To become biologically active, most proteins need to fold into precise three dimensional
structures. It has been well established that all the folding information is contained
within the primary structure of a protein. However, the mechanisms utilized by proteins
to avoid sampling the extraordinarily large amount of possible conformations during
their folding process are just beginning to be understood. Molecular chaperones assist
the folding of newly synthesized and denatured proteins in acquiring their native state
in the crowded intracellular environment.
As a nascent chain leaves the ribosome, it is captured first by the upstream chaperones
and then possibly transferred to the downstream chaperonins. GroEL-GroES, the
Hsp-60 of E.coli, is one of the best studied chaperone systems. An appreciable amount
of data is available providing information regarding its structure and function. GroEL
encapsulates the substrate into the central cavity where folding occurs unimpaired by
aggregation and unwanted inter-molecular interactions. Nevertheless, many important
aspects of the GroEL mechanism remain to be addressed. Some of the open questions
we have addressed in this study include: In what conformation does a substrate protein
bind to the apical domains of GroEL; how is it that GroEL is able to accelerate the rate
of folding of certain proteins, and how do the conformational properties of the substrate
change as it undergoes repeated cycling.
By using ensemble FRET and Sp-FRET (Single Pair-Fluorescence Resonance Energy
Transfer), we have probed the conformation of the model substrate DM-MBP (Double
Mutant Maltose Binding Protein) during different stages of the functional cycle of
GroEL. With Sp-FRET coupled to PIE (Pulsed Interleaved Excitation), we have been
able to explore the heterogeneity of the GroEL bound substrate protein and observed a
bimodal conformational distribution. One of the two populations is as compact as the
native state, whereas the other is as extended as the unfolded protein in denaturant.
This unfolding is a local phenomena and can also be observed when the substrate is transferred from DnaK/J system (bacterial Hsp70) to GroEL, indicating the possibility
of the existence of this conformational heterogeneity in vivo as the protein follows the
cellular chaperone pathway.
Subsequent to GroEL binding, there is a transient expansion of the protein upon
binding of ATP to GroEL, followed by compaction when GroES triggers the encapsulation
of the protein inside the chaperonin cage. This transient expansion is however
found not to be a necessary event for the rate acceleration of DM-MBP folding, since
ADP-AlFx (transition state analogue of ATP hydrolysis) results in a much slower rate
of expansion, which does not cause a change in the folding rate.
Anisotropy measurements, probing the freedom of motion of different regions of the
GroEL bound protein, revealed that there is a segmental release of the substrate protein
from the GroEL surface upon binding of ATP and GroES. As a consequence, the
hydrophobic collapse of the protein upon encapsulation by GroES follows a step-wise
mechanism. In this process, less hydrophobic regions are released upon binding of ATP,
prior to more hydrophobic ones which are released only by GroES binding. Thus, the
order of Hydrophobic collapse is reversed as compared to spontaneous folding possibly
resulting in conformationally different folding intermediates.
Evidence that the folding pathway inside the cage differs from that of spontaneous
folding was obtained by observing the effect of external perturbations (e.g. mutations in
substrate protein and use of different solvent conditions) on the rate of spontaneous and
GroEL assisted folding reactions. These two folding reactions respond differently to the
introduced perturbations. Kinetic data obtained from ensemble FRET measurements
suggest that the conformation of refolding intermediate is altered by the GroEL cavity,
which leads to a fol