TY - JOUR
T1 - Elucidation of steps in the capture of a protein substrate for efficient encapsulation by GroE
AU - Cliff, Matthew J.
AU - Limpkin, Claire
AU - Cameron, Angus
AU - Burston, Steven G.
AU - Clarke, Anthony R.
PY - 2006/5/9
Y1 - 2006/5/9
N2 - We have identified five structural rearrangements in GroEL induced by the ordered binding of ATP and GroES. The first discernable rearrangement (designated T → R1) is a rapid, cooperative transition that appears not to be functionally communicated to the apical domain. In the second (R1 → R2) step, a state is formed that binds GroES weakly in a rapid, diffusion-limited process. However, a second optical signal, carried by a protein substrate bound to GroEL, responds neither to formation of the R2 state nor to the binding of GroES. This result strongly implies that the substrate protein remains bound to the inner walls of the initially formed GroEL·GroES cavity, and is not yet displaced from its sites of interaction with GroEL. In the next rearrangement (R2·GroES → R3·GroES) the strength of interaction between GroEL and GroES is greatly enhanced, and there is a large and coincident loss of fluorescence-signal intensity in the labeled protein substrate, indicating that there is either a displacement from its binding sites on GroEL or at least a significant change of environment. These results are consistent with a mechanism in which the shift in orientation of GroEL apical domains between that seen in the apo-protein and stable GroEL·GroES complexes is highly ordered, and transient conformational intermediates permit the association of GroES before the displacement of bound polypeptide. This ensures efficient encapsulation of the polypeptide within the GroEL central cavity underneath GroES.
AB - We have identified five structural rearrangements in GroEL induced by the ordered binding of ATP and GroES. The first discernable rearrangement (designated T → R1) is a rapid, cooperative transition that appears not to be functionally communicated to the apical domain. In the second (R1 → R2) step, a state is formed that binds GroES weakly in a rapid, diffusion-limited process. However, a second optical signal, carried by a protein substrate bound to GroEL, responds neither to formation of the R2 state nor to the binding of GroES. This result strongly implies that the substrate protein remains bound to the inner walls of the initially formed GroEL·GroES cavity, and is not yet displaced from its sites of interaction with GroEL. In the next rearrangement (R2·GroES → R3·GroES) the strength of interaction between GroEL and GroES is greatly enhanced, and there is a large and coincident loss of fluorescence-signal intensity in the labeled protein substrate, indicating that there is either a displacement from its binding sites on GroEL or at least a significant change of environment. These results are consistent with a mechanism in which the shift in orientation of GroEL apical domains between that seen in the apo-protein and stable GroEL·GroES complexes is highly ordered, and transient conformational intermediates permit the association of GroES before the displacement of bound polypeptide. This ensures efficient encapsulation of the polypeptide within the GroEL central cavity underneath GroES.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33746357595&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1074/jbc.M601605200
DO - 10.1074/jbc.M601605200
M3 - Article
C2 - 16684774
AN - SCOPUS:33746357595
SN - 0021-9258
VL - 281
SP - 21266
EP - 21275
JO - Journal of Biological Chemistry
JF - Journal of Biological Chemistry
IS - 30
ER -