Flexibility of GroES Mobile Loop Is Required for Efficient Chaperonin Function

Chaperonin GroEL and its partner GroES assist the folding of nascent and stress-damaged proteins in an ATP-dependent manner. Free GroES has a flexible "mobile loop" and binds to GroEL through the residues at the tip of the loop, capping the central cavity of GroEL to provide the substrate polypeptide a cage for secure in-cage folding. Here, we show that restriction of the flexibility of the loop by a disulfide cross-linking between cysteines within the loop results in the inefficient formation of a stable GroEL-polypeptide-GroES ternary complex and inefficient folding. Then, we generated substrate proteins with enhanced binding affinity to GroEL by fusion of one or two SBP (strongly binding peptide for GroEL) sequences and examined the effect of disulfide cross-linking on the assisted folding. The results indicate that the higher the binding affinity of the substrate polypeptide to GroEL, the greater the contribution of the mobile loop flexibility to efficient in-cage folding. It is likely that the flexibility helps GroES capture GroEL's binding sites that are already occupied by the substrate polypeptide with various binding modes.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Chaperonin-mediated protein folding: GroES binds to one end of the GroEL cylinder, which accommodates the protein substrate within its central cavity.

The mechanism of GroEL (chaperonin)-mediated protein folding is only partially understood. We have analysed structural and functional properties of the interaction between GroEL and the co-chaperonin GroES. The stoichiometry of the GroEL 14mer and the GroES 7mer in the functional holo-chaperonin is 1:1. GroES protects half of the GroEL subunits from proteolytic truncation of the approximately 50 C-terminal residues. Removal of this region results in an inhibition of the GroEL ATPase, mimicking the effect of GroES on full-length GroEL. Image analysis of electron micrographs revealed that GroES binding triggers conspicuous conformational changes both in the GroES adjacent end and at the opposite end of the GroEL cylinder. This apparently prohibits the association of a second GroES oligomer. Addition of denatured polypeptide leads to the appearance of irregularly shaped, stain-excluding masses within the GroEL double-ring, which are larger with bound alcohol oxidase (75 kDa) than with rhodanese (35 kDa). We conclude that the functional complex of GroEL and GroES is characterized by asymmetrical binding of GroES to one end of the GroEL cylinder and suggest that binding of the substrate protein occurs within the central cavity of GroEL.     

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.     

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.     

Elucidation of steps in the capture of a protein substrate for efficient encapsulation by GroE

We have identified five structural rearrangements in GroEL induced by the ordered binding of ATP and GroES. The first discernable rearrangement (designated T --> R(1)) is a rapid, cooperative transition that appears not to be functionally communicated to the apical domain. In the second (R(1) --> R(2)) step, a state is formed that binds GroES weakly in a rapid, diffusion-limited process. However, a second optical signal, carried by a protein substrate bound to GroEL, responds neither to formation of the R(2) state nor to the binding of GroES. This result strongly implies that the substrate protein remains bound to the inner walls of the initially formed GroEL.GroES cavity, and is not yet displaced from its sites of interaction with GroEL. In the next rearrangement (R(2).GroES --> R(3).GroES) the strength of interaction between GroEL and GroES is greatly enhanced, and there is a large and coincident loss of fluorescence-signal intensity in the labeled protein substrate, indicating that there is either a displacement from its binding sites on GroEL or at least a significant change of environment. These results are consistent with a mechanism in which the shift in orientation of GroEL apical domains between that seen in the apo-protein and stable GroEL.GroES complexes is highly ordered, and transient conformational intermediates permit the association of GroES before the displacement of bound polypeptide. This ensures efficient encapsulation of the polypeptide within the GroEL central cavity underneath GroES.     

