The versatile mutational “repertoire” of Escherichia coli GroEL, a multidomain chaperonin nanomachine
- 148 Downloads
The bacterial chaperonins are highly sophisticated molecular nanomachines, controlled by the hydrolysis of ATP to dynamically trap and remove from the environment unstable protein molecules that are susceptible to denaturation and aggregation. Chaperonins also act to assist in the refolding of these unstable proteins, providing a means by which these proteins may return in active form to the complex environment of the cell. The Escherichia coli GroE chaperonin system is one of the largest protein supramolecular complexes known, whose quaternary structure is required for segregating aggregation-prone proteins. Over the course of more than two decades of research on GroE, it has become accepted that GroE, more specifically the GroEL subunit, is a “high-tolerance” molecular system, capable of accommodating numerous mutations, while retaining its molecular integrity. In some cases, a given site of mutation was revealed to be absolutely required for GroEL function, providing hints regarding the network of signals and triggers that propel this unique system. In other instances, however, a mutation has produced a more delicate response, altering only part of, or in some cases, only a single facet of, the molecular mechanism, and these mutants have often provided invaluable hints on the extent of the complexity underlying chaperonin-assisted protein folding. In this review, we highlight some examples of the latter type of GroEL mutants which compose the unique “mutational repertoire” of GroEL and touch upon the important clues that each mutant provided to the overall effort to elucidate the details of GroE action.
KeywordsChaperonin GroEL Molecular nanomachine Versatile mutation
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Tomohiro Mizobata declares that he has no conflict of interest. Yasushi Kawata declares that he has no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Clare DK, Vasishtan D, Stagg S, Quispe J, Farr GW, Topf M, Horwich AL, Saibil HR (2012) ATP-triggered conformational changes delineate substrate-binding and -folding mechanics of the GroEL chaperonin. Cell 149:113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.047 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Fukui N, Araki K, Hongo K, Mizobata T, Kawata Y (2016) Modulating the effects of the bacterial chaperonin GroEL on fibrillogenic polypeptides through modification of domain hinge architecture. J Biol Chem 291:25217–25226. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M116.751925 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Kim YE, Hipp MS, Bracher A, Hayer-Hartl M, Hartl FU (2013) Molecular chaperone functions in protein folding and proteostasis. Annu Rev Biochem 82:323–355. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-060208-092442 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Machida K, Fujiwara R, Tanaka T, Sakane I, Hongo K, Mizobata T, Kawata Y (2009) Gly192 at hinge 2 site in the chaperonin GroEL plays a pivotal role in the dynamic apical domain movement that leads to GroES binding and efficient encapsulation of substrate proteins. Biochim Biophys Acta 1794:1344–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2008.12.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Weissman JS, Hohl CM, Kovalenko O, Kashi Y, Chen S, Braig K, Saibil HR, Fenton WA, Horwich AL (1995) Mechanism of GroEL action: productive release of polypeptide from a sequestered position under GroES. Cell 83:577–587Google Scholar