In vivo protein folding: suppressor analysis of mutations in the groES cochaperone gene of Escherichia coli

An ORFan no more: the bacteriophage T4 39.2 gene product, NwgI, modulates GroEL chaperone function

Bacteriophages are the most abundant biological entities in our biosphere, characterized by their hyperplasticity, mosaic composition, and the many unknown functions (ORFans) encoded by their immense genetic repertoire. These genes are potentially maintained by the bacteriophage to allow efficient propagation on hosts encountered in nature. To test this hypothesis, we devised a selection to identify bacteriophage-encoded gene(s) that modulate the host Escherichia coli GroEL/GroES chaperone machine, which is essential for the folding of certain host and bacteriophage proteins. As a result, we identified the bacteriophage RB69 gene 39.2, of previously unknown function and showed that homologs of 39.2 in bacteriophages T4, RB43, and RB49 similarly modulate GroEL/GroES.

Production of wild-type bacteriophage T4 Gp39.2, a 58-amino-acid protein, (a) enables diverse bacteriophages to plaque on the otherwise nonpermissive groES or groEL mutant hosts in an allele-specific manner, (b) suppresses the temperature-sensitive phenotype of both groES and groEL mutants, (c) suppresses the defective UV-induced PolV function (UmuCD) of the groEL44 mutant, and (d) is lethal to the host when overproduced. Finally, as proof of principle that Gp39.2 is essential for bacteriophage growth on certain bacterial hosts, we constructed a T4 39.2 deletion strain and showed that, unlike the isogenic wild-type parent, it is incapable of propagating on certain groEL mutant hosts. We propose a model of how Gp39.2 modulates GroES/GroEL function.

The importance of a mobile loop in regulating chaperonin/ co-chaperonin interaction: humans versus Escherichia coli

Chaperonins are universally conserved proteins that nonspecifically facilitate the folding of a wide spectrum of proteins. While bacterial GroEL is functionally promiscuous with various co-chaperonin partners, its human homologue, Hsp60 functions specifically with its co-chaperonin partner, Hsp10, and not with other co-chaperonins, such as the bacterial GroES or bacteriophage T4-encoded Gp31. Co-chaperonin interaction with chaperonin is mediated by the co-chaperonin mobile loop that folds into a beta-hairpin conformation upon binding to the chaperonin. A delicate balance of flexibility and conformational preferences of the mobile loop determines co-chaperonin affinity for chaperonin. Here, we show that the ability of Hsp10, but not GroES, to interact specifically with Hsp60 lies within the mobile loop sequence. Using mutational analysis, we show that three substitutions in the GroES mobile loop are necessary and sufficient to acquire Hsp10-like specificity. Two of these substitutions are predicted to preorganize the beta-hairpin turn and one to increase the hydrophobicity of the GroEL-binding site. Together, they result in a GroES that binds chaperonins with higher affinity. It seems likely that the single ring mitochondrial Hsp60 exhibits intrinsically lower affinity for the co-chaperonin that can be compensated for by a higher affinity mobile loop.

Influence of the nucleoid on placement of FtsZ and MinE rings in Escherichia coli

We previously presented evidence that replicating but unsegregated nucleoids, along with the Min system, act as topological inhibitors to restrict assembly of the FtsZ ring (Z ring) to discrete sites in the cell. To test if nonreplicating nucleoids have similar exclusion effects, we examined Z rings in dnaA (temperature sensitive) mutants. Z rings were excluded from centrally localized nucleoids and were often observed at nucleoid edges. Cells with nonreplicating nucleoids formed filaments, some of which contained large nucleoid-free areas in which Z rings were positioned at regular intervals. Because MinE may protect FtsZ from the action of the MinC inhibitor in these nucleoid-free zones, we examined the localization of a MinE-green fluorescent protein (GFP) fusion with respect to Z rings and nucleoids. Like Z rings, MinE-GFP appeared to localize independently of nucleoid position, forming rings at regular intervals in nucleoid-free regions. Unlike FtsZ, however, MinE-GFP often localized on top of nucleoids, replicating or not, suggesting that MinE is relatively insensitive to the nucleoid inhibition effect. These data suggest that both replicating and nonreplicating nucleoids are capable of topologically excluding Z rings but not MinE.

Structure and function in GroEL-mediated protein folding

Recent structural and biochemical investigations have come together to allow a better understanding of the mechanism of chaperonin (GroEL, Hsp60)-mediated protein folding, the final step in the accurate expression of genetic information. Major, asymmetric conformational changes in the GroEL double toroid accompany binding of ATP and the cochaperonin GroES. When a nonnative polypeptide, bound to one of the GroEL rings, is encapsulated by GroES to form a cis ternary complex, these changes drive the polypeptide into the sequestered cavity and initiate its folding. ATP hydrolysis in the cis ring primes release of the products, and ATP binding in the trans ring then disrupts the cis complex. This process allows the polypeptide to achieve its final native state, if folding was completed, or to recycle to another chaperonin molecule, if the folding process did not result in a form committed to the native state.

In vivo activities of GroEL minichaperones

Fragments encompassing the apical domain of GroEL, called minichaperones, facilitate the refolding of several proteins in vitro without requiring GroES, ATP, or the cage-like structure of multimeric GroEL. We have identified the smallest minichaperone that is active in vitro in chaperoning the refolding of rhodanese and cyclophilin A: GroEL(193-335). This finding raises the question of whether the minichaperones are active under more stringent conditions in vivo. The smallest minichaperones complement two temperature-sensitive Escherichia coli groEL alleles, EL44 and EL673, at 43 degreesC. Although they cannot replace GroEL in cells in which the chromosomal groEL gene has been deleted by P1 transduction, GroEL(193-335) enhances the colony-forming ability of such cells when limiting amounts of GroEL are expressed from a tightly regulated plasmid. Surprisingly, we found that overexpression of GroEL prevents plaque formation by bacteriophage lambda and inhibits replication of the lambda origin-dependent plasmid, Lorist6. The minichaperones also inhibit Lorist6 replication, but less markedly. The complex quaternary structure of GroEL, its central cavity, and the structural allosteric changes that take place on the binding of nucleotides and GroES are not essential for all of its functions in vivo.

Structural adaptations in the specialized bacteriophage T4 co-chaperonin Gp31 expand the size of the Anfinsen cage

The Gp31 protein from bacteriophage T4 functionally substitutes for the bacterial co-chaperonin GroES in assisted protein folding reactions both in vitro and in vivo. But Gp31 is required for the folding and/or assembly of the T4 major capsid protein Gp23, and this requirement cannot be satisfied by GroES. The 2.3 A crystal structure of Gp31 shows that its tertiary and quaternary structures are similar to those of GroES despite the existence of only 14% sequence identity between the two proteins. However, Gp31 shows a series of structural adaptations which will increase the size and the hydrophilicity of the "Anfinsen cage," the enclosed cavity within the GroEL/GroES complex that is the location of the chaperonin-assisted protein folding reaction.