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.     

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

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

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.     

Role of the gamma-phosphate of ATP in triggering protein folding by GroEL-GroES: function, structure and energetics

Productive cis folding by the chaperonin GroEL is triggered by the binding of ATP but not ADP, along with cochaperonin GroES, to the same ring as non-native polypeptide, ejecting polypeptide into an encapsulated hydrophilic chamber. We examined the specific contribution of the gamma-phosphate of ATP to this activation process using complexes of ADP and aluminium or beryllium fluoride. These ATP analogues supported productive cis folding of the substrate protein, rhodanese, even when added to already-formed, folding-inactive cis ADP ternary complexes, essentially introducing the gamma-phosphate of ATP in an independent step. Aluminium fluoride was observed to stabilize the association of GroES with GroEL, with a substantial release of free energy (-46 kcal/mol). To understand the basis of such activation and stabilization, a crystal structure of GroEL-GroES-ADP.AlF3 was determined at 2.8 A. A trigonal AlF3 metal complex was observed in the gamma-phosphate position of the nucleotide pocket of the cis ring. Surprisingly, when this structure was compared with that of the previously determined GroEL-GroES-ADP complex, no other differences were observed. We discuss the likely basis of the ability of gamma-phosphate binding to convert preformed GroEL-GroES-ADP-polypeptide complexes into the folding-active state.     

Action of the Chaperonin GroEL/ES on a Non-native Substrate Observed with Single-Molecule FRET

The double ring-shaped chaperonin GroEL binds a wide range of non-native polypeptides within its central cavity and, together with its cofactor GroES, assists their folding in an ATP-dependent manner. The conformational cycle of GroEL/ES has been studied extensively but little is known about how the environment in the central cavity affects substrate conformation. Here, we use the von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor protein VHL as a model substrate for studying the action of the GroEL/ES system on a bound polypeptide. Fluorescent labeling of pairs of sites on VHL for fluorescence (Förster) resonant energy transfer (FRET) allows VHL to be used to explore how GroEL binding and GroEL/ES/nucleotide binding affect the substrate conformation. On average, upon binding to GroEL, all pairs of labeling sites experience compaction relative to the unfolded protein while single-molecule FRET distributions show significant heterogeneity. Upon addition of GroES and ATP to close the GroEL cavity, on average further FRET increases occur between the two hydrophobic regions of VHL, accompanied by FRET decreases between the N- and C-termini. This suggests that ATP- and GroES-induced confinement within the GroEL cavity remodels bound polypeptides by causing expansion (or racking) of some regions and compaction of others, most notably, the hydrophobic core. However, single-molecule observations of the specific FRET changes for individual proteins at the moment of ATP/GroES addition reveal that a large fraction of the population shows the opposite behavior; that is, FRET decreases between the hydrophobic regions and FRET increases for the N- and C-termini. Our time-resolved single-molecule analysis reveals the underlying heterogeneity of the action of GroES/EL on a bound polypeptide substrate, which might arise from the random nature of the specific binding to the various identical subunits of GroEL, and might help explain why multiple rounds of binding and hydrolysis are required for some chaperonin substrates.     

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.     

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.     

ATP-bound states of GroEL captured by cryo-electron microscopy.

The chaperonin GroEL drives its protein-folding cycle by cooperatively binding ATP to one of its two rings, priming that ring to become folding-active upon GroES binding, while simultaneously discharging the previous folding chamber from the opposite ring. The GroEL-ATP structure, determined by cryo-EM and atomic structure fitting, shows that the intermediate domains rotate downward, switching their intersubunit salt bridge contacts from substrate binding to ATP binding domains. These observations, together with the effects of ATP binding to a GroEL-GroES-ADP complex, suggest structural models for the ATP-induced reduction in affinity for polypeptide and for cooperativity. The model for cooperativity, based on switching of intersubunit salt bridge interactions around the GroEL ring, may provide general insight into cooperativity in other ring complexes and molecular machines.     

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.     

Monitoring protein conformation along the pathway of chaperonin-assisted folding

The GroEL/GroES chaperonin system mediates protein folding in the bacterial cytosol. Newly synthesized proteins reach GroEL via transfer from upstream chaperones such as DnaK/DnaJ (Hsp70). Here we employed single molecule and ensemble FRET to monitor the conformational transitions of a model substrate as it proceeds along this chaperone pathway. We find that DnaK/DnaJ stabilizes the protein in collapsed states that fold exceedingly slowly. Transfer to GroEL results in unfolding, with a fraction of molecules reaching locally highly expanded conformations. ATP-induced domain movements in GroEL cause transient further unfolding and rapid mobilization of protein segments with moderate hydrophobicity, allowing partial compaction on the GroEL surface. The more hydrophobic regions are released upon subsequent protein encapsulation in the central GroEL cavity by GroES, completing compaction and allowing rapid folding. Segmental chain release and compaction may be important in avoiding misfolding by proteins that fail to fold efficiently through spontaneous hydrophobic collapse.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Chaperone activity of a chimeric GroEL protein that can exist in a single or double ring form.

