Role of the amino terminal domain in GroES oligomerization

Digestions of the GroES oligomer with trypsin, chymotrypsin and Glu-C protease from Staphylococcus aureus V8 (V8) have helped to locate three regions in the GroES sequence that are sensitive to limited proteolysis and have provided information of the GroES domains involved in monomer-monomer and GroEL interaction. The removal of the first 20 or 27 amino acids of the N-terminal region of each GroES monomer by trypsin or chymotrypsin respectively, abolish the oligomerization of the GroES complex and its binding to GroEL. The V8-treatment of GroES promotes the breakage of the peptide bond between Glu₁₈ and Thr₁₉ but not the liberation of the N-terminal fragment from the GroES oligomer, which is capable of forming with GroEL a complex active in protein folding. It is deduced from these results that the N-terminal region of the GroES monomer is involved in monomer-monomer interaction, providing experimental evidence that relates some biochemical properties of GroES with its three-dimensional structure at atomic resolution.     

Ligand-Induced Reassembly of GroEL/ES Chaperone In Vitro: Visualization by Electron Microscopy

The products of the reassembly reaction of tetradecameric two-ring quaternary structure of GroEL chaperonin under the pressure of its heptameric co-chaperonin GroES have been visualized by electron microscopy. It has been shown that one-ring heptameric oligomers of GroEL have been formed at the beginning (after ~5 min) of the reaction, while at the final stage of the reaction (after ~70 min), both onering heptamers in complex with one GroES and two-rings tetradecamers in complexes with one (asymmetrical complex) or two (symmetrical complex) GroES heptamers are present. The relationship between the data of light scattering, native electrophoresis, and electron microscopy obtained earlier has been discussed.     

From minichaperone to GroEL 2: importance of avidity of the multisite ring structure

Structural studies on minichaperones and GroEL imply a continuous ring of binding sites around the neck of GroEL. To investigate the importance of this ring, we constructed an artificial heptameric assembly of minichaperones to mimic their arrangement in GroEL. The heptameric Gp31 co-chaperonin from bacteriophage T4, an analogue of GroES, was used as a scaffold to display the GroEL minichaperones. A fusion protein, MC(7), was generated by replacing a part of the highly mobile loop of Gp31 (residues 23-44) with the sequence of the minichaperone (residues 191-376 of GroEL). The purified recombinant protein assembled into a heptameric ring composed of seven 30.6 kDa subunits. Although single minichaperones (residues 193-335 to 191-376 of GroEL) have certain chaperone activities in vitro and in vivo, they cannot refold heat and dithiothreitol-denatured mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase (mtMDH), a reaction that normally requires GroEL, its co-chaperonin GroES and ATP. But, MC(7) refolded MDH in vitro. The expression of MC(7) complements in vivo two temperature-sensitive Escherichia coli alleles, groEL44 and groEL673, at 43 degrees C. Although MC(7) could not compensate for the complete absence of GroEL in vivo, it enhanced the colony-forming ability of cells containing limiting amounts of wild-type GroEL at 37 degrees C. MC(7 )also reduces aggregate formation and cell death in mammalian cell models of Huntington's disease. The assembly of seven minichaperone subunits on a heptameric ring significantly improves their activity, demonstrating the importance of avidity in GroEL function.     

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.     

Unfolding and refolding of Escherichia coli chaperonin GroES is expressed by a three-state model.

