Dual function of protein confinement in chaperonin-assisted protein folding.

The GroEL/GroES chaperonin system mediates the folding of a range of newly synthesized polypeptides in the bacterial cytosol. Using a rapid biotin-streptavidin-based inhibition of chaperonin function, we show that the cage formed by GroEL and its cofactor GroES can have a dual role in promoting folding. First, enclosure of nonnative protein in the GroEL:GroES complex is essential for folding to proceed unimpaired by aggregation. Second, folding inside the cage can be significantly faster than folding in free solution, independently of ATP-driven cycles of GroES binding and release. This suggests that confinement of unfolded protein in the narrow hydrophilic space of the chaperonin cage smoothes the energy landscape for the folding of some proteins, increasing the flux of folding intermediates toward the native state.     

Active Cage Mechanism of Chaperonin-Assisted Protein Folding Demonstrated at Single-Molecule Level

The cylindrical chaperonin GroEL and its lid-shaped cofactor GroES of Escherichia coli have an essential role in assisting protein folding by transiently encapsulating non-native substrate in an ATP-regulated mechanism. It remains controversial whether the chaperonin system functions solely as an infinite dilution chamber, preventing off-pathway aggregation, or actively enhances folding kinetics by modulating the folding energy landscape. Here we developed single-molecule approaches to distinguish between passive and active chaperonin mechanisms. Using low protein concentrations (100 pM) to exclude aggregation, we measured the spontaneous and GroEL/ES-assisted folding of double-mutant maltose binding protein (DM-MBP) by single-pair fluorescence resonance energy transfer and fluorescence correlation spectroscopy. We find that GroEL/ES accelerates folding of DM-MBP up to 8-fold over the spontaneous folding rate. Accelerated folding is achieved by encapsulation of folding intermediate in the GroEL/ES cage, independent of repetitive cycles of protein binding and release from GroEL. Moreover, photoinduced electron transfer experiments provided direct physical evidence that the confining environment of the chaperonin restricts polypeptide chain dynamics. This effect is mediated by the net-negatively charged wall of the GroEL/ES cavity, as shown using the GroEL mutant EL(KKK2) in which the net-negative charge is removed. EL(KKK2)/ES functions as a passive cage in which folding occurs at the slow spontaneous rate. Taken together our findings suggest that protein encapsulation can accelerate folding by entropically destabilizing folding intermediates, in strong support of an active chaperonin mechanism in the folding of some proteins. Accelerated folding is biologically significant as it adjusts folding rates relative to the speed of protein synthesis.     

Proteome-wide analysis of chaperonin-dependent protein folding in Escherichia coli

The E. coli chaperonin GroEL and its cofactor GroES promote protein folding by sequestering nonnative polypeptides in a cage-like structure. Here we define the contribution of this system to protein folding across the entire E. coli proteome. Approximately 250 different proteins interact with GroEL, but most of these can utilize either GroEL or the upstream chaperones trigger factor (TF) and DnaK for folding. Obligate GroEL-dependence is limited to only approximately 85 substrates, including 13 essential proteins, and occupying more than 75% of GroEL capacity. These proteins appear to populate kinetically trapped intermediates during folding; they are stabilized by TF/DnaK against aggregation but reach native state only upon transfer to GroEL/GroES. Interestingly, substantially enriched among the GroEL substrates are proteins with (betaalpha)8 TIM-barrel domains. We suggest that the chaperonin system may have facilitated the evolution of this fold into a versatile platform for the implementation of numerous enzymatic functions.     

Chaperones GroEL/GroES Accelerate the Refolding of a Multidomain Protein through Modulating On-pathway Intermediates

Despite a vast amount information on the interplay of GroEL, GroES, and ATP in chaperone-assisted folding, the molecular details on the conformational dynamics of folding polypeptide during its GroEL/GroES-assisted folding cycle is quite limited. Practically no such studies have been reported to date on large proteins, which often have difficulty folding in vitro. The effect of the GroEL/GroES chaperonin system on the folding pathway of an 82-kDa slow folding protein, malate synthase G (MSG), was investigated. GroEL bound to the burst phase intermediate of MSG and accelerated the slowest kinetic phase associated with the formation of native topology in the spontaneous folding pathway. GroEL slowly induced conformational changes on the bound burst phase intermediate, which was then transformed into a more folding-compatible form. Subsequent addition of ATP or GroES/ATP to the GroEL-MSG complex led to the formation of the native state via a compact intermediate with the rate several times faster than that of spontaneous refolding. The presence of GroES doubled the ATP-dependent reactivation rate of bound MSG by preventing multiple cycles of its GroEL binding and release. Because GroES bound to the trans side of GroEL-MSG complex, it may be anticipated that confinement of the substrate underneath the co-chaperone is not required for accelerating the rate in the assisted folding pathway. The potential role of GroEL/GroES in assisted folding is most likely to modulate the conformation of MSG intermediates that can fold faster and thereby eliminate the possibility of partial aggregation caused by the slow folding intermediates during its spontaneous refolding pathway.     

