Structural changes in GroEL effected by binding a denatured protein substrate

In the absence of nucleotides or cofactors, the Escherichia coli chaperonin GroEL binds select proteins in non-native conformations, such as denatured glutamine synthetase (GS) monomers, preventing their aggregation and spontaneous renaturation. The nature of the GroEL-GS complexes thus formed, spec...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of molecular biology 2001-05, Vol.308 (4), p.569-577
Main Authors: Falke, S, Fisher, M T, Gogol, E P
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Chaperonin 60 - chemistry
Chaperonin 60 - metabolism
Chaperonin 60 - ultrastructure
Cryoelectron Microscopy
Escherichia coli
Escherichia coli - chemistry
Escherichia coli - enzymology
Glutamate-Ammonia Ligase - chemistry
Glutamate-Ammonia Ligase - metabolism
Glutamate-Ammonia Ligase - ultrastructure
Models, Molecular
Protein Binding
Protein Conformation
Protein Denaturation
Protein Folding
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In the absence of nucleotides or cofactors, the Escherichia coli chaperonin GroEL binds select proteins in non-native conformations, such as denatured glutamine synthetase (GS) monomers, preventing their aggregation and spontaneous renaturation. The nature of the GroEL-GS complexes thus formed, specifically the effect on the conformation of the GroEL tetradecamer, has been examined by electron microscopy. We find that specimens of GroEL-GS are visibly heterogeneous, due to incomplete loading of GroEL with GS. Images contain particles indistinguishable from GroEL alone, and also those with consistent identifiable differences. Side-views of the modified particles reveal additional protein density at one end of the GroEL-GS complex, and end-views display chirality in the heptameric projection not seen in the unliganded GroEL. The coordinate appearance of these two projection differences suggests that binding of GS, as representative of a class of protein substrates, induces or stabilizes a conformation of GroEL that differs from the unliganded chaperonin. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the GroEL-GS complex reveals the location of the bound protein substrate, as well as complex conformational changes in GroEL itself, both cis and trans with respect to the bound GS. The most apparent structural alterations are inward movements of the apical domains of both GroEL heptamers, protrusion of the substrate protein from the cavity of the cis ring, and a narrowing of the unoccupied opening of the trans ring.
ISSN:0022-2836
DOI:10.1006/jmbi.2001.4613