Factors governing the substrate recognition by GroEL chaperone: a sequence correlation approach

The chaperonin GroEL binds to a large number of polypeptides, prevents their self-association, and mediates appropriate folding in a GroES and adenosine triphosphate-dependent manner. But how the GroEL molecule actually recognizes the polypeptide and what are the exact GroEL recognition sites in the substrates are still poorly understood. We have examined more than 50 in vivo substrates as well as well-characterized in vitro substrates, for their binding characteristics with GroEL. While addressing the issue, we have been driven by the basic concept that GroES, being the cochaperonin of GroEL, is the best-suited substrate for GroEL, as well as by the fact that polypeptide substrate and GroES occupy the same binding sites on the GroEL apical domain. GroES interacts with GroEL through selective hydrophobic residues present on its mobile loop region, and we have considered the group of residues on the GroES mobile loop as the key element in choosing a substrate for GroEL. Considering the hydrophobic region on the GroES mobile loop as the standard, we have attempted to identify the homologous region on the peptide sequences in the proteins of our interest. Polypeptides have been judged as potential GroEL substrates on the basis of the presence of the GroES mobile loop-like hydrophobic segments in their amino acid sequences. We have observed 1 or more GroES mobile loop-like hydrophobic patches in the peptide sequence of some of the proteins of our interest, and the hydropathy index of most of these patches also seems to be approximately close to that of the standard. It has been proposed that the presence of hydrophobic patches having substantial degree of hydropathy index as compared with the standard segment is a necessary condition for a peptide sequence to be recognized by GroEL molecules. We also observed that the overall hydrophobicity is also close to 30% in these substrates, although this is not the sufficient criterion for a polypeptide to be assigned as a substrate for GroEL. We found that the binding of aconitase, alpha-lactalbumin, and murine dihydrofolate reductase to GroEL falls in line with our present model and have also predicted the exact regions of their binding to GroEL. On the basis of our GroEL substrate prediction, we have presented a model for the binding of apo form of some proteins to GroEL and the eventual formation of the holo form. Our observation also reveals that in most of the cases, the GroES mobile loop-like hydrophobic patch is present in the unstructured region of the protein molecule, specifically in the loop or beta-sheeted region. The outcome of our study would be an essential feature in identifying a potential substrate for GroEL on the basis of the presence of 1 or more GroES mobile loop-like hydrophobic segments in the amino acid sequence of those polypeptides and their location in three-dimensional space.     

GroEL binds a late folding intermediate of phage P22 coat protein

GroEL recognizes proteins that are folding improperly or that have aggregation-prone intermediates. Here we have used as substrates for GroEL, wildtype (WT) coat protein of phage P22 and 3 coat proteins that carry single amino acid substitutions leading to a temperature-sensitive folding (tsf) phenotype. In vivo, WT coat protein does not require GroEL for proper folding, whereas GroEL is necessary for the folding of the tsf coat proteins; thus, the single amino acid substitutions cause coat protein to become a substrate for GroEL. The conformation of WT and tsf coat proteins when in a binary complex with GroEL was investigated using tryptophan fluorescence, quenching of fluorescence, and accessibility of the coat proteins to proteolysis. WT coat protein and the tsf coat protein mutants were each found to be in a different conformation when bound to GroEL. As an additional measure of the changes in the bound conformation, the affinity of binding of WT and tsf coat proteins to GroEL was determined using a fluorescence binding assay. The tsf coat proteins were bound more tightly by GroEL than WT coat protein. Therefore, even though the proteins are identical except for a single amino acid substitution, GroEL did not bind these substrate polypeptides in the same conformation within its central cavity. Therefore, GroEL is likely to bind coat protein in a conformation consistent with a late folding intermediate, with substantial secondary and tertiary structure formed.     

GroEL recognises sequential and non-sequential linear structural motifs compatible with extended beta-strands and alpha-helices.