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.     

Potential for modulation of the hydrophobic effect inside chaperonins

Despite the spontaneity of some in vitro protein-folding reactions, native folding in vivo often requires the participation of barrel-shaped multimeric complexes known as chaperonins. Although it has long been known that chaperonin substrates fold upon sequestration inside the chaperonin barrel, the precise mechanism by which confinement within this space facilitates folding remains unknown. We examine the possibility that the chaperonin mediates a favorable reorganization of the solvent for the folding reaction. We discuss the effect of electrostatic charge on solvent-mediated hydrophobic forces in an aqueous environment. Based on these physical arguments, we construct a simple, phenomenological theory for the thermodynamics of density and hydrogen-bond order fluctuations in liquid water. Within the framework of this model, we investigate the effect of confinement inside a chaperonin-like cavity on the configurational free energy of water by calculating solvent free energies for cavities corresponding to the different conformational states in the ATP-driven catalytic cycle of the prokaryotic chaperonin GroEL. Our findings suggest that one function of chaperonins may involve trapping unfolded proteins and subsequently exposing them to a microenvironment in which the hydrophobic effect, a crucial thermodynamic driving force for folding, is enhanced.     

Do Chaperonins Boost Protein Yields by Accelerating Folding or Preventing Aggregation?

The GroEL chaperonin has the ability to behave as an unfoldase, repeatedly denaturing proteins upon binding, which in turn can free them from kinetic traps and increase their folding rates. The complex formed by GroEL+GroES+ATP can also act as an infinite dilution cage, enclosing proteins within a protective container where they can fold without danger of aggregation. Controversy remains over which of these two properties is more critical to the GroEL/ES chaperonin's function. We probe the importance of the unfoldase nature of GroEL under conditions where aggregation is the predominant protein degradation pathway. We consider the effect of a hypothetical mutation to GroEL which increases the cycle frequency of GroEL/ES by increasing the rate of hydrolysis of GroEL-bound ATP. Using a simple kinetic model, we show that this modified chaperonin would be self-defeating: any potential reduction in folding time would be negated by an increase in time spent in the bulk, causing an increase in aggregation and a net decrease in protein folding yields.     

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

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

Evidence that beta-tubulin induces a conformation change in the cytosolic chaperonin which stabilizes binding: implications for the mechanism of action

The class II chaperonin CCT facilitates protein folding by a process that is not well-understood. One striking feature of this chaperonin is its apparent selectivity in vivo, folding only actin, tubulin, and several other proteins. In contrast, the class I chaperonin GroEL is thought to facilitate the folding of many proteins within Escherichia coli. It has been proposed that this apparent selectivity is associated with certain regions of a substrate protein's primary structure. Using limiting amounts of beta-tubulin, beta-tubulin mutants, and beta-tubulin/ftsZ chimeras, we assessed the contribution of select regions of beta-tubulin to CCT binding. In a complementary study, we investigated inter-ring communication in CCT where we exploited polypeptide binding sensitivity to nucleotide to quantitate nucleotide binding. beta-Tubulin bound with a high apparent affinity to CCT in the absence of nucleotide (apparent K(D) approximately 3 nM; its apparent binding free energy, DeltaG, ca. -11.8 kcal/mol). Despite this, the interactions appear to be weak and distributed throughout much of the sequence, although certain sites ("hot spots") may interact somewhat more strongly with CCT. Globally averaged over the beta-tubulin sequence, these interactions appear to contribute ca. -9 to -11 cal/mol per residue, and to account for no more than 50-60% of the total binding free energy. We propose that a conformation change or deformation induced in CCT by substrate binding provides the missing free energy which stabilizes the binary complex. We suggest that by coupling CCT deformation with polypeptide binding, CCT avoids the need for high "intrinsic" affinities for its substrates. This strategy allows for dynamic interactions between chaperonin and bound substrate, which may facilitate folding on the interior surface of CCT in the absence of nucleotide and/or productive release of bound polypeptide into the central cavity upon subsequent MgATP binding. CCT displayed negative inter-ring cooperativity like GroEL. When ring 1 of CCT bound MgATP or beta-tubulin, the affinity of ring 2 for polypeptide or nucleotide was apparently reduced approximately 100-fold.     

