Binding, encapsulation and ejection: substrate dynamics during a chaperonin-assisted folding reaction.

Mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase (mMDH) folds more rapidly in the presence of GroEL, GroES and ATP than it does unassisted. The increase in folding rate as a function of the concentration of GroEL-ES reaches a maximum at a stoichiometry which is approximately equimolar (mMDH subunits:GroEL oligomer) and with an apparent dissociation constant K' for the GroE acceptor state of at least 1 x 10(-8) M. However, even at chaperonin concentrations which are 4000 x K', i.e. at negligible concentrations of free mMDH, the observed folding rate of the substrate remains at its optimum, showing not only that folding occurs in the chaperonin-mMDH complex but also that this rate is uninhibited by any interactions with sites on GroEL. Despite the ability of mMDH to fold on the chaperonin, trapping experiments show that its dwell time on the complex is only 20 seconds. This correlates with both the rate of ATP turnover and the dwell time of GroES on the complex and is only approximately 5% of the time taken for the substrate to commit to the folded state. The results imply that ATP drives the chaperonin complex through a cycle of three functional states: (1) an acceptor complex in which the unfolded substrate is bound tightly; (2) an encapsulation state in which it is sequestered but direct protein-protein contact is lost so that folding can proceed unhindered; and (3) an ejector state which forces dissociation of the substrate whether folded or not.

[1]  Helen R Saibil,et al.  The Chaperonin ATPase Cycle: Mechanism of Allosteric Switching and Movements of Substrate-Binding Domains in GroEL , 1996, Cell.

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

[3]  F. Hartl.  Molecular chaperones in cellular protein folding , 1996, Nature.

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

[5]  A. Fersht,et al.  Catalysis of Amide Proton Exchange by the Molecular Chaperones GroEL and SecB , 1996, Science.

[6]  F. Hartl,et al.  Protein folding in the central cavity of the GroEL–GroES chaperonin complex , 1996, Nature.

[7]  J. Deisenhofer,et al.  The crystal structure of the GroES co-chaperonin at 2.8 Å resolution , 1996, Nature.

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

[9]  T. Hunter,et al.  When is a lipid kinase not a lipid kinase? When it is a protein kinase , 1995, Cell.

[10]  M. Fisher,et al.  Interactions between the GroE Chaperonins and Rhodanese , 1995, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[11]  A. Clarke,et al.  Chaperonins can catalyse the reversal of early aggregation steps when a protein misfolds. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  A. Clarke,et al.  The origins and consequences of asymmetry in the chaperonin reaction cycle. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[13]  H. Taguchi,et al.  Chaperonin releases the substrate protein in a form with tendency to aggregate and ability to rebind to chaperonin , 1995, FEBS letters.

[14]  Zbyszek Otwinowski,et al.  The crystal structure of the bacterial chaperonln GroEL at 2.8 Å , 1994, Nature.

[15]  Neil A. Ranson,et al.  Location of a folding protein and shape changes in GroEL–GroES complexes imaged by cryo-electron microscopy , 1994, Nature.

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

[17]  G. Lorimer,et al.  Dynamics of the chaperonin ATPase cycle: implications for facilitated protein folding. , 1994, Science.

[18]  T. Atkinson,et al.  The stability and hydrophobicity of cytosolic and mitochondrial malate dehydrogenases and their relation to chaperonin‐assisted folding , 1994, FEBS letters.

[19]  A. Fersht,et al.  Refolding of barnase in the presence of GroE. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  K. Braig,et al.  A polypeptide bound by the chaperonin groEL is localized within a central cavity. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  W. Fenton,et al.  GroEL, GroES, and ATP-dependent folding and spontaneous assembly of ornithine transcarbamylase. , 1993, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[22]  T. Atkinson,et al.  Binding and hydrolysis of nucleotides in the chaperonin catalytic cycle: implications for the mechanism of assisted protein folding. , 1993, Biochemistry.

[23]  P. Horowitz,et al.  Sulfhydryl modification ofE. coli cpn60 leads to loss of its ability to support refolding of rhodanese but not to form a binary complex , 1992, Journal of protein chemistry.

[24]  M. Fisher.  Promotion of the in vitro renaturation of dodecameric glutamine synthetase from Escherichia coli in the presence of GroEL (chaperonin-60) and ATP. , 1992, Biochemistry.

[25]  J. Holbrook,et al.  Binding of a chaperonin to the folding intermediates of lactate dehydrogenase. , 1991, Biochemistry.

[26]  F. Hartl,et al.  Chaperonin-mediated protein folding at the surface of groEL through a 'molten globule'-like intermediate , 1991, Nature.

[27]  G. Lorimer,et al.  Reconstitution of active dimeric ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase from an unfolded state depends on two chaperonin proteins and Mg-ATP , 1989, Nature.

[28]  R. Jaenicke,et al.  Quaternary structure, subunit activity, and in vitro association of porcine mitochondrial malic dehydrogenase. , 1979, Biochemistry.