Trigger factor is involved in GroEL-dependent protein degradation in Escherichia coli and promotes binding of GroEL to unfolded proteins.

In Escherichia coli, the molecular chaperones of hsp60/hsp10 (GroEL/GroES) families are required not only for protein folding but also for the rapid degradation of certain abnormal proteins. The rate-limiting step in the degradation of the fusion protein CRAG by protease ClpP appears to be the formation of a complex with GroEL. We have isolated these complexes and found that each GroEL 14mer contained a short-lived fragment of CRAG plus a 50 kDa polypeptide, which we identified by sequencing and immunological methods as Trigger Factor (TF). Upon ATP addition, GroEL and TF dissociated together from CRAG but remained tightly associated with each other even upon gel filtration. TF was originally proposed to function in protein translocation across membranes but altering cellular content of TF did not affect this process in vivo. By contrast, low levels of TF expression markedly reduced CRAG degradation, while an overproduction of TF greatly stimulated this process. Furthermore, in extracts of cells expressing high levels of TF, the capacity of GroEL to bind to CRAG is greatly increased. Overproduction of TF also stimulated GroEL's ability to bind to other unfolded proteins (fetuin and histone). Thus, TF is a rate-limiting factor for CRAG degradation; it appears to regulate GroEL function and to promote the formation of TF-GroEL-CRAG complexes which are critical for proteolysis.     

Formation in vitro of complexes between an abnormal fusion protein and the heat shock proteins from Escherichia coli and yeast mitochondria.

Heat shock proteins (HSPs) of the Hsp70 and GroEL families associate with a variety of cell proteins in vivo. However, the formation of such complexes has not been systematically studied. A 31-kDa fusion protein (CRAG), which contains 12 residues of cro repressor, truncated protein A, and 14 residues of beta-galactosidase, when expressed in Escherichia coli, was found in complexes with DnaK, GrpE, protease La, and GroEL. When an E. coli extract not containing CRAG was applied to an affinity column containing CRAG, DnaK, GroEL, and GrpE were selectively bound. These HSPs did not bind to a normal protein A column. DnaK, GrpE, and the fraction of GroEL could be eluted from the CRAG column with ATP but not with a nonhydrolyzable ATP analog. The ATP-dependent release of DnaK and GroEL also required Mg2+, but GrpE dissociated with ATP alone. The binding and release of DnaK and GroEL were independent events, but the binding of GrpE required DnaK. Inactivation of DnaJ, GrpE, and GroES did not affect the association or dissociation of DnaK or GroEL from CRAG. The DnaK and GrpE proteins could be eluted with 10(-6) M ATP, but 10(-4) M was required for GroEL release. This approach allows a one-step purification of these proteins from E. coli and also the isolation of the DnaK and GroEL homologs from yeast mitochondria. Competition experiments with oligopeptide fragments of CRAG showed that DnaK and GroEL interact with different sites on CRAG and that the cro-derived domain of CRAG contains the DnaK-binding site.     

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.     

Recent structural insights into the mechanism of ClpP protease regulation by AAA+ chaperones and small molecules

ClpP is a highly conserved serine protease that is a critical enzyme in maintaining protein homeostasis and is an important drug target in pathogenic bacteria and various cancers. In its functional form, ClpP is a self-compartmentalizing protease composed of two stacked heptameric rings that allow protein degradation to occur within the catalytic chamber. ATPase chaperones such as ClpX and ClpA are hexameric ATPases that form larger complexes with ClpP and are responsible for the selection and unfolding of protein substrates prior to their degradation by ClpP. Although individual structures of ClpP and ATPase chaperones have offered mechanistic insights into their function and regulation, their structures together as a complex have only been recently determined to high resolution. Here, we discuss the cryoelectron microscopy structures of ClpP-ATPase complexes and describe findings previously inaccessible from individual Clp structures, including how a hexameric ATPase and a tetradecameric ClpP protease work together in a functional complex. We then discuss the consensus mechanism for substrate unfolding and translocation derived from these structures, consider alternative mechanisms, and present their strengths and limitations. Finally, new insights into the allosteric control of ClpP gained from studies using small molecules and gain or loss-of-function mutations are explored. Overall, this review aims to underscore the multilayered regulation of ClpP that may present novel ideas for structure-based drug design.     

