The chaperonin cycle cannot substitute for prolyl isomerase activity, but GroEL alone promotes productive folding of a cyclophilin-sensitive substrate to a cyclophilin-resistant form.

The chaperonin GroEL and the peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase cyclophilin are major representatives of two distinct cellular systems that help proteins to adopt their native three-dimensional structure: molecular chaperones and folding catalysts. Little is known about whether and how these proteins cooperate in protein folding. In this study, we have examined the action of GroEL and cyclophilin on a substrate protein in two distinct prolyl isomerization states. Our results indicate that: (i) GroEL binds the same substrate in different prolyl isomerization states. (ii) GroEL-ES does not promote prolyl isomerizations, but even retards isomerizations. (iii) Cyclophilin cannot promote the correct isomerization of prolyl bonds of a GroEL-bound substrate, but acts sequentially after release of the substrate from GroEL. (iv) A denatured substrate with all-native prolyl bonds is delayed in folding by cyclophilin due to isomerization to non-native prolyl bonds; a substrate that has proceeded in folding beyond a stage where it can be bound by GroEL is still sensitive to cyclophilin. (v) If a denatured cyclophilin-sensitive substrate is first bound to GroEL, however, productive folding to a cyclophilin-resistant form can be promoted, even without GroES. We conclude that GroEL and cyclophilin act sequentially and exert complementary functions in protein folding.     

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.     

Mimicking the action of GroEL in molecular dynamics simulations: application to the refinement of protein structures

Bacterial chaperonin, GroEL, together with its co-chaperonin, GroES, facilitates the folding of a variety of polypeptides. Experiments suggest that GroEL stimulates protein folding by multiple cycles of binding and release. Misfolded proteins first bind to an exposed hydrophobic surface on GroEL. GroES then encapsulates the substrate and triggers its release into the central cavity of the GroEL/ES complex for folding. In this work, we investigate the possibility to facilitate protein folding in molecular dynamics simulations by mimicking the effects of GroEL/ES namely, repeated binding and release, together with spatial confinement. During the binding stage, the (metastable) partially folded proteins are allowed to attach spontaneously to a hydrophobic surface within the simulation box. This destabilizes the structures, which are then transferred into a spatially confined cavity for folding. The approach has been tested by attempting to refine protein structural models generated using the ROSETTA procedure for ab initio structure prediction. Dramatic improvements in regard to the deviation of protein models from the corresponding experimental structures were observed. The results suggest that the primary effects of the GroEL/ES system can be mimicked in a simple coarse-grained manner and be used to facilitate protein folding in molecular dynamics simulations. Furthermore, the results support the assumption that the spatial confinement in GroEL/ES assists the folding of encapsulated proteins.     

A concerted mechanism for the suppression of a folding defect through interactions with chaperones

Specific amino acid substitutions confer a temperature-sensitive-folding (tsf) phenotype to bacteriophage P22 coat protein. Additional amino acid substitutions, called suppressor substitutions (su), relieve the tsf phenotype. These su substitutions are proposed to increase the efficiency of procapsid assembly, favoring correct folding over improper aggregation. Our recent studies indicate that the molecular chaperones GroEL/ES are more effectively recruited in vivo for the folding of tsf:su coat proteins than their tsf parents. Here, the tsf:su coat proteins are studied with in vitro equilibrium and kinetic techniques to establish a molecular basis for suppression. The tsf:su coat proteins were monomeric, as determined by velocity sedimentation analytical ultracentrifugation. The stability of the tsf:su coat proteins was ascertained by equilibrium urea titrations, which were best described by a three-state folding model, N <--> I <--> U. The tsf:su coat proteins either had stabilized native or intermediate states as compared with their tsf coat protein parents. The kinetics of the I <--> U transition showed a decrease in the rate of unfolding and a small increase in the rate of refolding, thereby increasing the population of the intermediate state. The increased intermediate population may be the reason the tsf:su coat proteins are aggregation-prone and likely enhances GroEL-ES interactions. The N --> I unfolding rate was slower for the tsf:su proteins than their tsf coat parents, resulting in an increase in the native state population, which may allow more competent interactions with scaffolding protein, an assembly chaperone. Thus, the suppressor substitution likely improves folding in vivo through increased efficiency of coat protein-chaperone interactions.     