The guanidine-hydrochloride (Gdn-HCl) induced unfolding and refolding characteristics of the co-chaperonin GroES from Escherichia coli, a homoheptamer of subunit molecular mass 10,000 Da, were studied by using intrinsic fluorescence, 1-anilino-8-naphthalene sulfonate (ANS) binding, and size-exclusion HPLC. When monitored by tyrosine fluorescence, the unfolding reaction of GroES consisted of a single transition, with a transition midpoint at around 1.0 M Gdn-HCl. Interestingly, however, ANS binding and size-exclusion HPLC experiments strongly suggested the existence of an intermediate state in the transition. In order to confirm the existence of an intermediate state between the native heptameric and unfolded monomeric states, a tryptophan residue was introduced into the interface of GroES subunits as a fluorescent probe. The unfolding reaction of GroES I48W as monitored by tryptophyl fluorescence showed a single transition curve with a transition midpoint at 0.5 M Gdn-HCl. This unfolding transition curve as well as the refolding kinetics were dependent on the concentration of GroES protein. CD spectrum and size-exclusion HPLC experiments demonstrated that the intermediates assumed a partially folded conformation at around 0.5 M Gdn-HCl. The refolding of GroES protein from 3 M Gdn-HCl was probed functionally by measuring the extent of inhibition of GroEL ATPase activity and the enhancement of lactate dehydrogenase refolding yields in the presence of GroEL and ADP. These results clearly demonstrated that the GroES heptamer first dissociated to monomers and then unfolded completely upon increasing the concentration of Gdn-HCl, and that both transitions were reversible. From the thermodynamic analysis of the dissociation reaction, it was found that the partially folded monomer was only marginally stable and that the stability of GroES protein is governed mostly by the association of the subunits.     

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.     

Denaturation and reassembly of chaperonin GroEL studied by solution X-ray scattering

We measured the denaturation and reassembly of Escherichia coli chaperonin GroEL using small-angle solution X-ray scattering, which is a powerful technique for studying the overall structure and assembly of a protein in solution. The results of the urea-induced unfolding transition show that GroEL partially dissociates in the presence of more than 2 M urea, cooperatively unfolds at around 3 M urea, and is in a monomeric random coil-like unfolded structure at more than 3.2 M urea. Attempted refolding of the unfolded GroEL monomer by a simple dilution procedure is not successful, leading to formation of aggregates. However, the presence of ammonium sulfate and MgADP allows the fully unfolded GroEL to refold into a structure with the same hydrodynamic dimension, within experimental error, as that of the native GroEL. Moreover, the X-ray scattering profiles of the GroEL thus refolded and the native GroEL are coincident with each other, showing that the refolded GroEL has the same structure and the molecular mass as the native GroEL. These results demonstrate that the fully unfolded GroEL monomer can refold and reassemble into the native tetradecameric structure in the presence of ammonium sulfate and MgADP without ATP hydrolysis and preexisting chaperones. Therefore, GroEL can, in principle, fold and assemble into the native structure according to the intrinsic characteristic of its polypeptide chain, although preexisting GroEL would be important when the GroEL folding takes place under in vivo conditions, in order to avoid misfolding and aggregation.     

A newly synthesized protein interacts with GroES on the surface of chaperonin GroEL.

To facilitate folding and assembly of different proteins, chaperonin GroEL requires the presence of its helper protein GroES. Using a photochemical cross-linking approach, we show that GroES and newly synthesized pre-beta-lactamase (pre-beta lac) contact with each other only within the ternary complex with GroEL. Possibly owing to this contact GroES is able to directly influence the pre-beta lac/GroEL interaction. Furthermore, the cross-linking of pre-beta lac to GroES suggests that the binding of the protein ligands to GroEL occurs near the GroES binding site, known to be in the central hole space of GroEL.     

High hydrostatic pressure can probe the effects of functionally related ligands on the quaternary structures of the chaperonins GroEL and GroES

We investigated the effects of high hydrostatic pressure in the range of 1--3 kilobars on tetradecameric GroEL, heptameric GroES, and the GroEL-GroES complex. Unlike GroEL monomers formed by urea dissociation, which can be reassembled back to the tetradecamer, the pressure-dissociated monomers do not reassemble readily. This indicates an alteration of their native structures, an example of conformational drift. Pressure versus time profiles and kinetics of the dissociation of both GroEL and GroES at fixed pressures were monitored by light scattering. Unlike GroEL, GroES monomers do reassociate readily. Reaction conditions were varied by adding ATP, Mg(2+), ADP, AMP-PNP, and KCl. At any individual pressure, the dissociation process is governed by both thermodynamics and kinetics. This leads to the decrease in the yield of monomers at lower pressures. In the presence of Mg(2+) and KCl, GroEL is stable up to 3 kilobars. The presence of either ATP or ADP but not AMP-PNP leads to GroEL dissociation at lower pressures. Interestingly, the GroEL-GroES complex is very stable in the range of 1--2.5 kilobars. However, the addition of ADP destabilizes the complex, which dissociates completely at 1.5 kilobars. The results are rationalized in terms of different degrees of cooperativity between individual monomers and heptameric rings in the GroEL tetradecamer. Such allosteric interactions leading to the alteration of quaternary structure of GroEL in the absence of chemical denaturants are important in understanding the mechanism of chaperonin-assisted protein folding by the GroEL-GroES system.     

