Catalysis, commitment and encapsulation during GroE-mediated folding.

The Escherichia coli GroE chaperones assist protein folding under conditions where no spontaneous folding occurs. To achieve this, the cooperation of GroEL and GroES, the two protein components of the chaperone system, is an essential requirement. While in many cases GroE simply suppresses unspecific aggregation of non-native proteins by encapsulation, there are examples where folding is accelerated by GroE.Using maltose-binding protein (MBP) as a substrate for GroE, it had been possible to define basic requirements for catalysis of folding. Here, we have analyzed key steps in the interaction of GroE and the MBP mutant Y283D during catalyzed folding. In addition to high temperature, high ionic strength was shown to be a restrictive condition for MBP Y283D folding. In both cases, the complete GroE system (GroEL, GroES and ATP) compensates the deceleration of MBP Y283D folding. Combining kinetic folding experiments and electron microscopy of GroE particles, we demonstrate that at elevated temperatures, symmetrical GroE particles with GroES bound to both ends of the GroEL cylinder play an important role in the efficient catalysis of MBP Y283D refolding. In principle, MBP Y283D folding can be catalyzed during one encapsulation cycle. However, because the commitment to reach the native state is low after only one cycle of ATP hydrolysis, several interaction cycles are required for catalyzed folding.     

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.     

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.     

New aspects on the mechanism of GroEL-assisted protein folding

The mechanism of assisted protein folding by the chaperonin GroEL alone or in complex with the co-chaperonin GroES and in the presence or absence of nucleotides has been subject to extensive investigations during the last years. In this paper we present data where we have inactivated GroEL by stepwise blocking the nucleotide binding sites using the non-hydrolyzable ATP analogue, (Cr(H2O)4)3+ATP. We correlated the amount of accessible nucleotide binding sites with the residual ATP hydrolysis activity of GroEL as well as the residual refolding activity for two different model substrates. Under the conditions used, folding of the substrate proteins and ATP hydrolysis were directly proportional to the residual, accessible nucleotide binding sites. In the presence of GroES, 50% of the nucleotide binding sites were protected from inactivation by CrATP and the resulting protein retains 50% of both ATPase and refolding activity. The results strongly suggest that under the conditions used in our experiments, the nucleotide binding sites are additive in character and that by blocking of a certain number of binding sites a proportional amount of ATP hydrolysis and refolding activities are inactivated. The experiments including GroES suggest that full catalytic activity of GroEL requires both rings of the chaperonin. Blocking of the nucleotide binding sites of one ring still allows function of the second ring.     

Transient conformational remodeling of folding proteins by GroES—individually and in concert with GroEL

The commonly accepted dogma of the bacterial GroE chaperonin system entails protein folding mediated by cycles of several ATP-dependent sequential steps where GroEL interacts with the folding client protein. In contrast, we herein report GroES-mediated dynamic remodeling (expansion and compression) of two different protein substrates during folding: the endogenous substrate MreB and carbonic anhydrase (HCAII), a well-characterized protein folding model. GroES was also found to influence GroEL binding induced unfolding and compression of the client protein underlining the synergistic activity of both chaperonins, even in the absence of ATP. This previously unidentified activity by GroES should have important implications for understanding the chaperonin mechanism and cellular stress response. Our findings necessitate a revision of the GroEL/ES mechanism.     

BeF(x) stops the chaperonin cycle of GroEL-GroES and generates a complex with double folding chambers

Coupling with ATP hydrolysis and cooperating with GroES, the double ring chaperonin GroEL assists the folding of other proteins. Here we report novel GroEL-GroES complexes formed in fluoroberyllate (BeF(x)) that can mimic the phosphate part of the enzyme-bound nucleotides. In ATP, BeF(x) stops the functional turnover of GroEL by preventing GroES release and produces a symmetric 1:2 GroEL-GroES complex in which both GroEL rings contain ADP.BeF(x) and an encapsulated substrate protein. In ADP, the substrate protein-loaded GroEL cannot bind GroES. In ADP plus BeF(x), however, it can bind GroES to form a stable 1:1 GroEL-GroES complex in which one of GroEL rings contains ADP.BeF(x) and an encapsulated substrate protein. This 1:1 GroEL-GroES complex is converted into the symmetric 1:2 GroEL-GroES complex when GroES is supplied in ATP plus BeF(x). Thus, BeF(x) stabilizes two GroEL-GroES complexes; one with a single folding chamber and the other with double folding chambers. These results shed light on the intermediate ADP.P(i) nucleotide states in the functional cycle of GroEL.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of the chaperonin GroE on the refolding of tryptophanase from Escherichia coli. Refolding is enhanced in the presence of ADP.

