Prediction of chaperonin GroE substrates using small structural patterns of proteins

Molecular chaperones are indispensable proteins that assist the folding of aggregation‐prone proteins into their functional native states, thereby maintaining organized cellular systems. Two of the best‐characterized chaperones are the Escherichia coli chaperonins GroEL and GroES (GroE), for which in vivo obligate substrates have been identified by proteome‐wide experiments. These substrates comprise various proteins but exhibit remarkable structural features. They include a number of α/β proteins, particularly those adopting the TIM β/α barrel fold. This observation led us to speculate that GroE obligate substrates share a structural motif. Based on this hypothesis, we exhaustively compared substrate structures with the MICAN alignment tool, which detects common structural patterns while ignoring the connectivity or orientation of secondary structural elements. We selected four (or five) substructures with hydrophobic indices that were mostly included in substrates and excluded in others, and developed a GroE obligate substrate discriminator. The substructures are structurally similar and superimposable on the 2‐layer 2α4β sandwich, the most popular protein substructure, implying that targeting this structural pattern is a useful strategy for GroE to assist numerous proteins. Seventeen false positives predicted by our methods were experimentally examined using GroE‐depleted cells, and 9 proteins were confirmed to be novel GroE obligate substrates. Together, these results demonstrate the utility of our common substructure hypothesis and prediction method.

[1]  H. Taguchi,et al.  Shotgun Proteomics Revealed Preferential Degradation of Misfolded In Vivo Obligate GroE Substrates by Lon Protease in Escherichia coli , 2022, Molecules.

[2]  Oriol Vinyals,et al.  Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold , 2021, Nature.

[3]  Radka Svobodová Vareková,et al.  CATH: increased structural coverage of functional space , 2020, Nucleic Acids Res..

[4]  F. Hartl,et al.  Recent advances in understanding catalysis of protein folding by molecular chaperones , 2020, FEBS letters.

[5]  Arthur L Horwich,et al.  Chaperonin-assisted protein folding: a chronologue , 2020, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[6]  J. Gough,et al.  The SCOP database in 2020: expanded classification of representative family and superfamily domains of known protein structures , 2019, Nucleic Acids Res..

[7]  M. Ota,et al.  Protein kinases phosphorylate long disordered regions in intrinsically disordered proteins , 2019, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[8]  C. Brooks,et al.  Frustration and folding of a TIM barrel protein , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  A. Horovitz,et al.  Contact Order Is a Determinant for the Dependence of GFP Folding on the Chaperonin GroEL. , 2019, Biophysical journal.

[10]  Motonori Ota,et al.  MICAN-SQ: a sequential protein structure alignment program that is applicable to monomers and all types of oligomers , 2018, Bioinform..

[11]  A. Horovitz,et al.  Local energetic frustration affects the dependence of green fluorescent protein folding on the chaperonin GroEL , 2017, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[12]  M. Ota,et al.  Rules for connectivity of secondary structure elements in protein: Two–layer αβ sandwiches , 2017, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[13]  C. Dobson,et al.  Protein Misfolding, Amyloid Formation, and Human Disease: A Summary of Progress Over the Last Decade. , 2017, Annual review of biochemistry.

[14]  A. Tripathi,et al.  Molecular Docking: From Lock and Key to Combination Lock. , 2017, Journal of molecular medicine and clinical applications.

[15]  M. Ota,et al.  Itinerary profiling to analyze a large number of protein-folding trajectories , 2016, Biophysics and physicobiology.

[16]  D. Saunders,et al.  Systematic approaches to identify E3 ligase substrates , 2016, The Biochemical journal.

[17]  David Balchin,et al.  In vivo aspects of protein folding and quality control , 2016, Science.

[18]  A. Horovitz,et al.  Allosteric Mechanisms in Chaperonin Machines. , 2016, Chemical reviews.

[19]  H. Taguchi,et al.  Identification of novel in vivo obligate GroEL/ES substrates based on data from a cell‐free proteomics approach , 2016, FEBS letters.

[20]  F. Hartl,et al.  The GroEL-GroES Chaperonin Machine: A Nano-Cage for Protein Folding. , 2016, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[21]  H. Taguchi.  Reaction Cycle of Chaperonin GroEL via Symmetric "Football" Intermediate. , 2015, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  Yoshiharu Matsuura,et al.  Kinase-interacting substrate screening is a novel method to identify kinase substrates , 2015, The Journal of cell biology.

[23]  H. Taguchi,et al.  Conversion of a Chaperonin GroEL-independent Protein into an Obligate Substrate* , 2014, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[24]  Shintaro Minami,et al.  How a Spatial Arrangement of Secondary Structure Elements Is Dispersed in the Universe of Protein Folds , 2014, PloS one.

[25]  Steven E. Brenner,et al.  SCOPe: Structural Classification of Proteins—extended, integrating SCOP and ASTRAL data and classification of new structures , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[26]  H. Saibil.  Chaperone machines for protein folding, unfolding and disaggregation , 2013, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[27]  Ann M Stock,et al.  Phosphorylation-dependent conformational changes and domain rearrangements in Staphylococcus aureus VraR activation , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  G. Chikenji,et al.  MICAN : a protein structure alignment algorithm that can handle Multiple-chains, Inverse alignments, Cα only models, Alternative alignments, and Non-sequential alignments , 2013, BMC Bioinformatics.