Interaction of GroE with an all-beta-protein.

Molecular chaperones are involved in protein folding both in vivo and in vitro. The Escherichia coli chaperone GroEL interacts with a number of nonnative proteins. A common structural motif of nonnative proteins, which is recognized by GroEL, has not yet been identified. In order to study the role of beta-sheet secondary structure on the interaction of nonnative proteins with GroEL, we used the F(ab) fragment of a monoclonal antibody as a model substrate protein. Here we show that GroEL interacts functionally with this all-beta-protein during reactivation. Antibody fragments refold spontaneously in good yield from the guanidine-denatured state. Functional refolding to the native state is inhibited transiently by GroEL, but there is no complete folding arrest in the absence of Mg-ATP and GroES. The yield of these unspecifically released GroEL-bound F(ab) fragments corresponds to that of the spontaneous reactivation in the absence of chaperones. However, the refolding kinetics in the presence of GroEL are considerably slower. The addition of Mg-ATP to the GroEL.F(ab) complex results in an immediate release of bound substrate protein and a significant increase in the amount of reconstituted antibody fragments compared to spontaneous reactivation. GroES is not essential for functional GroEL-mediated refolding of the F(ab) fragment but affects the reactivation yield to a small extent. Interestingly, stimulation of the GroEL-mediated F(ab) refolding depends primarily on the binding and not on hydrolysis of adenosine triphosphates. Previous results indicate the binding of alpha-helices to GroEL. The results presented in this paper suggest that beta-sheet secondary structural elements are recognized by GroEL. We therefore conclude that the interaction of a nonnative protein with GroEL depends mainly on the nature of the early folding intermediate but not on a specific element of secondary structure.     

The Mycobacterium tuberculosis ClpP1P2 Protease Interacts Asymmetrically with Its ATPase Partners ClpX and ClpC1

Clp chaperone-proteases are cylindrical complexes built from ATP-dependent chaperone rings that stack onto a proteolytic ClpP double-ring core to carry out substrate protein degradation. Interaction of the ClpP particle with the chaperone is mediated by an N-terminal loop and a hydrophobic surface patch on the ClpP ring surface. In contrast to E. coli, Mycobacterium tuberculosis harbors not only one but two ClpP protease subunits, ClpP1 and ClpP2, and a homo-heptameric ring of each assembles to form the ClpP1P2 double-ring core. Consequently, this hetero double-ring presents two different potential binding surfaces for the interaction with the chaperones ClpX and ClpC1. To investigate whether ClpX or ClpC1 might preferentially interact with one or the other double-ring face, we mutated the hydrophobic chaperone-interaction patch on either ClpP1 or ClpP2, generating ClpP1P2 particles that are defective in one of the two binding patches and thereby in their ability to interact with their chaperone partners. Using chaperone-mediated degradation of ssrA-tagged model substrates, we show that both Mycobacterium tuberculosis Clp chaperones require the intact interaction face of ClpP2 to support degradation, resulting in an asymmetric complex where chaperones only bind to the ClpP2 side of the proteolytic core. This sets the Clp proteases of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and probably other Actinobacteria, apart from the well-studied E. coli system, where chaperones bind to both sides of the protease core, and it frees the ClpP1 interaction interface for putative new binding partners.     

Chaperonins GroEL and GroES: views from atomic force microscopy.

The Escherichia coli chaperonins, GroEL and GroES, as well as their complexes in the presence of a nonhydrolyzable nucleotide AMP-PNP, have been imaged with the atomic force microscope (AFM). We demonstrate that both GroEL and GroES that have been adsorbed to a mica surface can be resolved directly by the AFM in aqueous solution at room temperature. However, with glutaraldehyde fixation of already adsorbed molecules, the resolution of both GroEL and GroES was further improved, as all seven subunits were well resolved without any image processing. We also found that chemical fixation was necessary for the contact mode AFM to image GroEL/ES complexes, and in the AFM images. GroEL with GroES bound can be clearly distinguished from those without. The GroEL/ES complex was about 5 nm higher than GroEL alone, indicating a 2 nm upward movement of the apical domains of GroEL. Using a slightly larger probe force, unfixed GroEL could be dissected: the upper heptamer was removed to expose the contact surface of the two heptamers. These results clearly demonstrate the usefulness of cross-linking agents for the determination of molecular structures with the AFM. They also pave the way for using the AFM to study the structural basis for the function of GroE system and other molecular chaperones.     

