Chaperonins assist the folding of other proteins. Type II chaperonins, such as chaperonin containing TCP-1(CCT), are found in archaea and in the eukaryotic cytosol. They are hexadecameric or nonadecameric oligomers composed of one to eight different polypeptides. Whereas type I chaperonins like GroEL are promiscuous, assisting in the folding of many other proteins, only a small number of proteins, mainly actin and tubulin, have been described as natural substrates of CCT. This specificity may be related to the divergence of the eight CCT subunits. Here we have obtained a three-dimensional reconstruction of the complex between CCT and alpha-actin by cryo-electron microscopy and image processing. This shows that alpha-actin interacts with the apical domains of either of two CCT subunits. Immunolabelling of CCT-substrate complexes with antibodies against two specific CCT subunits showed that actin binds to CCT using two specific and distinct interactions: the small domain of actin binds to CCTdelta and the large domain to CCTbeta or CCTepsilon (both in position 1,4 with respect to delta). These results indicate that the binding of actin to CCT is both subunit-specific and geometry-dependent. Thus, the substrate recognition mechanism of eukaryotic CCT may differ from that of prokaryotic GroEL.

Three-dimensional reconstruction from cryoelectron micrographs of the eukaryotic cytosolic chaperonin CCT complexed to tubulin shows that CCT interacts with tubulin (both the a and b isoforms) using ®ve speci®c CCT subunits. The CCT±tubulin interaction has a different geometry to the CCT±actin interaction, and a mixture of shared and unique CCT subunits is used in binding the two substrates. Docking of the atomic structures of both actin and tubulin to their CCT-bound conformation suggests a common mode of chaperonin±substrate interaction. CCT stabilizes quasi-native structures in both proteins that are open through their domain-connecting hinge regions, suggesting a novel mechanism and function of CCT in assisted protein folding. Keywords: actin/chaperonin/electron microscopy/protein folding/tubulin IntroductionFolding of many proteins in vivo requires interaction with macromolecular complexes known as chaperonins. These proteins are ubiquitous oligomeric assemblies that have been classi®ed into two distinct families that share limited but signi®cant sequence homology: type I, present in eubacteria and endosymbiotic organelles, and of which the bacterial GroEL is the best known representative; and type II, present in archaebacteria and the eukaryotic cytosol, which are represented by the thermosome and CCT (chaperonin containing TCP-1), respectively (Bukau and Horwich, 1998;Gutsche et al., 1999;Willison, 1999). Most of the chaperonins share a common architecture, a cylinder made up of two back-to-back stacked rings, each one enclosing a cavity where folding takes place. The atomic structures of GroEL (Braig et al., 1994) and the type II thermosome (Ditzel et al., 1998) have revealed a common subunit architecture consisting of three domains: apical, intermediate and equatorial. The equatorial domain provides most of the intra-and inter-ring interactions and contains the binding site for ATP, the hydrolysis of which is necessary for the working cycle of the chaperonin, while the apical domain is involved in substrate binding and undergoes large conformational changes during the folding cycle. There are, however, numerous differences between type I and type II chaperonins, one of which is the absence of co-chaperonins for type II family members, whose role in the closure of the cavity during the chaperonin working cycle is ful®lled instead by a helical protrusion in the apical domain (Klumpp et al., 1997;Ditzel et al., 1998;Llorca et al., 1999a). Another important difference is related to the degree of complexity of the chaperonin ring, ranging from the seven identical subunits of type I chaperonin GroEL to eight different polypeptide subunits in the case of the type II chaperonin CCT. The most important difference between these two chaperonins is, however, related to their substrate speci®city: whereas GroEL interacts with a broad range of substrates (Houry et al., 1999) using a non-speci®c recognition mechanism based on hydrophobic interactions (Bukau and Horwich, 1998;Chen and Sigler, 1999;Shtilerman et al., 19...

No abstract

The murine t-complex encodes t-complex polypeptide-1 (TCP1), which is constitutively expressed in almost all cells, and upregulated during spermatogenesis. Mammalian sequences have greater than 96% identity with each other, and greater than 60% identity with Drosophila melanogaster and yeast orthologues. TCP1 is essential in yeast, and is postulated to be the cytosolic mammalian equivalent of groEL. We report here that, in the native state, murine and human TCP1 is distributed throughout the cytosol as an 800K-950K hetero-oligomeric particle in association with four to six unidentified proteins and two Hsp70 heat-shock proteins. Negative-stain electron microscopy indicates that the structure is two stacked rings, 12-16 nm in diameter. Therefore, despite similarities with the chaperonin 60 proteins, these data indicate that TCP1 is biochemically and structurally unique. We suggest that TCP1 may represent one of a family of molecules in the eukaryotic cytosol involved in protein folding and regulated in part by their heteromeric associations.

Many proteins in the cell require assistance from molecular chaperones at stages in their life cycles in order to attain correctly folded states and functional conformations during protein synthesis or during recovery from denatured states. A recently discovered molecular chaperone, which is abundant in the eukaryotic cytosol and is called the chaperonin containing TCP‐1 (CCT), has been shown to assist the folding of some proteins in cytosol. This chaperone is a member of the chaperonin family which includes GroEL, 60‐kDa heat shock protein (Hsp60), Rubisco subunit binding protein (RBP) and thermophilic factor 55 (TF55), but is distinct from the other members in several respects. Presently the most intriguing feature is the hetero‐oligomeric nature of the CCT; at least eight subunit species which are encoded by independent and highly diverged genes are known. These genes are calculated to have diverged around the starting point of the eukaryotic lineage and they are maintained in all eukaryotes investigated, suggesting a specific function for each subunit species. The amino acid sequences of these subunits share approximately 30% identity and have some highly conserved motifs probably responsible for ATPase function, suggesting this function is common to all subunits. Thus, each subunit is thought to have both specific and common functions. These observations, in conjunction with biochemical and genetic analysis, suggest that CCT functions as a very complex machinery for protein folding in the eukaryotic cell and that its chaperone activity may be essential for the folding and assembly of various newly synthesized polypeptides. This complex behaviour of CCT may have evolved to cope with the folding and assembly of certain highly evolved proteins in eukaryotic cells.