GroEL binds a late folding intermediate of phage P22 coat protein

GroEL recognizes proteins that are folding improperly or that have aggregation-prone intermediates. Here we have used as substrates for GroEL, wildtype (WT) coat protein of phage P22 and 3 coat proteins that carry single amino acid substitutions leading to a temperature-sensitive folding (tsf) phenotype. In vivo, WT coat protein does not require GroEL for proper folding, whereas GroEL is necessary for the folding of the tsf coat proteins; thus, the single amino acid substitutions cause coat protein to become a substrate for GroEL. The conformation of WT and tsf coat proteins when in a binary complex with GroEL was investigated using tryptophan fluorescence, quenching of fluorescence, and accessibility of the coat proteins to proteolysis. WT coat protein and the tsf coat protein mutants were each found to be in a different conformation when bound to GroEL. As an additional measure of the changes in the bound conformation, the affinity of binding of WT and tsf coat proteins to GroEL was determined using a fluorescence binding assay. The tsf coat proteins were bound more tightly by GroEL than WT coat protein. Therefore, even though the proteins are identical except for a single amino acid substitution, GroEL did not bind these substrate polypeptides in the same conformation within its central cavity. Therefore, GroEL is likely to bind coat protein in a conformation consistent with a late folding intermediate, with substantial secondary and tertiary structure formed.     

Analysis of GroE-assisted folding under nonpermissive conditions.

The molecular chaperones GroEL and GroES facilitate protein folding in an ATP-dependent manner under conditions where no spontaneous folding occurs. It has remained unknown whether GroE achieves this by a passive sequestration of protein inside the GroE cavity or by changing the folding pathway of a protein. Here we used citrate synthase, a well studied model substrate, to discriminate between these possibilities. We demonstrate that GroE maintains unfolding intermediates in a state that allows productive folding under nonpermissive conditions. During encapsulation of non-native protein inside GroEL.GroES complexes, a folding reaction takes place, generating association-competent monomeric intermediates that are no longer recognized by GroEL. Thus, GroE shifts folding intermediates to a productive folding pathway under heat shock conditions where even the native protein unfolds in the absence of GroE.     

Chaperone activity of a chimeric GroEL protein that can exist in a single or double ring form.

The molecular chaperone GroEL is a protein complex consisting of two rings each of seven identical subunits. It is thought to act by providing a cavity in which a protein substrate can fold into a form that has no propensity to aggregate. Substrate proteins are sequestered in the cavity while they fold, and prevented from diffusion out of the cavity by the action of the GroES complex, that caps the open end of the cavity. A key step in the mechanism of action of GroEL is the transmission of a conformational change between the two rings, induced by the binding of nucleotides to the GroEL ring opposite to the one containing the polypeptide substrate. This conformational change then leads to the discharge of GroES from GroEL, enabling polypeptide release. Single ring forms of GroEL are thus predicted to be unable to chaperone the folding of GroES-dependent substrates efficiently, since they are unable to discharge the bound GroES and unable to release folded protein. We describe here a detailed functional analysis of a chimeric GroEL protein, which we show to exist in solution in equilibrium between single and double ring forms. We demonstrate that whereas the double ring form of the GroEL chimera functions effectively in refolding of a GroES-dependent substrate, the single ring form does not. The single ring form of the chimera, however, is able to chaperone the folding of a substrate that does not require GroES for its efficient folding. We further demonstrate that the double ring structure of GroEL is likely to be required for its activity in vivo.     

The C-terminal Tails of the Bacterial Chaperonin GroEL Stimulate Protein Folding by Directly Altering the Conformation of a Substrate Protein

Many essential cellular proteins fold only with the assistance of chaperonin machines like the GroEL-GroES system of Escherichia coli. However, the mechanistic details of assisted protein folding by GroEL-GroES remain the subject of ongoing debate. We previously demonstrated that GroEL-GroES enhances the productive folding of a kinetically trapped substrate protein through unfolding, where both binding energy and the energy of ATP hydrolysis are used to disrupt the inhibitory misfolded states. Here, we show that the intrinsically disordered yet highly conserved C-terminal sequence of the GroEL subunits directly contributes to substrate protein unfolding. Interactions between the C terminus and the non-native substrate protein alter the binding position of the substrate protein on the GroEL apical surface. The C-terminal tails also impact the conformational state of the substrate protein during capture and encapsulation on the GroEL ring. Importantly, removal of the C termini results in slower overall folding, reducing the fraction of the substrate protein that commits quickly to a productive folding pathway and slowing several kinetically distinct folding transitions that occur inside the GroEL-GroES cavity. The conserved C-terminal tails of GroEL are thus important for protein folding from the beginning to the end of the chaperonin reaction cycle.     