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.     

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.     

Leu309 plays a critical role in the encapsulation of substrate protein into the internal cavity of GroEL

In the crystal structure of the native GroEL.GroES.substrate protein complex from Thermus thermophilus, one GroEL subunit makes contact with two GroES subunits. One contact is through the H-I helices, and the other is through a novel GXXLE region. The side chain of Leu, in the GXXLE region, forms a hydrophobic cluster with residues of the H helix (Shimamura, T., Koike-Takeshita, A., Yokoyama, K., Masui, R., Murai, N., Yoshida, M., Taguchi, H., and Iwata, S. (2004) Structure (Camb.) 12, 1471-1480). Here, we investigated the functional role of Leu in the GXXLE region, using Escherichia coli GroEL. The results are as follows: (i) cross-linking between introduced cysteines confirmed that the GXXLE region in the E. coli GroEL.GroES complex is also in contact with GroES; (ii) when Leu was replaced by Lys (GroEL(L309K)) or other charged residues, chaperone activity was largely lost; (iii) the GroEL(L309K).substrate complex failed to bind GroES to produce a stable GroEL(L309K).GroES.substrate complex, whereas free GroEL(L309K) bound GroES normally; (iv) the GroEL(L309K).GroES.substrate complex was stabilized with BeF(x), but the substrate protein in the complex was readily digested by protease, indicating that it was not properly encapsulated into the internal cavity of the complex. Thus, conformational communication between the two GroES contact sites, the H helix and the GXXLE region (through Leu(309)), appears to play a critical role in encapsulation of the substrate.     

GroEL-substrate-GroES ternary complexes are an important transient intermediate of the chaperonin cycle

GroEL C138W is a mutant form of Escherichia coli GroEL, which forms an arrested ternary complex composed of GroEL, the co-chaperonin GroES and the refolding protein molecule rhodanese at 25 degrees C. This state of arrest could be reversed with a simple increase in temperature. In this study, we found that GroEL C138W formed both stable trans- and cis-ternary complexes with a number of refolding proteins in addition to bovine rhodanese. These complexes could be reactivated by a temperature shift to obtain active refolded protein. The simultaneous binding of GroES and substrate to the cis ring suggested that an efficient transfer of substrate protein into the GroEL central cavity was assured by the binding of GroES prior to complete substrate release from the apical domain. Stopped-flow fluorescence spectroscopy of the mutant chaperonin revealed a temperature-dependent conformational change in GroEL C138W that acts as a trigger for complete protein release. The behavior of GroEL C138W was reflected closely in its in vivo characteristics, demonstrating the importance of this conformational change to the overall activity of GroEL.     

Dynamics of the ClpP serine protease: A model for self-compartmentalized proteases

Abstract

ClpP is a highly conserved serine protease present in most bacterial species and in the mitochondria of mammalian cells. It forms a cylindrical tetradecameric complex arranged into two stacked heptamers. The two heptameric rings of ClpP enclose a roughly spherical proteolytic chamber of about 51 Å in diameter with 14 Ser–His–Asp proteolytic active sites. ClpP typically forms complexes with unfoldase chaperones of the AAA+ superfamily. Chaperones dock on one or both ends of the ClpP double ring cylindrical structure. Dynamics in the ClpP structure is critical for its function. Polypeptides targeted for degradation by ClpP are initially recognized by the AAA+ chaperones. Polypeptides are unfolded by the chaperones and then translocated through the ClpP axial pores, present on both ends of the ClpP cylinder, into the ClpP catalytic chamber. The axial pores of ClpP are gated by dynamic axial loops that restrict or allow substrate entry. As a processive protease, ClpP degrades substrates to generate peptides of about 7–8 residues. Based on structural, biochemical and theoretical studies, the exit of these polypeptides from the proteolytic chamber is proposed to be mediated by the dynamics of the ClpP oligomer. The ClpP cylinder has been found to exist in at least three conformations, extended, compact and compressed, that seem to represent different states of ClpP during its proteolytic functional cycle. In this review, we discuss the link between ClpP dynamics and its activity. We propose that such dynamics also exist in other cylindrical proteases such as HslV and the proteasome.     