The refolding of the tetrameric enzyme tryptophanase was facilitated by the chaperonin GroE. Maximum refolding yield of tryptophanase molecules (about 80%) was attained in the presence of a 15-fold excess of GroE 21-mer over tryptophanase monomer. The GroEL subunit was required for this improvement in refolding yield, whereas the GroES subunit was not. Light scattering experiments of the refolding reaction revealed that GroE bound to tryptophanase folding intermediates and suppressed their aggregation. The presence of ATP was required for the efficient dissociation of tryptophanase from GroEL. However, our experiments indicated that tryptophanase dissociated readily from GroEL in the presence of not only ATP, but also in the presence of non-hydrolyzable ATP analogues such as ATP gamma S (adenosine 5'-O-(3-thiotriphosphate)) and AMP-PNP (adenyl-5'-yl imidodiphosphate) as well. Surprisingly, the release of tryptophanase from GroEL was facilitated in the presence of ADP as well. We concluded that the binding of nucleotides such as ATP and ADP changed the conformation of GroEL and facilitated the dissociation of tryptophanase molecules. The conformation formed in the presence of ADP was distinct from the conformation formed in the presence of ATP, as shown by the selective dissociation of various folding proteins from the two conformations.     

Influence of the GroE molecular chaperone machine on the in vitro refolding of Escherichia coli beta-galactosidase.

We have studied the effect of the components of the GroE molecular chaperone machine on the refolding of the Escherichia coli enzyme beta-galactosidase, a tetrameric protein whose 116-kDa promoters should not completely fit within the central cavity of the GroEL toroid. In the absence of other additives, GroEL formed a weak complex with chemically denatured beta-galactosidase, reduced its propensity to aggregate, and increased the recovery yields of active enzyme twofold without altering its folding pathway. When present together with the chaperonin, ATP--and to a lesser extent AMP-PNP--reduced the recovery yields and led to the resumption of aggregation. The use of the complete chaperonin system (GroEL, GroES, and ATP) eliminated the GroEL-mediated increase in recovery and folding proceeded less efficiently than in buffer alone. This unusual behavior can be explained in terms of a chaperonin "buffering" effect and the different affinities of GroE complexes for denatured beta-galactosidase.     

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.     

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.     

A comparison of the GroE chaperonin requirements for sequentially and structurally homologous malate dehydrogenases: the importance of folding kinetics and solution environment

Escherichia coli malate dehydrogenase (EcMDH) and its eukaryotic counterpart, porcine mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase (PmMDH), are highly homologous proteins with significant sequence identity (60%) and virtually identical native structural folds. Despite this homology, EcMDH folds rapidly and efficiently in vitro and does not seem to interact with GroE chaperonins at physiological temperatures (37 degrees C), whereas PmMDH folds much slower than EcMDH and requires these chaperonins to fold to the native state at 37 degrees C. Double jump experiments indicate that the slow folding behavior of PmMDH is not limited by proline isomerization. Although the folding enhancer glycerol (<5 m) does not alter the renaturation kinetics of EcMDH, it dramatically accelerates the spontaneous renaturation of PmMDH at all temperatures tested. Kinetic analysis of PmMDH renaturation with increasing glycerol concentrations suggests that this osmolyte increases the on-pathway kinetics of the monomer folding to assembly-competent forms. Other osmolytes such as trimethylamine N-oxide, sucrose, and betaine also reactivate PmMDH at nonpermissive temperatures (37 degrees C). Glycerol jump experiments with preformed GroEL.PmMDH complexes indicate that the shift between stringent (requires ATP and GroES) and relaxed (only requires ATP) complex conformations is rapid (<3-5 s). The similarity in irreversible misfolding kinetics of PmMDH measured with glycerol or the activated chaperonin complex (GroEL.GroES.ATP) suggests that these folding aids may influence the same step in the PmMDH folding reaction. Moreover, the interactions between glycerol-induced PmMDH folding intermediates and GroEL.GroES.ATP are diminished. Our results support the notion that the protein folding kinetics of sequentially and structurally homologous proteins, rather than the structural fold, dictates the GroE chaperonin requirement.     

