant has been solved by cryoelectron microscopy. The electron density map shows the protein substrate in a non-native extended conformation that crosses the GroEL central cavity. Addition of ATP to the complex induces conformational changes on the chaperonin and the internalization of the protein substrate into the folding cavity. The structure provides a three-dimensional picture of an in vivo early ATP-dependent step of the folding reaction cycle of the chaperonin and supports a GroEL functional model in which the chaperonin promotes folding of the AGXT-LTM mutant protein through forced unfolding mechanism.     

Chaperonin cofactors, Cpn10 and Cpn20, of green algae and plants function as hetero-oligomeric ring complexes

The chloroplast chaperonin system of plants and green algae is a curiosity as both the chaperonin cage and its lid are encoded by multiple genes, in contrast to the single genes encoding the two components of the bacterial and mitochondrial systems. In the green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (Cr), three genes encode chaperonin cofactors, with cpn10 encoding a single ～10-kDa domain and cpn20 and cpn23 encoding tandem cpn10 domains. Here, we characterized the functional interaction of these proteins with the Escherichia coli chaperonin, GroEL, which normally cooperates with GroES, a heptamer of ～10-kDa subunits. The C. reinhardtii cofactor proteins alone were all unable to assist GroEL-mediated refolding of bacterial ribulose-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase but gained this ability when CrCpn20 and/or CrCpn23 was combined with CrCpn10. Native mass spectrometry indicated the formation of hetero-oligomeric species, consisting of seven ～10-kDa domains. The cofactor "heptamers" interacted with GroEL and encapsulated substrate protein in a nucleotide-dependent manner. Different hetero-oligomer arrangements, generated by constructing cofactor concatamers, indicated a preferential heptamer configuration for the functional CrCpn10-CrCpn23 complex. Formation of heptamer Cpn10/Cpn20 hetero-oligomers was also observed with the Arabidopsis thaliana (At) cofactors, which functioned with the chloroplast chaperonin, AtCpn60α(7)β(7). It appears that hetero-oligomer formation occurs more generally for chloroplast chaperonin cofactors, perhaps adapting the chaperonin system for the folding of specific client proteins.     

Mechanisms of protein folding

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

Mechanism of chaperonin action: GroES binding and release can drive GroEL-mediated protein folding in the absence of ATP hydrolysis.

As a basic principle, assisted protein folding by GroEL has been proposed to involve the disruption of misfolded protein structures through ATP hydrolysis and interaction with the cofactor GroES. Here, we describe chaperonin subreactions that prompt a re-examination of this view. We find that GroEL-bound substrate polypeptide can induce GroES cycling on and off GroEL in the presence of ADP. This mechanism promotes efficient folding of the model protein rhodanese, although at a slower rate than in the presence of ATP. Folding occurs when GroES displaces the bound protein into the sequestered volume of the GroEL cavity. Resulting native protein leaves GroEL upon GroES release. A single-ring variant of GroEL is also fully functional in supporting this reaction cycle. We conclude that neither the energy of ATP hydrolysis nor the allosteric coupling of the two GroEL rings is directly required for GroEL/GroES-mediated protein folding. The minimal mechanism of the reaction is the binding and release of GroES to a polypeptide-containing ring of GroEL, thereby closing and opening the GroEL folding cage. The role of ATP hydrolysis is mainly to induce conformational changes in GroEL that result in GroES cycling at a physiologically relevant rate.     

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.