Factors governing the substrate recognition by GroEL chaperone: a sequence correlation approach

The chaperonin GroEL binds to a large number of polypeptides, prevents their self-association, and mediates appropriate folding in a GroES and adenosine triphosphate-dependent manner. But how the GroEL molecule actually recognizes the polypeptide and what are the exact GroEL recognition sites in the substrates are still poorly understood. We have examined more than 50 in vivo substrates as well as well-characterized in vitro substrates, for their binding characteristics with GroEL. While addressing the issue, we have been driven by the basic concept that GroES, being the cochaperonin of GroEL, is the best-suited substrate for GroEL, as well as by the fact that polypeptide substrate and GroES occupy the same binding sites on the GroEL apical domain. GroES interacts with GroEL through selective hydrophobic residues present on its mobile loop region, and we have considered the group of residues on the GroES mobile loop as the key element in choosing a substrate for GroEL. Considering the hydrophobic region on the GroES mobile loop as the standard, we have attempted to identify the homologous region on the peptide sequences in the proteins of our interest. Polypeptides have been judged as potential GroEL substrates on the basis of the presence of the GroES mobile loop-like hydrophobic segments in their amino acid sequences. We have observed 1 or more GroES mobile loop-like hydrophobic patches in the peptide sequence of some of the proteins of our interest, and the hydropathy index of most of these patches also seems to be approximately close to that of the standard. It has been proposed that the presence of hydrophobic patches having substantial degree of hydropathy index as compared with the standard segment is a necessary condition for a peptide sequence to be recognized by GroEL molecules. We also observed that the overall hydrophobicity is also close to 30% in these substrates, although this is not the sufficient criterion for a polypeptide to be assigned as a substrate for GroEL. We found that the binding of aconitase, alpha-lactalbumin, and murine dihydrofolate reductase to GroEL falls in line with our present model and have also predicted the exact regions of their binding to GroEL. On the basis of our GroEL substrate prediction, we have presented a model for the binding of apo form of some proteins to GroEL and the eventual formation of the holo form. Our observation also reveals that in most of the cases, the GroES mobile loop-like hydrophobic patch is present in the unstructured region of the protein molecule, specifically in the loop or beta-sheeted region. The outcome of our study would be an essential feature in identifying a potential substrate for GroEL on the basis of the presence of 1 or more GroES mobile loop-like hydrophobic segments in the amino acid sequence of those polypeptides and their location in three-dimensional space.     

Determination of the number of active GroES subunits in the fused heptamer GroES required for interactions with GroEL

A double-heptamer ring chaperonin GroEL binds denatured substrate protein, ATP, and GroES to the same heptamer ring and encapsulates substrate into the central cavity underneath GroES where productive folding occurs. GroES is a disk-shaped heptamer, and each subunit has a GroEL-binding loop. The residues of the GroEL subunit responsible for GroES binding largely overlap those involved in substrate binding, and the mechanism by which GroES can replace the substrate when GroES binds to GroEL/substrate complex remains to be clarified. To address this question, we generated single polypeptide GroES by fusing seven subunits with various combinations of active and GroEL binding-defective subunits. Functional tests of the fused GroES variants indicated that four active GroES subunits were required for efficient formation of the stable GroEL/GroES complex and five subunits were required for the productive GroEL/substrate/GroES complex. An increase in the number of defective GroES subunits resulted in a slowing of encapsulation and folding. These results indicate the presence of an intermediate GroEL/substrate/GroES complex in which the substrate and GroES bind to GroEL by sharing seven common binding sites.     

Suppression of ftsH mutant phenotypes by overproduction of molecular chaperones.