The chaperonin GroEL binds a variety of polypeptides that share no obvious sequence similarity. The precise structural, chemical and dynamic features that are recognised remain largely unknown. Structural models of the complex between GroEL and its co-chaperonin GroES, and of the isolated apical domain of GroEL (minichaperone; residues 191-376) with a 17 residue N-terminal tag show that a linear sequential sequence (extended beta-strand) can be bound. We have analysed characteristics of the motifs that bind to GroEL by using affinity panning of immobilised GroEL minichaperones for a library of bacteriophages that display the fungal cellulose-binding domain of the enzyme cellobiohydrolase I. This protein has seven non-sequential residues in its binding site that form a linear binding motif with similar dimensions and characteristics to the peptide tag that was bound to the minichaperone GroEL(191-376). The seven residues thus form a constrained scaffold. We find that GroEL does bind suitable mutants of these seven residues. The side-chains recognised do not have to be totally hydrophobic, but polar and positively charged chains can be accommodated. Further, the spatial distribution of the side-chains is also compatible with those in an alpha-helix. This implies that GroEL can bind a wide range of structures, from extended beta-strands and alpha-helices to folded states, with exposed side-chains. The binding site can accommodate substrates of approximately 18 residues when in a helical or seven when in an extended conformation. The data support two activities of GroEL: the ability to act as a temporary parking spot for sticky intermediates by binding many motifs; and an unfolding activity of GroEL by binding an extended sequential conformation of the substrate.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Crystal structure of the native chaperonin complex from Thermus thermophilus revealed unexpected asymmetry at the cis-cavity

The chaperonins GroEL and GroES are essential mediators of protein folding. GroEL binds nonnative protein, ATP, and GroES, generating a ternary complex in which protein folding occurs within the cavity capped by GroES (cis-cavity). We determined the crystal structure of the native GroEL-GroES-ADP homolog from Thermus thermophilus, with substrate proteins in the cis-cavity, at 2.8 A resolution. Twenty-four in vivo substrate proteins within the cis-cavity were identified from the crystals. The structure around the cis-cavity, which encapsulates substrate proteins, shows significant differences from that observed for the substrate-free Escherichia coli GroEL-GroES complex. The apical domain around the cis-cavity of the Thermus GroEL-GroES complex exhibits a large deviation from the 7-fold symmetry. As a result, the GroEL-GroES interface differs considerably from the previously reported E. coli GroEL-GroES complex, including a previously unknown contact between GroEL and GroES.     

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.     

The chaperonin cycle cannot substitute for prolyl isomerase activity, but GroEL alone promotes productive folding of a cyclophilin-sensitive substrate to a cyclophilin-resistant form.

The chaperonin GroEL and the peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase cyclophilin are major representatives of two distinct cellular systems that help proteins to adopt their native three-dimensional structure: molecular chaperones and folding catalysts. Little is known about whether and how these proteins cooperate in protein folding. In this study, we have examined the action of GroEL and cyclophilin on a substrate protein in two distinct prolyl isomerization states. Our results indicate that: (i) GroEL binds the same substrate in different prolyl isomerization states. (ii) GroEL-ES does not promote prolyl isomerizations, but even retards isomerizations. (iii) Cyclophilin cannot promote the correct isomerization of prolyl bonds of a GroEL-bound substrate, but acts sequentially after release of the substrate from GroEL. (iv) A denatured substrate with all-native prolyl bonds is delayed in folding by cyclophilin due to isomerization to non-native prolyl bonds; a substrate that has proceeded in folding beyond a stage where it can be bound by GroEL is still sensitive to cyclophilin. (v) If a denatured cyclophilin-sensitive substrate is first bound to GroEL, however, productive folding to a cyclophilin-resistant form can be promoted, even without GroES. We conclude that GroEL and cyclophilin act sequentially and exert complementary functions in protein folding.     

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.     

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.     