[29]  Takuya Ueda,et al.  Global analysis of chaperone effects using a reconstituted cell-free translation system , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  F. Hartl,et al.  DnaK functions as a central hub in the E. coli chaperone network. , 2012, Cell reports.

[31]  A. May,et al.  Macro-to-Micro Structural Proteomics: Native Source Proteins for High-Throughput Crystallization , 2012, PloS one.

[32]  A. Horovitz,et al.  What distinguishes GroEL substrates from other Escherichia coli proteins? , 2012, The FEBS journal.

[33]  C. Dobson,et al.  Physicochemical determinants of chaperone requirements. , 2010, Journal of molecular biology.

[34]  H. Taguchi,et al.  A systematic survey of in vivo obligate chaperonin‐dependent substrates , 2010, The EMBO journal.

[35]  Shoji Takada,et al.  Bimodal protein solubility distribution revealed by an aggregation analysis of the entire ensemble of Escherichia coli proteins , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  Tobias Achterberg,et al.  SCIP: solving constraint integer programs , 2009, Math. Program. Comput..

[37]  D. Svergun,et al.  The subnanometer resolution structure of the glutamate synthase 1.2 MDa hexamer by cryo-electron microscopy and its oligomerization behavior in solution: functional implications. , 2009 .

[38]  B. Golinelli‐Pimpaneau,et al.  The crystal structure of Pyrococcus abyssi tRNA (uracil-54, C5)-methyltransferase provides insights into its tRNA specificity , 2008, Nucleic acids research.

[39]  Orly Noivirt-Brik,et al.  Low folding propensity and high translation efficiency distinguish in vivo substrates of GroEL from other Escherichia coli proteins , 2007, Bioinform..

[40]  C. Matthews,et al.  Mapping the structure of folding cores in TIM barrel proteins by hydrogen exchange mass spectrometry: the roles of motif and sequence for the indole-3-glycerol phosphate synthase from Sulfolobus solfataricus. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[41]  Bernard R Brooks,et al.  Residues in substrate proteins that interact with GroEL in the capture process are buried in the native state. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  D. J. Naylor,et al.  Proteome-wide Analysis of Chaperonin-Dependent Protein Folding in Escherichia coli , 2005, Cell.

[43]  L. Hung,et al.  Crystal structure of a dodecameric FMN‐dependent UbiX‐like decarboxylase (Pad1) from Escherichia coli O157: H7 , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[44]  U. Uhlin,et al.  Structure of the large subunit of class Ib ribonucleotide reductase from Salmonella typhimurium and its complexes with allosteric effectors. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[45]  Frances M. G. Pearl,et al.  Quantifying the similarities within fold space. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[46]  William R. Taylor,et al.  A ‘periodic table’ for protein structures , 2002, Nature.

[47]  C. Lima.  Analysis of the E. coli NifS CsdB protein at 2.0 A reveals the structural basis for perselenide and persulfide intermediate formation. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[48]  D. J. Naylor,et al.  Dual Function of Protein Confinement in Chaperonin-Assisted Protein Folding , 2001, Cell.

[49]  G. Farr,et al.  GroEL/GroES-Mediated Folding of a Protein Too Large to Be Encapsulated , 2001, Cell.

[50]  R. Ellis.  Macromolecular crowding : obvious but underappreciated , 2022 .

[51]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[52]  T. P. Flores,et al.  Protein structural topology: Automated analysis and diagrammatic representation , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[53]  Dmitrij Frishman,et al.  Identification of in vivo substrates of the chaperonin GroEL , 1999, Nature.

[54]  H. Taguchi,et al.  On the Maximum Size of Proteins to Stay and Fold in the Cavity of GroEL underneath GroES* , 1999, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[55]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: protein phylogenetic profiles. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[56]  J. Weissman,et al.  GroEL-GroES-mediated protein folding requires an intact central cavity. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[57]  Thomas L. Madden,et al.  Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. , 1997, Nucleic acids research.

[58]  A. Horwich,et al.  The crystal structure of the asymmetric GroEL–GroES–(ADP)7 chaperonin complex , 1997, Nature.

[59]  A. Fersht,et al.  Chaperone activity and structure of monomeric polypeptide binding domains of GroEL. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[60]  D. Koshland.  The Key–Lock Theory and the Induced Fit Theory , 1995 .

[61]  G. Barton.  Scop: structural classification of proteins. , 1994, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[62]  Y. Kashi,et al.  Residues in chaperonin GroEL required for polypeptide binding and release , 1994, Nature.

[63]  T. Blundell,et al.  Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[64]  G. Lorimer,et al.  Purified chaperonin 60 (groEL) interacts with the nonnative states of a multitude of Escherichia coli proteins , 1992, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[65]  S. Fields,et al.  A novel genetic system to detect protein–protein interactions , 1989, Nature.

[66]  R. Doolittle,et al.  A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein. , 1982, Journal of molecular biology.

[67]  C. Anfinsen.  Principles that govern the folding of protein chains. , 1973, Science.

[68]  W. Wooster,et al.  Crystal structure of , 2005 .