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.     

Chaperonin-mediated protein folding: fate of substrate polypeptide

Chaperonins are megadalton ring assemblies that mediate essential ATP-dependent assistance of protein folding to the native state in a variety of cellular compartments, including the mitochondrial matrix, the eukaryotic cytosol, and the bacterial cytoplasm. Structural studies of the bacterial chaperonin, GroEL, both alone and in complex with its co-chaperonin, GroES, have resolved the states of chaperonin that bind and fold non-native polypeptides. Functional studies have resolved the action of ATP binding and hydrolysis in driving the GroEL-GroES machine through its folding-active and binding-active states, respectively. Yet the exact fate of substrate polypeptide during these steps is only poorly understood. For example, while binding involves multivalent interactions between hydrophobic side-chains facing the central cavity of GroEL and exposed hydrophobic surfaces of the non-native protein, the structure of any polypeptide substrate while bound to GroEL remains unknown. It is also unclear whether binding to an open GroEL ring is accompanied by structural changes in the non-native substrate, in particular whether there is an unfolding action. As a polypeptide-bound ring becomes associated with GroES, do the large rigid-body movements of the GroEL apical domains serve as another source of a potential unfolding action? Regarding the encapsulated folding-active state, how does the central cavity itself influence the folding trajectory of a substrate? Finally, how do GroEL and GroES serve, as recently recognized, to assist the folding of substrates too large to be encapsulated inside the machine? Here, such questions are addressed with the findings available to date, and means of further resolving the states of chaperonin-associated polypeptide are discussed.     

Topologies of a substrate protein bound to the chaperonin GroEL

The chaperonin GroEL assists polypeptide folding through sequential steps of binding nonnative protein in the central cavity of an open ring, via hydrophobic surfaces of its apical domains, followed by encapsulation in a hydrophilic cavity. To examine the binding state, we have classified a large data set of GroEL binary complexes with nonnative malate dehydrogenase (MDH), imaged by cryo-electron microscopy, to sort them into homogeneous subsets. The resulting electron density maps show MDH associated in several characteristic binding topologies either deep inside the cavity or at its inlet, contacting three to four consecutive GroEL apical domains. Consistent with visualization of bound polypeptide distributed over many parts of the central cavity, disulfide crosslinking could be carried out between a cysteine in a bound substrate protein and cysteines substituted anywhere inside GroEL. Finally, substrate binding induced adjustments in GroEL itself, observed mainly as clustering together of apical domains around sites of substrate binding.     

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.     

GroEL mediates protein folding with a two successive timer mechanism

GroEL encapsulates nonnative substrate proteins in a central cavity capped by GroES, providing a safe folding cage. Conventional models assume that a single timer lasting approximately 8 s governs the ATP hydrolysis-driven GroEL chaperonin cycle. We examine single molecule imaging of GFP folding within the cavity, binding release dynamics of GroEL-GroES, ensemble measurements of GroEL/substrate FRET, and the initial kinetics of GroEL ATPase activity. We conclude that the cycle consists of two successive timers of approximately 3 s and approximately 5 s duration. During the first timer, GroEL is bound to ATP, substrate protein, and GroES. When the first timer ends, the substrate protein is released into the central cavity and folding begins. ATP hydrolysis and phosphate release immediately follow this transition. ADP, GroES, and substrate depart GroEL after the second timer is complete. This mechanism explains how GroES binding to a GroEL-substrate complex encapsulates the substrate rather than allowing it to escape into solution.     

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.     

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

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

GroEL/GroES-mediated folding of a protein too large to be encapsulated.