A thermophilic mini-chaperonin contains a conserved polypeptide-binding surface: combined crystallographic and NMR studies of the GroEL apical domain with implications for substrate interactions

A homologue of the Escherichia coli GroEL apical domain was obtained from thermophilic eubacterium Thermus thermophilus. The domains share 70 % sequence identity (101 out of 145 residues). The thermal stability of the T. thermophilus apical domain (Tm>100 degrees C as evaluated by circular dichroism) is at least 35 degrees C greater than that of the E. coli apical domain (Tm=65 degrees C). The crystal structure of a selenomethione-substituted apical domain from T. thermophilus was determined to a resolution of 1.78 A using multiwavelength-anomalous-diffraction phasing. The structure is similar to that of the E. coli apical domain (root-mean-square deviation 0.45 A based on main-chain atoms). The thermophilic structure contains seven additional salt bridges of which four contain charge-stabilized hydrogen bonds. Only one of the additional salt bridges would face the "Anfinsen cage" in GroEL. High temperatures were exploited to map sites of interactions between the apical domain and molten globules. NMR footprints of apical domain-protein complexes were obtained at elevated temperature using 15N-1H correlation spectra of 15N-labeled apical domain. Footprints employing two polypeptides unrelated in sequence or structure (an insulin monomer and the SRY high-mobility-group box, each partially unfolded at 50 degrees C) are essentially the same and consistent with the peptide-binding surface previously defined in E. coli GroEL and its apical domain-peptide complexes. An additional part of this surface comprising a short N-terminal alpha-helix is observed. The extended footprint rationalizes mutagenesis studies of intact GroEL in which point mutations affecting substrate binding were found outside the "classical" peptide-binding site. Our results demonstrate structural conservation of the apical domain among GroEL homologues and conservation of an extended non-polar surface recognizing diverse polypeptides.     

Export is the default pathway for soluble unfolded polypeptides that accumulate during expression in Escherichia coli

Several E. coli endogenous, cytoplasmic proteins that are known clients of the chaperonin GroEL were overexpressed to examine the fate of accumulated unfolded polypeptides. Substantial fractions of about half of the proteins formed insoluble aggregates, consistent with the hypothesis that these proteins were produced at rates or in amounts that exceeded the protein-folding capacity of GroEL. In addition, large fractions of three overexpressed GroEL client proteins were localized in an extra-cytoplasmic, osmotically-sensitive compartment, suggesting they had initially accumulated in the cytoplasm as soluble unfolded polypeptides and thus were able to access a protein export pathway. Consistent with this model, an intrinsically unfoldable, hydrophilic, non-secretory polypeptide was quantitatively exported from the E. coli cytoplasm into an osmotically-sensitive compartment. Our results support the conclusion that a soluble, unfolded conformation alone may be sufficient to direct non-secretory polypeptides into a protein export pathway for signal peptide-independent translocation across the inner membrane, and that export rather than degradation by cytoplasmic proteases is the preferred fate for newly-synthesized, soluble, unfolded polypeptides that accumulate in the cytoplasm. The stable folded conformation of exported GroEL client proteins further suggests that the requirement for GroEL may be conditional on protein folding in the molecularly-crowded environment of the cytoplasm.     

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.     

Interaction of GroE with an all-beta-protein.

Molecular chaperones are involved in protein folding both in vivo and in vitro. The Escherichia coli chaperone GroEL interacts with a number of nonnative proteins. A common structural motif of nonnative proteins, which is recognized by GroEL, has not yet been identified. In order to study the role of beta-sheet secondary structure on the interaction of nonnative proteins with GroEL, we used the F(ab) fragment of a monoclonal antibody as a model substrate protein. Here we show that GroEL interacts functionally with this all-beta-protein during reactivation. Antibody fragments refold spontaneously in good yield from the guanidine-denatured state. Functional refolding to the native state is inhibited transiently by GroEL, but there is no complete folding arrest in the absence of Mg-ATP and GroES. The yield of these unspecifically released GroEL-bound F(ab) fragments corresponds to that of the spontaneous reactivation in the absence of chaperones. However, the refolding kinetics in the presence of GroEL are considerably slower. The addition of Mg-ATP to the GroEL.F(ab) complex results in an immediate release of bound substrate protein and a significant increase in the amount of reconstituted antibody fragments compared to spontaneous reactivation. GroES is not essential for functional GroEL-mediated refolding of the F(ab) fragment but affects the reactivation yield to a small extent. Interestingly, stimulation of the GroEL-mediated F(ab) refolding depends primarily on the binding and not on hydrolysis of adenosine triphosphates. Previous results indicate the binding of alpha-helices to GroEL. The results presented in this paper suggest that beta-sheet secondary structural elements are recognized by GroEL. We therefore conclude that the interaction of a nonnative protein with GroEL depends mainly on the nature of the early folding intermediate but not on a specific element of secondary structure.     

