Protein sequence motif

Conserved sequence motifs in bacterial and bacteriophage chaperonins

Bacteriophage T4 produces a GroES analogue, gp31, which cooperates with the Escherichia coli GroEL to fold its major coat protein gp23. We have used cryo-electron microscopy and image processing to obtain three-dimensional structures of the E. coli chaperonin GroEL complexed with gp31, in the presence of both ATP and ADP. The GroEL–gp31–ADP map has a resolution of 8.2 Å, which allows accurate fitting of the GroEL and gp31 crystal structures. Comparison of this fitted structure with that of the GroEL–GroES–ADP structure previously determined by cryo-electron microscopy shows that the folding cage is expanded. The enlarged volume for folding is consistent with the size of the bacteriophage coat protein gp23, which is the major substrate of GroEL–gp31 chaperonin complex. At 56 kDa, gp23 is close to the maximum size limit of a polypeptide that is thought to fit inside the GroEL–GroES folding cage.

Bacteriophage T4-encoded Gp31 is a functional ortholog of the Escherichia coli GroES cochaperonin protein. Both of these proteins form transient, productive complexes with the GroEL chaperonin, required for protein folding and other related functions in the cell. However, Gp31 is specifically required, in conjunction with GroEL, for the correct folding of Gp23, the major capsid protein of T4. To better understand the interaction between GroEL and its cochaperonin cognates, we determined whether the so-called “pseudo-T-even bacteriophages” are dependent on host GroEL function and whether they also encode their own cochaperonin. Here, we report the isolation of an allele-specific mutation of bacteriophage RB49, called ε22, which permits growth on the E. coli groEL44 mutant but not on the isogenic wild type host. RB49 ε22 was used in marker rescue experiments to identify the corresponding wild type gene, which we have named cocO(cochaperonin cognate). CocO has extremely limited identity to GroES but is 34% identical and 55% similar at the protein sequence level to T4 Gp31, sharing all of the structural features of Gp31 that distinguish it from GroES. CocO can substitute for Gp31 in T4 growth and also suppresses the temperature-sensitive phenotype of the E. coli groES42 mutant. CocO's predicted mobile loop is one residue longer than that of Gp31, with the ε22 mutation resulting in a Q36R substitution in this extra residue. Both the CocO wild type and ε22 proteins have been purified and shownin vitro to assist GroEL in the refolding of denatured citrate synthase.

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 β-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 β-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.

Unlike the GroEL homologs of eubacteria and mitochondria, oligomer preparations of the higher plant chloroplast chaperonin 60 (cpn60) consist of roughly equal amounts of two divergent subunits, α and β. The functional significance of these isoforms, their structural organization into tetradecamers, and their interactions with the unique binary chloroplast chaperonin 10 (cpn10) have not been elucidated. Toward this goal, we have cloned the α and β subunits of the ch-cpn60 of pea (Pisum sativum), expressed them individually in Escherichia coli, and subjected the purified monomers to in vitro reconstitution experiments. In the absence of other factors, neither subunit (alone or in combination) spontaneously assembles into a higher order structure. However, in the presence of MgATP, the β subunits form tetradecamers in a cooperative reaction that is potentiated by cpn10. In contrast, α subunits only assemble in the presence of β subunits. Although β and α/β 14-mers are indistinguishable by electron microscopy and can both assist protein folding, their specificities for cpn10 are entirely different. Similar to the authentic chloroplast protein, the reconstituted α/β 14-mers are functionally compatible with bacterial, mitochondrial, and chloroplast cpn10. In contrast, the folding reaction mediated by the reconstituted β 14-mers is only efficient with mitochondrial cpn10. The ability to reconstitute two types of functional oligomer in vitro provides a unique tool, which will allow us to investigate the mechanism of this unusual chaperonin system.

Previous work has shown that the GroEL-GroES interaction is primarily mediated by the GroES mobile loop. In bacteriophage T4 infection, GroES is substituted by the gene31-encoded cochaperonin, Gp31. Using a genetic selection scheme, we have identified a new set of mutations in gene31 that affect interaction with GroEL; all mutations result in changes in the mobile loop of Gp31. Biochemical analyses reveal that the mobile loop mutations alter the affinity between Gp31 and GroEL, most likely by modulating the stability of the GroEL-bound hairpin conformation of the mobile loop. Surprisingly, mutations ingroEL that display allele-specific interactions with mutations in gene 31 alter residues in the GroEL intermediate domain, distantly located from the mobile loop binding site. The observed patterns of genetic and biochemical interaction between GroES or Gp31 and GroEL point to a mechanism of genetic allele specificity based on compensatory changes in affinity of the protein-protein interaction. Mutations studied in this work indirectly alter affinity by modulating a folding transition in the Gp31 mobile loop or by modulating a hinged conformational change in GroEL.