Analysis of peptides and proteins in their binding to GroEL

Abstract

The GroEL-GroES is an essential molecular chaperon system that assists protein folding in cell. Binding of various substrate proteins to GroEL is one of the key aspects in GroEL-assisted protein folding. Small peptides may mimic segments of the substrate proteins in contact with GroEL, and allow detailed structural analysis of the interactions. A model peptide SBP has been shown to bind to a region in GroEL that is important for binding of substrate proteins. Here, we investigated whether the observed GroEL-SBP interaction represented those of GroEL-substrate proteins, and whether SBP was able to mimic various aspects of substrate proteins in GroE-assisted protein folding cycle. We found that SBP competed with substrate proteins, including α-lactalbumin, rhodanese, and malate dehydrogenase, in binding to GroEL. SBP stimulated GroEL ATP hydrolysis rate in a manner similar to that of α-lactalbumin. SBP did not prevent GroES from binding to GroEL, and GroES association reduced the ATPase rates of GroEL/SBP and GroEL/α-lactalbumin to a comparable extent. Binding of both SBP and α-lactalbumin to apo GroEL was dominated by hydrophobic interaction. Interestingly, association of α-lactalbumin to GroEL/ GroES was thermodynamically distinct from that to GroEL with reduced affinity and decreased contribution from hydrophobic interaction. However, SBP did not display such differential binding behaviors to apo GroEL and GroEL/GroES, likely due to the lack of a contiguous polypeptide chain that links all of the bound peptide fragments. Nevertheless, studies using peptides provide valuable information on the nature of GroEL-substrate protein interaction, which is central to understand the mechanism of GroEL-assisted protein folding.

Applications of isothermal titration calorimetry in pure and applied research—survey of the literature from 2010

“…Review articles and methods papers Protein interactions with other proteins Protein interactions with small ligands (including co‐factors and drugs) …”

Role of Denatured-State Properties in Chaperonin Action Probed by Single-Molecule Spectroscopy

“…Indeed, previous experiments have even suggested the formation of rather specific structure in denatured Rho at 0.4 M GdmCl (27). CypA and Rho can therefore be considered representatives of two (49). In complex with SR1, the transfer efficiency histograms of all variants of CypA and Rho are broader than those of the free denatured proteins under physiological conditions (Fig.…”

Hepatitis B Virus Oncoprotein HBx Is Not an ATPase

“…The small mismatches in the activities between the different HBx fusions and the exact GroEL amount are not surprising and can be explained considering that GroEL activity is influenced by the presence/absence of GroES and client proteins, which, in this case, may be the different HBx fusions. 35 GroEL hydrolyzes dATP as efficiently as ATP and to a lesser extent GTP, showing that all nucleotides can also be processed by the chaperone. The dependence of the hydrolytic activity on the nature of the HBx construct and the consistent trend in nucleotide preference between GroEL and the different HBx samples ( Figure 3 C) provides convincing evidence that the chaperone, and not HBx, is responsible for the (d)NTP hydrolysis.…”