High salt-induced conversion of Escherichia coli GroEL into a fully functional thermophilic chaperonin

The GroE chaperonin system can adapt to and function at various environmental folding conditions. To examine chaperonin-assisted protein folding at high salt concentrations, we characterized Escherichia coli GroE chaperonin activity in 1.2 m ammonium sulfate. Our data are consistent with GroEL undergoing a conformational change at this salt concentration, characterized by elevated ATPase activity and increased exposure of hydrophobic surface, as indicated by increased binding of the fluorophore bis-(5, 5')-8-anilino-1-naphthalene sulfonic acid to the chaperonin. The presence of the salt results in increased substrate stringency and dependence on the full GroE system for release and productive folding of substrate proteins. Surprisingly, GroEL is fully functional as a thermophilic chaperonin in high concentrations of ammonium sulfate and is stable at temperatures up to 75 degrees C. At these extreme conditions, GroEL can suppress aggregation and mediate refolding of non-native proteins.     

Stimulating the substrate folding activity of a single ring GroEL variant by modulating the cochaperonin GroES

In mediating protein folding, chaperonin GroEL and cochaperonin GroES form an enclosed chamber for substrate proteins in an ATP-dependent manner. The essential role of the double ring assembly of GroEL is demonstrated by the functional deficiency of the single ring GroEL(SR). The GroEL(SR)-GroES is highly stable with minimal ATPase activity. To restore the ATP cycle and the turnover of the folding chamber, we sought to weaken the GroEL(SR)-GroES interaction systematically by concatenating seven copies of groES to generate groES(7). GroES Ile-25, Val-26, and Leu-27, residues on the GroEL-GroES interface, were substituted with Asp on different groES modules of groES(7). GroES(7) variants activate ATP activity of GroEL(SR), but only some restore the substrate folding function of GroEL(SR), indicating a direct role of GroES in facilitating substrate folding through its dynamics with GroEL. Active GroEL(SR)-GroES(7) systems may resemble mammalian mitochondrial chaperonin systems.     

Designing a High Throughput Refolding Array Using a Combination of the GroEL Chaperonin and Osmolytes

Although GroE chaperonins and osmolytes had been used separately as protein folding aids, combining these two methods provides a considerable advantage for folding proteins that cannot fold with either osmolytes or chaperonins alone. This technique rapidly identifies superior folding solution conditions for a broad array of proteins that are difficult or impossible to fold by other methods. While testing the broad applicability of this technique, we have discovered that osmolytes greatly simplify the chaperonin reaction by eliminating the requirement for the co-chaperonin GroES which is normally involved in encapsulating folding proteins within the GroEL–GroES cavity. Therefore, combinations of soluble or immobilized GroEL, osmolytes and ATP or even ADP are sufficient to refold the test proteins. The first step in the chaperonin/osmolyte process is to form a stable long-lived chaperonin–substrate protein complex in the absence of nucleotide. In the second step, different osmolyte solutions are added along with nucleotides, thus forming a ‘folding array’ to identify superior folding conditions. The stable chaperonin–substrate protein complex can be concentrated or immobilized prior to osmolyte addition. This procedure prevents-off pathway aggregation during folding/refolding reactions and more importantly allows one to refold proteins at concentrations (~mg/ml) that are substantially higher than the critical aggregation concentration for given protein. This technique can be used for successful refolding of proteins from purified inclusion bodies. Recently, other investigators have used our chaperonin/osmolyte method to demonstrate that a mutant protein that misfolds in human disease can be rescued by GroEL/osmolyte system. Soluble or immobilized GroEL can be easily removed from the released folded protein using simple separation techniques. The method allows for isolation of folded monomeric or oligomeric proteins in quantities sufficient for X-ray crystallography or NMR structural determinations.     

