The 26S proteasome is the macromolecular machine responsible for the bulk of protein degradation in eukaryotic cells. As it degrades a ubiquitinated protein, the proteasome transitions from a substrate-accepting conformation (s1) to a set of substrate-processing conformations (s3 like), each stabilized by different intramolecular contacts. Tools to study these conformational changes remain limited, and although several interactions have been proposed to be important for stabilizing the proteasome’s various conformations, it has been difficult to test these directly under equilibrium conditions. Here, we describe a conformationally sensitive Förster resonance energy transfer assay, in which fluorescent proteins are fused to Sem1 and Rpn6, which are nearer each other in substrate-processing conformations than in the substrate-accepting conformation. Using this assay, we find that two sets of interactions, one involving Rpn5 and another involving Rpn2, are both important for stabilizing substrate-processing conformations. Mutations that disrupt these interactions both destabilize substrate-processing conformations relative to the substrate-accepting conformation and diminish the proteasome’s ability to successfully unfold and degrade hard-to-unfold substrates, providing a link between the proteasome’s conformational state and its unfolding ability.

The ubiquitin–proteasome system is responsible for the bulk of protein degradation in eukaryotic cells. Proteins are generally targeted to the 26S proteasome through the attachment of polyubiquitin chains. Several proteins also contain ubiquitin-independent degrons (UbIDs) that allow for proteasomal targeting without the need for ubiquitination. Our laboratory previously showed that UbID substrates are less processively degraded than ubiquitinated substrates, but the mechanism underlying this difference remains unclear. We therefore designed two model substrates containing both a ubiquitination site and a UbID for a more direct comparison. We found UbID degradation to be overall less robust, with complete degradation only occurring with loosely folded substrates. UbID degradation was unaffected by the nonhydrolyzable ATP analog ATPγS, indicating that UbID degradation proceeds in an ATP-independent manner. Stabilizing substrates halted UbID degradation, indicating that the proteasome can only capture UbID substrates if they are already at least transiently unfolded, as confirmed using native-state proteolysis. The 26S proteasome therefore switches between ATP-independent weak degradation and ATP-dependent robust unfolding and degradation depending on whether or not the substrate is ubiquitinated.

The Ubiquitin‐Proteasome System is responsible for the bulk of protein degradation in eukaryotic cells. Proteins are generally targeted to the 26S proteasome by the attachment of polyubiquitin chains. A number of proteins also contain ubiquitin‐independent degrons (UbID) that allow for proteasomal targeting without the need for ubiquitination. UbID substrates are degraded less processively than ubiquitinated substrates, but the mechanism underlying this difference remains unclear. We therefore designed two model substrates containing both a ubiquitination site and a UbID for a more direct comparison. We found UbID degradation to be overall less robust with complete degradation only occurring with relatively unstable substrates (those that were at least transiently unfolded as determined by protease sensitivity). Surprisingly, UbID degradation was unaffected by the non‐hydrolyzable ATP analog ATPγS, which halts ATP‐dependent engagement and translocation of substrates. Furthermore, ubiquitin‐dependent degradation proceeded in a strikingly similar fashion to UbID degradation in the presence of ATPγS, suggesting the 26S proteasome may have a “default” ATP‐ and ubiquitin‐independent mechanism that is capable of unfolding and degrading less‐stable proteins.