Translocation boost protein-folding efficiency of double-barreled chaperonins.

Incorrect folding of proteins in living cells may lead to malfunctioning of the cell machinery. To prevent such cellular disasters from happening, all cells contain molecular chaperones that assist nonnative proteins in folding into the correct native structure. One of the most studied chaperone complexes is the GroEL-GroES complex. The GroEL part has a "double-barrel" structure, which consists of two cylindrical chambers joined at the bottom in a symmetrical fashion. The hydrophobic rim of one of the GroEL chambers captures nonnative proteins. The GroES part acts as a lid that temporarily closes the filled chamber during the folding process. Several capture-folding-release cycles are required before the nonnative protein reaches its native state. Here we report molecular simulations that suggest that translocation of the nonnative protein through the equatorial plane of the complex boosts the efficiency of the chaperonin action. If the target protein is correctly folded after translocation, it is released. However, if it is still nonnative, it is likely to remain trapped in the second chamber, which then closes to start a reverse translocation process. This shuttling back and forth continues until the protein is correctly folded. Our model provides a natural explanation for the prevalence of double-barreled chaperonins. Moreover, we argue that internal folding is both more efficient and safer than a scenario where partially refolded proteins escape from the complex before being recaptured.

[1]  D Frenkel,et al.  Designing refoldable model molecules. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  J. Weissman,et al.  Mechanism of GroEL action: Productive release of polypeptide from a sequestered position under groes , 1995, Cell.

[3]  Charu Chaudhry,et al.  Role of the γ‐phosphate of ATP in triggering protein folding by GroEL–GroES: function, structure and energetics , 2003, The EMBO journal.

[4]  Jianpeng Ma,et al.  The unfolding action of GroEL on a protein substrate. , 2004, Biophysical journal.

[5]  Hyojoon Kim,et al.  Exact Solution of the Reversible Diffusion-Influenced Reaction for an Isolated Pair in Three Dimensions , 1999 .

[6]  Arthur L Horwich,et al.  Chaperonin-mediated protein folding: fate of substrate polypeptide , 2003, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[7]  A I Jewett,et al.  Accelerated folding in the weak hydrophobic environment of a chaperonin cavity: creation of an alternate fast folding pathway. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  D. Thirumalai,et al.  Probing the "annealing" mechanism of GroEL minichaperone using molecular dynamics simulations. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  D. Frenkel.  Speed-up of Monte Carlo simulations by sampling of rejected states. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  Yechezkel Kashi,et al.  GroEL-mediated protein folding proceeds by multiple rounds of binding and release of nonnative forms , 1994, Cell.

[11]  F. Hartl,et al.  Mechanism of chaperonin action: GroES binding and release can drive GroEL‐mediated protein folding in the absence of ATP hydrolysis. , 1996, The EMBO journal.

[12]  F. Hartl,et al.  The effect of macromolecular crowding on chaperonin-mediated protein folding. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  A. Joachimiak,et al.  Solution structures of GroEL and its complex with rhodanese from small-angle neutron scattering. , 1996, Structure.

[14]  J. Weissman,et al.  Release of both native and non-native proteins from a cis-only GroEL ternary complex , 1996, Nature.

[15]  B. Derrida.  Random-energy model: An exactly solvable model of disordered systems , 1981 .

[16]  Neil A Ranson,et al.  The chaperonin folding machine. , 2002, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[17]  Daan Frenkel,et al.  Designing specificity of protein-substrate interactions. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[18]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  The role of cotranslation in protein folding: a lattice model study , 2004 .

[19]  S. Chen,et al.  ATP induces large quaternary rearrangements in a cage-like chaperonin structure , 1993, Current Biology.

[20]  D. Thirumalai,et al.  Pair potentials for protein folding: Choice of reference states and sensitivity of predicted native states to variations in the interaction schemes , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[21]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  Engineering of stable and fast-folding sequences of model proteins. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Jan Ellenberg,et al.  Nucleocytoplasmic transport: Diffusion channel or phase transition? , 2001, Current Biology.

[23]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation , 1985 .

[24]  Shoji Takada,et al.  How protein thermodynamics and folding mechanisms are altered by the chaperonin cage: Molecular simulations , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  J. Weissman,et al.  Characterization of the Active Intermediate of a GroEL–GroES-Mediated Protein Folding Reaction , 1996, Cell.

[26]  Daan Frenkel,et al.  Virtual-move parallel tempering. , 2005, Chemphyschem : a European journal of chemical physics and physical chemistry.

[27]  Jason C. Young,et al.  Pathways of chaperone-mediated protein folding in the cytosol , 2004, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[28]  A. Horwich,et al.  Structure and function in GroEL-mediated protein folding. , 1998, Annual review of biochemistry.

[29]  Dmitri K. Klimov,et al.  Caging helps proteins fold , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.