The chaperonin GroEL binds nonnative proteins too large to fit inside the productive GroEL-GroES cis cavity, but whether and how it assists their folding has remained unanswered. We have examined yeast mitochondrial aconitase, an 82 kDa monomeric Fe(4)S(4) cluster-containing enzyme, observed to aggregate in chaperonin-deficient mitochondria. We observed that aconitase folding both in vivo and in vitro requires both GroEL and GroES, and proceeds via multiple rounds of binding and release. Unlike the folding of smaller substrates, however, this mechanism does not involve cis encapsulation but, rather, requires GroES binding to the trans ring to release nonnative substrate, which likely folds in solution. Following the phase of ATP/GroES-dependent refolding, GroEL stably bound apoaconitase, releasing active holoenzyme upon Fe(4)S(4) cofactor formation, independent of ATP and GroES.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of Interactions with the GroEL Cavity on Protein Folding Rates

Encapsulation of proteins in chaperonins is an important mechanism by which the cell prevents the accumulation of misfolded species in the cytosol. However, results from theory and simulation for repulsive cavities appear to be inconsistent with recent experimental results showing, if anything, a slowdown in folding rate for encapsulated Rhodanese. We study the folding of Rhodanese in GroEL, using coarse-grained molecular simulations of the complete system including chaperonin and substrate protein. We find that, by approximating the substrate:GroEL interactions as repulsive, we obtain a strong acceleration in rate of between one and two orders of magnitude; a similar result is obtained by representing the chaperonin as a simple spherical cavity. Remarkably, however, we find that using a carefully parameterized, sequence-based potential to capture specific residue-residue interactions between Rhodanese and the GroEL cavity walls induces a very strong reduction of the folding rates. The effect of the interactions is large enough to completely offset the effects of confinement, such that folding in some cases can be even slower than that of the unconfined protein. The origin of the slowdown appears to be stabilization—relative to repulsive confinement—of the unfolded state through binding to the cavity walls, rather than a reduction of the diffusion coefficient along the folding coordinate.     

Exploring the kinetic requirements for enhancement of protein folding rates in the GroEL cavity

The chaperonin system, GroEL and GroES of Escherichia coli enable certain proteins to fold under conditions when spontaneous folding is prohibitively slow as to compete with other non-productive channels such as aggregation. We investigated the plausible mechanisms of GroEL-mediated folding using simple lattice models. In particular, we have investigated protein folding in a confined environment, such as those offered by the GroEL, to decipher whether rate and yield enhancement can occur when the substrate protein is allowed to fold within the cavity of the chaperonins. The GroEL cavity is modeled as a cubic box and a simple bead model is used to represent the substrate chain. We consider three distinct characteristic of the confining environment. First, the cavity is taken to be a passive Anfinsen cage in which the walls merely reduce the available conformation space. We find that at temperatures when the native conformation is stable, the folding rate is retarded in the Anfinsen cage. We then assumed that the interior of the wall is hydrophobic. In this case the folding times exhibit a complex behavior. When the strength of the interaction between the polypeptide chain and the cavity is too strong or too weak we find that the rates of folding are retarded compared to spontaneous folding. There is an optimum range of the interaction strength that enhances the rates. Thus, above this value there is an inverse correlation between the folding rates and the strength of the substrate-cavity interactions. The optimal hydrophobic walls essentially pull the kinetically trapped states which leads to a smoother the energy landscape. It is known that upon addition of ATP and GroES the interior cavity of GroEL offers a hydrophilic-like environment to the substrate protein. In order to mimic this within the context of the dynamic Anfinsen cage model, we allow for changes in the hydrophobicity of the walls of the cavity. The duration for which the walls remain hydrophobic during one cycle of ATP hydrolysis is allowed to vary. These calculations show that frequent cycling of the wall hydrophobicity can dramatically reduce the folding times and increase the yield as well under non-permissive conditions. Examination of the structures of the substrate proteins before and after the change in hydrophobicity indicates that there is global unfolding involved. In addition, it is found that a fraction of the molecules kinetically partition to the native state in accordabce with the iterative annealing mechanism. Thus, frequent "unfoldase" activity of chaperonins leading to global unfolding of the polypeptide chain results in enhancement of the folding rates and yield of the folded protein. We suggest that chaperonin efficiency can be greatly enhanced if the cycling time is reduced. The calculations are used to interpret a few experiments on chaperonin-mediated protein folding.