Structural stability of covalently linked GroES heptamer: advantages in the formation of oligomeric structure

In order to understand how inter-subunit association stabilizes oligomeric proteins, a single polypeptide chain variant of heptameric co-chaperonin GroES (tandem GroES) was constructed from Escherichia coli heptameric GroES by linking consecutively the C-terminal of one subunit to the N-terminal of the adjacent subunit with a small linker peptide. The tandem GroES (ESC7) showed properties similar to wild-type GroES in structural aspects and co-chaperonin activity. In unfolding and refolding equilibrium experiments using guanidine hydrochloride (Gdn-HCl) as a denaturant at a low protein concentration (50 microg ml(-1)), ESC7 showed a two-state transition with a greater resistance toward Gdn-HCl denaturation (Cm=1.95 M) compared to wild-type GroES (Cm=1.1 M). ESC7 was found to be about 10 kcal mol(-1) more stable than the wild-type GroES heptamer at 50 microg ml(-1). Kinetic unfolding and refolding experiments of ESC7 revealed that the increased stability was mainly attributed to a slower unfolding rate. Also a transient intermediate was detected in the refolding reaction. Interestingly, at the physiological GroES concentration (>1 mg ml(-1)), the free energy of unfolding for GroES heptamer exceeded that for ESC7. These results showed that at low protein concentrations (<1 mg ml(-1)), the covalent linking of subunits contributes to the stability but also complicates the refolding kinetics. At physiological concentrations of GroES, however, the oligomeric state is energetically preferred and the advantages of covalent linkage are lost. This finding highlights a possible advantage in transitioning from multi-domain proteins to oligomeric proteins with small subunits in order to improve structural and kinetic stabilities.     

Folding of malate dehydrogenase inside the GroEL-GroES cavity

The chaperonin GroEL binds nonnative substrate protein in the hydrophobic central cavity of an open ring. ATP and GroES binding to the same ring converts this cavity into an encapsulated, hydrophilic chamber that mediates productive folding. A 'rack' mechanism of initial protein unfolding proposes that, upon GroES and ATP binding, the polypeptide is stretched between the binding sites on the twisting apical domains of GroEL before complete release into the chamber. Here, the structure of malate dehydrogenase (MDH) subunit during folding is monitored by deuterium exchange, peptic fragment production and mass spectrometry. When bound to GroEL, MDH exhibits a core of partially protected secondary structure that is only modestly deprotected upon ATP and GroES binding. Moreover, deprotection is broadly distributed throughout MDH, suggesting that it results from breaking hydrogen bonds between MDH and the cavity wall or global destabilization, as opposed to forced mechanical unfolding.     

Effect of ADP and GroES on interaction of molecular chaperonin GroEL with non-native lysozyme

The interaction of the molecular chaperonin GroEL with fluorescein-labeled lysozyme in the presence of high concentrations of thiol reagent--dithiothreitol (DTT) has been studied. In case of high concentrations of DTT lysozyme loses the native conformation due to the disruption of the intramolecular disulfide bonds stabilizing its structure and effectively aggregates. It has been shown that in the presence of high concentrations of DTT and two-fold molar excess of GroEL the lysozyme tightly interacts with GroEL that essentially decreases the efficiency of its aggregation. The addition of ADP to the complex of GroEL with nonnative lysozyme noticeably decreases the interaction of the chaperonin with nonnative protein target resulting in some increase of the efficiency of its aggregation. However, the addition of the co-chaperonin GroES together with ADP (i.e. the formation of the complex of GroEL with GroES) leads to drastic weakness of the interaction of GroEL with nonnative lysozyme and the efficiency of its aggregation becomes comparable with that in the absence of GroEL.     