Protein substrate binding induces conformational changes in the chaperonin GroEL. A suggested mechanism for unfoldase activity

Chaperonins are molecules that assist proteins during folding and protect them from irreversible aggregation. We studied the chaperonin GroEL and its interaction with the enzyme human carbonic anhydrase II (HCA II), which induces unfolding of the enzyme. We focused on conformational changes that occur in GroEL during formation of the GroEL-HCA II complex. We measured the rate of GroEL cysteine reactivity toward iodo[2-(14)C]acetic acid and found that the cysteines become more accessible during binding of a cysteine free mutant of HCA II. Spin labeling of GroEL with N-(1-oxyl-2,2,5, 5-tetramethyl-3-pyrrolidinyl)iodoacetamide revealed that this additional binding occurred because buried cysteine residues become accessible during HCA II binding. In addition, a GroEL variant labeled with 6-iodoacetamidofluorescein exhibited decreased fluorescence anisotropy upon HCA II binding, which resembles the effect of GroES/ATP binding. Furthermore, by producing cysteine-modified GroEL with the spin label N-(1-oxyl-2,2,5, 5-tetramethyl-3-pyrrolidinyl)iodoacetamide and the fluorescent label 5-((((2-iodoacetyl)amino)ethyl)amino)naphthalene-1-sulfonic acid, we detected increases in spin-label mobility and fluorescence intensity in GroEL upon HCA II binding. Together, these results show that conformational changes occur in the chaperonin as a consequence of protein substrate binding. Together with previous results on the unfoldase activity of GroEL, we suggest that the chaperonin opens up as the substrate protein binds. This opening mechanism may induce stretching of the protein, which would account for reported unfoldase activity of GroEL and might explain how GroEL can actively chaperone proteins larger than HCA II.     

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

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

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.     

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

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

GroEL channels the folding of thioredoxin along one kinetic route.

Many proteins display complex folding kinetics, which represent multiple parallel folding pathways emanating from multiple unfolded forms and converging to the unique native form. The small protein thioredoxin from Escherichia coli is one such protein. The effect of the chaperonin GroEL on modulating the complex energy landscape that separates the unfolded ensemble from the native state of thioredoxin has been studied. It is shown that while the fluorescence change accompanying folding occurs in five kinetic phases in the absence of GroEL, only the two slowest kinetic phases are discernible in the presence of saturating concentrations of GroEL. This result is shown to be consistent with only one out of several available folding routes being operational in the presence of GroEL. It is shown that native protein, which forms via fast as well as slow routes in the absence of GroEL, forms only via a slow route in its presence. The effect of GroEL on the folding of thioredoxin is shown to be the consequence of it binding differentially to the many folding-competent forms. While some of these forms can continue folding when bound to GroEL, others cannot. All molecules are then drawn into the operational folding route by the law of mass action. This observation indicates a new role for GroEL, which is to bias the energy landscape of a folding polypeptide towards fewer available pathways. It is suggested that such channeling might be a mechanism to avoid possible aggregation-prone routes available to a refolding polypeptide in vivo.     

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.     

Conformational specificity of the chaperonin GroEL for the compact folding intermediates of alpha-lactalbumin.

The chaperonin GroEL binds unfolded polypeptides, preventing aggregation, and then mediates their folding in an ATP-dependent process. To understand the structural features in non-native polypeptides recognized by GroEL, we have used alpha-lactalbumin (alpha LA) as a model substrate. alpha LA (14.2 kDa) is stabilized by four disulfide bonds and a bound Ca2+ ion, offering the possibility of trapping partially folded disulfide intermediates between the native and the fully unfolded state. The conformers of alpha LA with high affinity for GroEL are compact, containing up to three disulfide bonds, and have significant secondary structure, but lack stable tertiary structure and expose hydrophobic surfaces. Complex formation requires almost the complete alpha LA sequence and is strongly dependent on salts that stabilize hydrophobic interactions. Unfolding of alpha LA to an extended state as well as the burial of hydrophobic surface upon formation of ordered tertiary structure prevent the binding to GroEL. Interestingly, GroEL interacts only with a specific subset of the many partially folded disulfide intermediates of alpha LA and thus may influence in vitro the kinetics of the folding pathways that lead to disulfide bonds with native combinations. We conclude that the chaperonin interacts with the hydrophobic surfaces exposed by proteins in a flexible compact intermediate or molten globule state.     