The affinity of the GroEL/GroES complex for peptides under conditions of protein folding

The affinity of four short peptides for the Escherichia coli molecular chaperone GroEL was studied in the presence of the co-chaperone GroES and nucleotides. Our data show that binding of GroES to one ring enhances the interaction of the peptides with the opposite GroEL ring, a finding that was related to the structural readjustments in GroEL following GroES binding. We further report that the GroEL/GroES complex has a high affinity for peptides during ATP hydrolysis when protein substrates would undergo repeated cycles of assisted folding. Although we could not determine at which step(s) during the cycle our peptides interacted with GroEL, we propose that successive state changes in GroEL during ATP hydrolysis may create high affinity complexes and ensure maximum efficiency of the chaperone machinery under conditions of protein folding.     

Characterisation of mutations in GroES that allow GroEL to function as a single ring

The chaperonin GroEL contains two seven-subunit rings, and allosteric signals between them are required to complete the GroEL reaction cycle. For this reason SR1, a mutant of GroEL that forms only single rings, cannot function as a chaperone. Mutations in SR1 that restore chaperone function weaken its interaction with the cochaperonin GroES. We predicted that GroES mutants with reduced affinity for GroEL would also restore function to SR1. To test this, we mutated residues in GroES in and near its contact site with GroEL. Nearly half of the mutants showed partial function with SR1. Two mutants were confirmed to have reduced affinity for GroEL. Intriguingly, some GroES mutants were able to function with active single ring mutants of GroEL.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Football- and bullet-shaped GroEL-GroES complexes coexist during the reaction cycle

GroEL is an Escherichia coli chaperonin that is composed of two heptameric rings stacked back-to-back. GroEL assists protein folding with its cochaperonin GroES in an ATP-dependent manner in vitro and in vivo. However, it is still unclear whether GroES binds to both rings of GroEL simultaneously under physiological conditions. In this study, we monitored the GroEL-GroES interaction in the reaction cycle using fluorescence resonance energy transfer. We found that nearly equivalent amounts of symmetric GroEL-(GroES)(2) (football-shaped) complex and asymmetric GroEL-GroES (bullet-shaped) complex coexist during the functional reaction cycle. We also found that D398A, an ATP hydrolysis defective mutant of GroEL, forms a football-shaped complex with ATP bound to the two rings. Furthermore, we showed that ADP prevents the association of ATP to the trans-ring of GroEL, and as a consequence, the second GroES cannot bind to GroEL. Considering the concentrations of ADP and ATP in E. coli, ADP is expected to have a small effect on the inhibition of GroES binding to the trans-ring of GroEL in vivo. These results suggest that we should reconsider the chaperonin-mediated protein-folding mechanism that involves the football-shaped complex.     

Single-molecule observation of protein-protein interactions in the chaperonin system

We have analyzed the dynamics of the chaperonin (GroEL)-cochaperonin (GroES) interaction at the single-molecule level. In the presence of ATP and non-native protein, binding of GroES to the immobilized GroEL occurred at a rate that is consistent with bulk kinetics measurements. However, the release of GroES from GroEL occurred after a lag period ( approximately 3 s) that was not recognized in earlier bulk-phase studies. This observation suggests a new kinetic intermediate in the GroEL-GroES reaction pathway.     

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.     

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.     

The disordered mobile loop of GroES folds into a defined beta-hairpin upon binding GroEL

The GroES mobile loop is a stretch of approximately 16 amino acids that exhibits a high degree of flexible disorder in the free protein. This loop is responsible for the interaction between GroES and GroEL, and it undergoes a folding transition upon binding to GroEL. Results derived from a combination of transferred nuclear Overhauser effect NMR experiments and molecular dynamics simulations indicate that the mobile loop adopts a beta-hairpin structure with a Type I, G1 Bulge turn. This structure is distinct from the conformation of the loop in the co-crystal of GroES with GroEL-ADP but identical to the conformation of the bacteriophage-panned "strongly binding peptide" in the co-crystal with GroEL. Analysis of sequence conservation suggests that sequences of the mobile loop and strongly binding peptide were selected for the ability to adopt this hairpin conformation.