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.     

Identification and characterization of the Escherichia coli stress protein UP12, a putative in vivo substrate of GroEL.

Many groups of proteins play important roles in the cell's response to various stresses. The molecular chaperone GroEL of Escherichia coli represents one such highly conserved family of stress proteins. We have observed that isolated GroEL complexes from stationary cultures contain various polypeptides that can be released from the chaperonin by GroES and/or ATP, and identified two such polypeptides as the proteins GatY and UP12. Whereas GatY had been isolated previously, as an in vivo substrate of GroEL, the isolation of UP12 in a complex with GroEL was intriguing, because based on sequence similarity it was suggested that UP12 might also be a functional stress protein. UP12 belongs to a family of universal stress proteins (UspA family), of which UspA itself, and three additional paralogues, have been characterized previously. Here we show that UP12 accumulates under various growth inhibitory conditions and induced by heat shock. Furthermore, unlike wild-type cells, a UP12 deletion mutant recovers slowly from late stationary growth conditions, and has a marked sensitivity to the toxic agent carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenyl hydrazone (CCCP). Finally, coimmunoprecipitation experiments confirmed the initial observation that UP12 interacts with GroEL. Therefore, we suggest that UP12 may function as a universal stress protein, interaction of which with GroEL possibly ensures its proper folding state.     

Interaction with GroEL destabilises non-amphiphilic secondary structure in a peptide

The Escherichia coli molecular chaperone GroEL can functionally interact with non-native forms of many proteins. An inherent property of non-native proteins is the exposure of hydrophobic residues and the presence of secondary structure elements. Whether GroEL unfolds or stabilises these structural elements in protein substrates as a result of binding has been the subject of extended debate in the literature. Based on our studies of model peptides of pre-formed helical structure, we conclude that the final state of a GroEL-bound substrate is dependent on the conformational flexibility of the substrate protein and the distribution of hydrophobic residues, with optimal association when these are able to present a cluster of hydrophobic residues in the binding interface.     

Multivalent binding of nonnative substrate proteins by the chaperonin GroEL

The chaperonin GroEL binds nonnative substrate protein in the central cavity of an open ring through exposed hydrophobic residues at the inside aspect of the apical domains and then mediates productive folding upon binding ATP and the cochaperonin GroES. Whether nonnative proteins bind to more than one of the seven apical domains of a GroEL ring is unknown. We have addressed this using rings with various combinations of wild-type and binding-defective mutant apical domains, enabled by their production as single polypeptides. A wild-type extent of binary complex formation with two stringent substrate proteins, malate dehydrogenase or Rubisco, required a minimum of three consecutive binding-proficient apical domains. Rhodanese, a less-stringent substrate, required only two wild-type domains and was insensitive to their arrangement. As a physical correlate, multivalent binding of Rubisco was directly observed in an oxidative cross-linking experiment.     

Atomic force microscopy detects changes in the interaction forces between GroEL and substrate proteins.

The structure of the Escherichia coli chaperonin GroEL has been investigated by tapping-mode atomic force microscopy (AFM) under liquid. High-resolution images can be obtained, which show the up-right position of GroEL adsorbed on mica with the substrate-binding site on top. Because of this orientation, the interaction between GroEL and two substrate proteins, citrate synthase from Saccharomyces cerevisiae with a destabilizing Gly-->Ala mutation and RTEM beta-lactamase from Escherichia coli with two Cys-->Ala mutations, could be studied by force spectroscopy under different conditions. The results show that the interaction force decreases in the presence of ATP (but not of ATPgammaS) and that the force is smaller for native-like proteins than for the fully denatured ones. It also demonstrates that the interaction energy with GroEL increases with increasing molecular weight. By measuring the interaction force changes between the chaperonin and the two different substrate proteins, we could specifically detect GroEL conformational changes upon nucleotide binding.