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/GroES promote dissociation/reassociation cycles of a heterodimeric intermediate during alpha(2)beta(2) protein assembly. Iterative annealing at the quaternary structure level

Whereas the mechanism of GroEL/GroES-mediated protein folding has been extensively studied, the role of these chaperonins in oligomeric protein assembly remains poorly understood. In the present study, we investigated the interaction of the chaperonins with an alphabeta heterodimeric intermediate during the alpha(2)beta(2) assembly of human mitochondrial branched-chain alpha-ketoacid dehydrogenase/decarboxylase (BCKD). Incubation of the recombinant His(6)-tagged BCKD in 400 mM KSCN for 45 min at 23 degrees C caused a complete dissociation of the alpha(2)beta(2) heterotetramers into inactive alphabeta heterodimers. Dilution of the denaturant resulted in a rapid recovery of BCKD independent of the chaperonins GroEL/GroES. Prolonged incubation of BCKD in 400 mM KSCN resulted in the generation of nonproductive or "bad" heterodimers, which were unable to undergo spontaneous reactivation but capable of binding to GroEL to form a stable GroEL-alphabeta complex. Incubation of this complex with GroES and Mg-ATP led to the slow reactivation of BCKD with a second-order rate constant k = 480 M(-1) s(-1). Mixing experiments with radiolabeled and unlabeled protein substrates provided direct evidence that GroEL/GroES promote dissociation and subunit exchange between bad heterodimers. This was accompanied by the transformation of bad heterodimers to their "good" or productive counterparts. The good heterodimers were capable of spontaneous dimerization to initially form an inactive heterotetrameric species, followed by conversion to active heterotetramers. However, a large fraction of bad heterodimers were regenerated and rebound to GroEL. The cycle was perpetuated until the reconstitution of active BCKD was complete. Our data support the thesis that chaperonins GroEL/GroES mediate iterative annealing of nonproductive assembly intermediates at the quaternary structure level. This step is essential for an efficient subsequent higher order oligomerization.     

Effects of C-terminal Truncation of Chaperonin GroEL on the Yield of In-cage Folding of the Green Fluorescent Protein

Chaperonin GroEL from Escherichia coli consists of two heptameric rings stacked back-to-back to form a cagelike structure. It assists in the folding of substrate proteins in concert with the co-chaperonin GroES by incorporating them into its large cavity. The mechanism underlying the incorporation of substrate proteins currently remains unclear. The flexible C-terminal residues of GroEL, which are invisible in the x-ray crystal structure, have recently been suggested to play a key role in the efficient encapsulation of substrates. These C-terminal regions have also been suggested to separate the double rings of GroEL at the bottom of the cavity. To elucidate the role of the C-terminal regions of GroEL on the efficient encapsulation of substrate proteins, we herein investigated the effects of C-terminal truncation on GroE-mediated folding using the green fluorescent protein (GFP) as a substrate. We demonstrated that the yield of in-cage folding mediated by a single ring GroEL (SR1) was markedly decreased by truncation, whereas that mediated by a double ring football-shaped complex was not affected. These results suggest that the C-terminal region of GroEL functions as a barrier between rings, preventing the leakage of GFP through the bottom space of the cage. We also found that once GFP folded into its native conformation within the cavity of SR1 it never escaped even in the absence of the C-terminal tails. This suggests that GFP molecules escaped through the pore only when they adopted a denatured conformation. Therefore, the folding and escape of GFP from C-terminally truncated SR1·GroES appeared to be competing with each other.     

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.     

Mechanisms of protein folding

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

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.     

Prediction of the structure of GroES and its interaction with GroEL

The three-dimensional structure of the GroES monomer and its interaction with GroEL has been predicted using a combination of prediction tools and experimental data obtained by biophysical [electron microscope (EM), Fourier transform infrared (FTIR), and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)] and biochemical techniques. The GroES monomer, according to the prediction, is composed of eight β-strands forming a β-barrel with loose ends. In the model, β-strands 5–8 run along the outer surface of GroES, forming an antiparallel β-sheet with β4 loosely bound to one of the edges. β-strands 1–3 would then be parallel and placed in the interior of the molecule. Loops 1–3 would face the internal cavity of the GroEL–GroES complex, and together with conserved residues in loops 5 and 7, would form the active surface interacting with GroEL. © 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.