The N terminus of the head protein of T4 bacteriophage directs proteins to the GroEL chaperonin

The head protein of T4 bacteriophage requires the GroEL chaperonin for its insertion into a growing T4 head. Hundreds of thousands of copies of this protein must pass through the chaperonin in a limited time later in infection, indicating that the protein must use GroEL very efficiently and may contain sequences that bind tightly to GroEL. We show that green fluorescent protein (GFP) fused to the N terminus of the head protein can fold at temperatures higher than those at which the GFP protein can fold well by itself. We present evidence that this folding is promoted by the strong binding of N-terminal head protein sequences to GroEL. This binding is so strong that some fusion proteins can apparently deplete the cell of the GroEL needed for other cellular functions, altering the cellular membranes and slowing growth.     

GroEL-mediated protein folding: making the impossible, possible

Protein folding is a spontaneous process that is essential for life, yet the concentrated and complex interior of a cell is an inherently hostile environment for the efficient folding of many proteins. Some proteins-constrained by sequence, topology, size, and function-simply cannot fold by themselves and are instead prone to misfolding and aggregation. This problem is so deeply entrenched that a specialized family of proteins, known as molecular chaperones, evolved to assist in protein folding. Here we examine one essential class of molecular chaperones, the large, oligomeric, and energy utilizing chaperonins or Hsp60s. The bacterial chaperonin GroEL, along with its co-chaperonin GroES, is probably the best-studied example of this family of protein-folding machine. In this review, we examine some of the general properties of proteins that do not fold well in the absence of GroEL and then consider how folding of these proteins is enhanced by GroEL and GroES. Recent experimental and theoretical studies suggest that chaperonins like GroEL and GroES employ a combination of protein isolation, unfolding, and conformational restriction to drive protein folding under conditions where it is otherwise not possible.     

Double mutant MBP refolds at same rate in free solution as inside the GroEL/GroES chaperonin chamber when aggregation in free solution is prevented

Under "permissive" conditions at 25°C, the chaperonin substrate protein DM-MBP refolds 5-10 times more rapidly in the GroEL/GroES folding chamber than in free solution. This has been suggested to indicate that the chaperonin accelerates polypeptide folding by entropic effects of close confinement. Here, using native-purified DM-MBP, we show that the different rates of refolding are due to reversible aggregation of DM-MBP while folding free in solution, slowing its kinetics of renaturation: the protein exhibited concentration-dependent refolding in solution, with aggregation directly observed by dynamic light scattering. When refolded in chloride-free buffer, however, dynamic light scattering was eliminated, refolding became concentration-independent, and the rate of refolding became the same as that in GroEL/GroES. The GroEL/GroES chamber thus appears to function passively toward DM-MBP.     

A mobile loop order-disorder transition modulates the speed of chaperonin cycling

Molecular machines order and disorder polypeptides as they form and dissolve large intermolecular interfaces, but the biological significance of coupled ordering and binding has been established in few, if any, macromolecular systems. The ordering and binding of GroES co-chaperonin mobile loops accompany an ATP-dependent conformational change in the GroEL chaperonin that promotes client protein folding. Following ATP hydrolysis, disordering of the mobile loops accompanies co-chaperonin dissociation, reversal of the GroEL conformational change, and release of the client protein. "High-affinity" GroEL mutants were identified by their compatibility with "low-affinity" co-chaperonin mutants and incompatibility with high-affinity co-chaperonin mutants. Analysis of binding kinetics using the intrinsic fluorescence of tryptophan-containing co-chaperonin variants revealed that excessive affinity causes the chaperonin to stall in a conformation that forms in the presence of ATP. Destabilizing the beta-hairpins formed by the mobile loops restores the normal rate of dissociation. Thus, the free energy of mobile-loop ordering and disordering acts like the inertia of an engine's flywheel by modulating the speed of chaperonin conformational changes.