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.     

GroEL-mediated protein folding.

I. Architecture of GroEL and GroES and the reaction pathway A. Architecture of the chaperonins B. Reaction pathway of GroEL-GroES-mediated folding II. Polypeptide binding A. A parallel network of chaperones binding polypeptides in vivo B. Polypeptide binding in vitro 1. Role of hydrophobicity in recognition 2. Homologous proteins with differing recognition-differences in primary structure versus effects on folding pathway 3. Conformations recognized by GroEL a. Refolding studies b. Binding of metastable intermediates c. Conformations while stably bound at GroEL 4. Binding constants and rates of association 5. Conformational changes in the substrate protein associated with binding by GroEL a. Observations b. Kinetic versus thermodynamic action of GroEL in mediating unfolding c. Crossing the energy landscape in the presence of GroEL III. ATP binding and hydrolysis-driving the reaction cycle IV. GroEL-GroES-polypeptide ternary complexes-the folding-active cis complex A. Cis and trans ternary complexes B. Symmetric complexes C. The folding-active intermediate of a chaperonin reaction-cis ternary complex D. The role of the cis space in the folding reaction E. Folding governed by a "timer" mechanism F. Release of nonnative polypeptides during the GroEL-GroES reaction G. Release of both native and nonnative forms under physiologic conditions H. A role for ATP binding, as well as hydrolysis, in the folding cycle V. Concluding remarks.     

Filamentous morphology in GroE-depleted Escherichia coli induced by impaired folding of FtsE

The chaperonin GroE (GroEL and the cochaperonin GroES) is the only chaperone system that is essential for the viability of Escherichia coli. It is known that GroE-depleted cells exhibit a filamentous morphology, suggesting that GroE is required for the folding of proteins involved in cell division. Although previous studies, including proteome-wide analyses of GroE substrates, have suggested several targets of GroE in cell division, there is no direct in vivo evidence to identify which substrates exhibit obligate dependence on GroE for folding. Among the candidate substrates, we found that prior excess production of FtsE, a protein engaged in cell division, completely suppressed the filamentation of GroE-depleted E. coli. The GroE depletion led to a drastic decrease in FtsE, and the cells exhibited a known phenotype associated with impaired FtsE function. In the GroE-depleted filamentous cells, the localizations of FtsA and ZipA, both of which assemble with the FtsZ septal ring before FtsE, were normal, whereas FtsX, the interaction partner of FtsE, and FtsQ, which is recruited after FtsE, did not localize to the ring, suggesting that the decrease in FtsE is a cause of the filamentous morphology. Finally, a reconstituted cell-free translation system revealed that the folding of newly translated FtsE was stringently dependent on GroEL/GroES. Based on these findings, we concluded that FtsE is a target substrate of the GroE system in E. coli cell division.     

Repetitive Protein Unfolding by the trans Ring of the GroEL-GroES Chaperonin Complex Stimulates Folding

A key constraint on the growth of most organisms is the slow and inefficient folding of many essential proteins. To deal with this problem, several diverse families of protein folding machines, known collectively as molecular chaperones, developed early in evolutionary history. The functional role and operational steps of these remarkably complex nanomachines remain subjects of active debate. Here we present evidence that, for the GroEL-GroES chaperonin system, the non-native substrate protein enters the folding cycle on the trans ring of the double-ring GroEL-ATP-GroES complex rather than the ADP-bound complex. The properties of this ATP complex are designed to ensure that non-native substrate protein binds first, followed by ATP and finally GroES. This binding order ensures efficient occupancy of the open GroEL ring and allows for disruption of misfolded structures through two phases of multiaxis unfolding. In this model, repeated cycles of partial unfolding, followed by confinement within the GroEL-GroES chamber, provide the most effective overall mechanism for facilitating the folding of the most stringently dependent GroEL substrate proteins.