Small heat shock proteins (sHsps) are an evolutionary conserved class of ATP-independent chaperones that protect cells against proteotoxic stress. sHsps form assemblies with aggregation-prone misfolded proteins, which facilitates subsequent substrate solubilization and refolding by ATP-dependent Hsp70 and Hsp100 chaperones. Substrate solubilization requires disruption of sHsp association with trapped misfolded proteins. Here, we unravel a specific interplay between Hsp70 and sHsps at the initial step of the solubilization process. We show that Hsp70 displaces surface-bound sHsps from sHsp-substrate assemblies. This Hsp70 activity is unique among chaperones and highly sensitive to alterations in Hsp70 concentrations. The Hsp70 activity is reflected in the organization of sHsp-substrate assemblies, including an outer dynamic sHsp shell that is removed by Hsp70 and a stable core comprised mainly of aggregated substrates. Binding of Hsp70 to the sHsp/substrate core protects the core from aggregation and directs sequestered substrates towards refolding pathway. The sHsp/Hsp70 interplay has major impact on protein homeostasis as it sensitizes substrate release towards cellular Hsp70 availability ensuring efficient refolding of damaged proteins under favourable folding conditions.

Small heat shock proteins (sHsps) are a conserved class of ATP-independent chaperones that bind to aggregation-prone polypeptides at stress conditions. sHsps encage these polypeptides in assemblies, shielding them from further aggregation. To facilitate their subsequent solubilization and refolding by Hsp70 (DnaK) and Hsp100 (ClpB) chaperones, first, sHsps need to dissociate from the assemblies. In most γ-proteobacteria, these functions are fulfilled by a single sHsp (IbpA), but in a subset of Enterobacterales, a two-protein sHsp (IbpA and IbpB) system has evolved. To gain insight into the emergence of complexity within this chaperone system, we reconstructed the phylogeny of γ-proteobacteria and their sHsps. We selected proteins representative of systems comprising either one or two sHsps and analysed their ability to form sHsps-substrate assemblies. All the tested IbpA proteins, but not IbpBs, stably interact with an aggregating substrate. Moreover, in Escherichia coli cells, ibpA but not ibpB suppress the growth defect associated with low DnaK level, which points to the major protective role of IbpA during the breakdown of protein quality control. We also examined how sHsps affect the association of Hsp70 with the assemblies at the initial phase of disaggregation and how they affect protein recovery after stress. Our results suggest that a single gene duplication event has given rise to the sHsp system consisting of a strong canonical binder, IbpA, and its non-canonical paralog IbpB that enhances sHsps dissociation from the assemblies. The cooperation between the sHsps reduces the demand for Hsp70 needed to outcompete them from the assemblies by promoting sHsps dissociation without compromising assembly formation at heat shock. This potentially increases the robustness and elasticity of sHsps protection against irreversible aggregation.

Protein homeostasis is constantly being challenged with protein misfolding that leads to aggregation. Hsp70 is one of the versatile chaperones that interact with misfolded proteins and actively support their folding. Multifunctional Hsp70s are harnessed to specific roles by J-domain proteins (JDPs, also known as Hsp40s). Interaction with the J-domain of these cochaperones stimulates ATP hydrolysis in Hsp70, which stabilizes substrate binding. In eukaryotes, two classes of JDPs, Class A and Class B, engage Hsp70 in the reactivation of aggregated proteins. In most species, excluding metazoans, protein recovery also relies on an Hsp100 disaggregase. Although intensely studied, many mechanistic details of how the two JDP classes regulate protein disaggregation are still unknown. Here, we explore functional differences between the yeast Class A (Ydj1) and Class B (Sis1) JDPs at the individual stages of protein disaggregation. With real-time biochemical tools, we show that Ydj1 alone is superior to Sis1 in aggregate binding, yet it is Sis1 that recruits more Ssa1 molecules to the substrate. This advantage of Sis1 depends on its ability to bind to the EEVD motif of Hsp70, a quality specific to most of Class B JDPs. This second interaction also conditions the Hsp70-induced aggregate modification that boosts its subsequent dissolution by the Hsp104 disaggregase. Our results suggest that the Sis1-mediated chaperone assembly at the aggregate surface potentiates the entropic pulling, driven polypeptide disentanglement, while Ydj1 binding favors the refolding of the solubilized proteins. Such subspecialization of the JDPs across protein reactivation improves the robustness and efficiency of the disaggregation machinery.

No abstract

Small heat shock proteins (sHsps) are an evolutionarily conserved class of ATP-independent chaperones that form the first line of defence during proteotoxic stress. sHsps are defined not only by their relatively low molecular weight, but also by the presence of a conserved α-crystallin domain, which is flanked by less conserved, mostly unstructured, N- and C-terminal domains. sHsps form oligomers of different sizes which deoligomerize upon stress conditions into smaller active forms. Activated sHsps bind to aggregation-prone protein substrates to form assemblies that keep substrates from irreversible aggregation. Formation of these assemblies facilitates subsequent Hsp70 and Hsp100 chaperone-dependent disaggregation and substrate refolding into native species. This mini review discusses what is known about the role and place of bacterial sHsps in the chaperone network.

No abstract

Small heat shock proteins (sHSPs) are widespread in every kingdom of life, being indispensable for protein quality control networks. Alongside canonical chaperone functions, sHSPs seem to have been a very plastic scaffold for acquiring multiple related functions across evolution. This review aims to summarize what is known about sHSPs functioning in the Bacteria Kingdom.

Background Ageing is a complex phenomenon that leads to decreased proliferative activity, loss of function of the cells, and cellular senescence. Senescence of the immune system exacerbates individual’s immune response, both humoral and cellular but increases the frequency of infections. We hypothesized that physiological ageing of adaptive immune system occurs in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cells transplant (allo-HCT) at faster rate when compared to their respective donors since the small number of donor cells undergo immense proliferative stress restoring recipients hematopoiesis. We compared molecular characterizations of ageing between recipients and donors of allo-HCT: telomeric length and immunophenotypic changes in main lymphocyte subsets – CD4+, CD8+, CD19+, CD56+. Results Median telomeric length (TL) of CD8+ lymphocytes was significantly longer in donors compared to recipients (on average 2,1 kb and 1,7 kb respectively, p = 0,02). Similar trends were observed for CD4+ and CD19+ although the results did not reach statistical significance. We have also found trends in the immunophenotype between recipients and donors in the subpopulations of CD4+ (naïve and effector memory), CD8+ Eomes+ and B-lymphocytes (B1 and B2). Lower infection risk recipients had also a significantly greater percentage of NK cells (22,3%) than high-risk patients (9,3%) p = 0,04. Conclusion Our data do not support the initial hypothesis of accelerated aging in the long term all-HCT recipients with the exception of the recipients lymphocytes (mainly CD8+) which present some molecular features, characteristic for physiological ageing (telomeric shortening, immunophenotype) when compared to their respective donors. However, a history of lower infection numbers in HCT recipients seems to be associated with increased percentage of NK cells. The history of GVHD seems not to affect the rate of ageing. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the observed subtle differences between recipients’ and donors’ cells result mainly from the proliferative stress in the early period after allo-HCT and the difference between hosts’ and recipients’ microenvironments.