Low folding propensity and high translation efficiency distinguish in vivo substrates of GroEL from other Escherichia coli proteins

MOTIVATION Theoretical considerations have indicated that the amount of chaperonin GroEL in Escherichia coli cells is sufficient to fold only approximately 2-5% of newly synthesized proteins under normal physiological conditions, thereby suggesting that only a subset of E.coli proteins fold in vivo in a GroEL-dependent manner. Recently, members of this subset were identified in two independent studies that resulted in two partially overlapping lists of GroEL-interacting proteins. The objective of the work described here was to identify sequence-based features of GroEL-interacting proteins that distinguish them from other E.coli proteins and that may account for their dependence on the chaperonin system. RESULTS Our analysis shows that GroEL-interacting proteins have, on average, low folding propensities and high translation efficiencies. These two properties in combination can increase the risk of aggregation of these proteins and, thus, cause their folding to be chaperonin-dependent. Strikingly, we find that these properties are absent in proteins homologous to the E.coli GroEL-interacting proteins in Ureaplasma urealyticum, an organism that lacks a chaperonin system, thereby confirming our conclusions.

[1]  Michele Vendruscolo,et al.  Life on the edge: a link between gene expression levels and aggregation rates of human proteins. , 2007, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[2]  John R Yates,et al.  Global aggregation of newly translated proteins in an Escherichia coli strain deficient of the chaperonin GroEL , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  E. Myers,et al.  Basic local alignment search tool. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  G. Farr,et al.  Two families of chaperonin: physiology and mechanism. , 2007, Annual review of cell and developmental biology.

[5]  Monica Riley,et al.  Escherichia coli K-12: a cooperatively developed annotation snapshot—2005 , 2006, Nucleic acids research.

[6]  Lorenz Wernisch,et al.  Unexpected correlations between gene expression and codon usage bias from microarray data for the whole Escherichia coli K-12 genome. , 2003, Nucleic Acids Research.

[7]  S. Eddy,et al.  tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. , 1997, Nucleic acids research.

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

[9]  G. Lorimer,et al.  A quantitative assessment of the role of the chaperonin proteins in protein folding in vivo , 1996, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[10]  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.

[11]  Walid A Houry,et al.  In Vivo Observation of Polypeptide Flux through the Bacterial Chaperonin System , 1997, Cell.

[12]  V. Uversky,et al.  Why are “natively unfolded” proteins unstructured under physiologic conditions? , 2000, Proteins.

[13]  T. Ikemura.  Correlation between the abundance of Escherichia coli transfer RNAs and the occurrence of the respective codons in its protein genes. , 1981, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  J. Glass,et al.  Quorum-sensing signals indicate that cystic fibrosis lungs are infected with bacterial biofilms , 2022 .

[15]  L. Wernisch,et al.  Solving the riddle of codon usage preferences: a test for translational selection. , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[16]  H. Taguchi,et al.  GroEL Binds Artificial Proteins with Random Sequences* , 2000, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[17]  D. Baker,et al.  Contact order, transition state placement and the refolding rates of single domain proteins. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[18]  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.

[19]  Jaime Prilusky,et al.  FoldIndex copyright: a simple tool to predict whether a given protein sequence is intrinsically unfolded , 2005, Bioinform..

[20]  Dmitrij Frishman,et al.  PEDANTic genome analysis , 1997 .

[21]  D. Thirumalai,et al.  Identifying natural substrates for chaperonins using a sequence‐based approach , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[22]  J. Beckmann,et al.  FoldIndex: a simple tool to predict whether a given protein sequence is intrinsically unfolded. , 2005, Bioinformatics.

[23]  Amnon Horovitz,et al.  Allosteric regulation of chaperonins. , 2005, Current opinion in structural biology.

[24]  Yitzhak Pilpel,et al.  Differential translation efficiency of orthologous genes is involved in phenotypic divergence of yeast species , 2007, Nature Genetics.

[25]  C. Georgopoulos,et al.  The groES and groEL heat shock gene products of Escherichia coli are essential for bacterial growth at all temperatures , 1989, Journal of bacteriology.

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

[27]  Prateek Gupta,et al.  Factors governing the substrate recognition by GroEL chaperone: a sequence correlation approach , 2005, Cell stress & chaperones.

[28]  T. Ikemura.  Correlation between the abundance of Escherichia coli transfer RNAs and the occurrence of the respective codons in its protein genes: a proposal for a synonymous codon choice that is optimal for the E. coli translational system. , 1981, Journal of molecular biology.