The molecular chaperone GroEL is a protein complex consisting of two rings each of seven identical subunits. It is thought to act by providing a cavity in which a protein substrate can fold into a form that has no propensity to aggregate. Substrate proteins are sequestered in the cavity while they fold, and prevented from diffusion out of the cavity by the action of the GroES complex, that caps the open end of the cavity. A key step in the mechanism of action of GroEL is the transmission of a conformational change between the two rings, induced by the binding of nucleotides to the GroEL ring opposite to the one containing the polypeptide substrate. This conformational change then leads to the discharge of GroES from GroEL, enabling polypeptide release. Single ring forms of GroEL are thus predicted to be unable to chaperone the folding of GroES-dependent substrates efficiently, since they are unable to discharge the bound GroES and unable to release folded protein. We describe here a detailed functional analysis of a chimeric GroEL protein, which we show to exist in solution in equilibrium between single and double ring forms. We demonstrate that whereas the double ring form of the GroEL chimera functions effectively in refolding of a GroES-dependent substrate, the single ring form does not. The single ring form of the chimera, however, is able to chaperone the folding of a substrate that does not require GroES for its efficient folding. We further demonstrate that the double ring structure of GroEL is likely to be required for its activity in vivo.     

Chaperonin GroEL meets the substrate protein as a "load" of the rings

Chaperonin GroEL is an essential molecular chaperone that assists protein folding in the cell. With the aid of cochaperonin GroES and ATP, double ring-shaped GroEL encapsulates non-native substrate proteins inside the cavity of the GroEL-ES complex. Although extensive studies have revealed the outline of GroEL mechanism over the past decade, central questions remain: What are the in vivo substrate proteins? How does GroEL encapsulate the substrates inside the cavity in spite of an apparent entropic difficulty? Is the folding inside the GroEL-ES cavity the same as bulk spontaneous folding? In this review I summarize the recent progress on in vivo and in vitro aspects of GroEL. In particular, emerging evidence shows that the substrate protein itself influences the chaperonin GroEL structure and reaction cycle. Finally I propose the mechanistic similarity between GroEL and kinesin, a molecular motor that moves along a microtubule in an ATP-dependent manner.     

Exploring the kinetic requirements for enhancement of protein folding rates in the GroEL cavity

The chaperonin system, GroEL and GroES of Escherichia coli enable certain proteins to fold under conditions when spontaneous folding is prohibitively slow as to compete with other non-productive channels such as aggregation. We investigated the plausible mechanisms of GroEL-mediated folding using simple lattice models. In particular, we have investigated protein folding in a confined environment, such as those offered by the GroEL, to decipher whether rate and yield enhancement can occur when the substrate protein is allowed to fold within the cavity of the chaperonins. The GroEL cavity is modeled as a cubic box and a simple bead model is used to represent the substrate chain. We consider three distinct characteristic of the confining environment. First, the cavity is taken to be a passive Anfinsen cage in which the walls merely reduce the available conformation space. We find that at temperatures when the native conformation is stable, the folding rate is retarded in the Anfinsen cage. We then assumed that the interior of the wall is hydrophobic. In this case the folding times exhibit a complex behavior. When the strength of the interaction between the polypeptide chain and the cavity is too strong or too weak we find that the rates of folding are retarded compared to spontaneous folding. There is an optimum range of the interaction strength that enhances the rates. Thus, above this value there is an inverse correlation between the folding rates and the strength of the substrate-cavity interactions. The optimal hydrophobic walls essentially pull the kinetically trapped states which leads to a smoother the energy landscape. It is known that upon addition of ATP and GroES the interior cavity of GroEL offers a hydrophilic-like environment to the substrate protein. In order to mimic this within the context of the dynamic Anfinsen cage model, we allow for changes in the hydrophobicity of the walls of the cavity. The duration for which the walls remain hydrophobic during one cycle of ATP hydrolysis is allowed to vary. These calculations show that frequent cycling of the wall hydrophobicity can dramatically reduce the folding times and increase the yield as well under non-permissive conditions. Examination of the structures of the substrate proteins before and after the change in hydrophobicity indicates that there is global unfolding involved. In addition, it is found that a fraction of the molecules kinetically partition to the native state in accordabce with the iterative annealing mechanism. Thus, frequent "unfoldase" activity of chaperonins leading to global unfolding of the polypeptide chain results in enhancement of the folding rates and yield of the folded protein. We suggest that chaperonin efficiency can be greatly enhanced if the cycling time is reduced. The calculations are used to interpret a few experiments on chaperonin-mediated protein folding.     

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.