Decreased intracellular levels of FtsH, a membrane-bound ATPase, led to retardation of growth and protein export, as well as to an abnormal translocation of alkaline phosphatase that had been attached to a cytoplasmic domain of a multispanning membrane protein, SecY. The last phenotype is designated Std (stop transfer defective). In this study, we examined the effects of overproduction of some molecular chaperones on the phenotypes of ftsH mutants. The growth retardation was partially suppressed by overproduction of GroEL/GroES (Hsp60/Hsp10) or HtpG (Hsp90), although these chaperones could not totally substitute for FtsH. Overproduction of HtpG specifically alleviated the Std phenotype, while that of GroEL/GroES alleviated the protein export defect of ftsH mutants. These results suggest that FtsH functions can be somehow compensated for when the cellular concentrations of some molecular chaperones increase.     

GroEL-GroES cycling: ATP and nonnative polypeptide direct alternation of folding-active rings.

The double-ring chaperonin GroEL mediates protein folding in the central cavity of a ring bound by ATP and GroES, but it is unclear how GroEL cycles from one folding-active complex to the next. We observe that hydrolysis of ATP within the cis ring must occur before either nonnative polypeptide or GroES can bind to the trans ring, and this is associated with reorientation of the trans ring apical domains. Subsequently, formation of a new cis-ternary complex proceeds on the open trans ring with polypeptide binding first, which stimulates the ATP-dependent dissociation of the cis complex (by 20- to 50-fold), followed by GroES binding. These results indicate that, in the presence of nonnative protein, GroEL alternates its rings as folding-active cis complexes, expending only one round of seven ATPs per folding cycle.     

From minichaperone to GroEL 3: properties of an active single-ring mutant of GroEL

The next step in our reductional analysis of GroEL was to study the activity of an isolated single seven-membered ring of the 14-mer. A known single-ring mutant, GroEL(SR1), contains four point mutations that prevent the formation of double-rings. That heptameric complex is functionally inactive because it is unable to release GroES. We found that the mutation E191G, which is responsible for the temperature sensitive (ts) Escherichia coli allele groEL44 and is located in the hinge region between the intermediate and apical domains of GroEL, appears to function by weakening the binding of GroES, without destabilizing the overall structure of GroEL44 mutant. We introduced, therefore, the mutation E191G into GroEL(SR1) in order to generate a single-ring mutant that may have weaker binding of GroES and hence be active. The new single-ring mutant, GroEL(SR44), was indeed effective in refolding both heat and dithiothreitol-denatured mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase with great efficiency. Further, unlike all smaller constructs of GroEL, the expression of GroEL(SR44) in E. coli that contained no endogenous GroEL restored biological viability, but not as efficiently as does wild-type GroEL. We envisage the notional evolution of the structure and properties of GroEL. The minichaperone core acts as a primitive chaperone by providing a binding surface for denatured states that prevents their self-aggregation. The assembly of seven minichaperones into a ring then enhances substrate binding by introducing avidity. The acquisition of binding sites for ATP then allows the modulation of substrate binding by introducing the allosteric mechanism that causes cycling between strong and weak binding sites. This is accompanied by the acquisition by the heptamer of the binding of GroES, which functions as a lid to the central cavity and competes for peptide binding sites. Finally, dimerization of the heptamer enhances its biological activity.     

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.     

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.     

Hydrophilic residues at the apical domain of GroEL contribute to GroES binding but attenuate polypeptide binding

The GroES binding site at the apical domain of GroEL, mostly consisting of hydrophobic residues, overlaps largely with the substrate polypeptide binding site. Essential contribution of hydrophobic interaction to the binding of both GroES and polypeptide was exemplified by the mutant GroEL(L237Q) which lost the ability to bind either of them. The binding site, however, contains three hydrophilic residues, E238, T261, and N265. For GroES binding, N265 is essential since GroEL(N265A) is unable to bind GroES. E238 contributes to rapid GroES binding to GroEL because GroEL(E238A) is extremely sluggish in GroES binding. Polypeptide binding was not impaired by any mutations of E238A, T261A, and N265A. Rather, these mutants, especially GroEL(N265A), showed stronger polypeptide binding affinity than wild-type GroEL. Thus, these hydrophilic residues have a dual role; they help GroES binding on one hand but attenuate polypeptide binding on the other hand.