1 March 2005 Factors governing the substrate recognition by GroEL chaperone: a sequence correlation approach
Tapan K. Chaudhuri, Prateek Gupta
Author Affiliations +

The chaperonin GroEL binds to a large number of polypeptides, prevents their self-association, and mediates appropriate folding in a GroES and adenosine triphosphate–dependent manner. But how the GroEL molecule actually recognizes the polypeptide and what are the exact GroEL recognition sites in the substrates are still poorly understood. We have examined more than 50 in vivo substrates as well as well-characterized in vitro substrates, for their binding characteristics with GroEL. While addressing the issue, we have been driven by the basic concept that GroES, being the cochaperonin of GroEL, is the best-suited substrate for GroEL, as well as by the fact that polypeptide substrate and GroES occupy the same binding sites on the GroEL apical domain. GroES interacts with GroEL through selective hydrophobic residues present on its mobile loop region, and we have considered the group of residues on the GroES mobile loop as the key element in choosing a substrate for GroEL. Considering the hydrophobic region on the GroES mobile loop as the standard, we have attempted to identify the homologous region on the peptide sequences in the proteins of our interest. Polypeptides have been judged as potential GroEL substrates on the basis of the presence of the GroES mobile loop–like hydrophobic segments in their amino acid sequences. We have observed 1 or more GroES mobile loop–like hydrophobic patches in the peptide sequence of some of the proteins of our interest, and the hydropathy index of most of these patches also seems to be approximately close to that of the standard. It has been proposed that the presence of hydrophobic patches having substantial degree of hydropathy index as compared with the standard segment is a necessary condition for a peptide sequence to be recognized by GroEL molecules. We also observed that the overall hydrophobicity is also close to 30% in these substrates, although this is not the sufficient criterion for a polypeptide to be assigned as a substrate for GroEL. We found that the binding of aconitase, α-lactalbumin, and murine dihydrofolate reductase to GroEL falls in line with our present model and have also predicted the exact regions of their binding to GroEL. On the basis of our GroEL substrate prediction, we have presented a model for the binding of apo form of some proteins to GroEL and the eventual formation of the holo form. Our observation also reveals that in most of the cases, the GroES mobile loop–like hydrophobic patch is present in the unstructured region of the protein molecule, specifically in the loop or β-sheeted region. The outcome of our study would be an essential feature in identifying a potential substrate for GroEL on the basis of the presence of 1 or more GroES mobile loop–like hydrophobic segments in the amino acid sequence of those polypeptides and their location in three-dimensional space.

Tapan K. Chaudhuri and Prateek Gupta "Factors governing the substrate recognition by GroEL chaperone: a sequence correlation approach," Cell Stress & Chaperones 10(1), 24-36, (1 March 2005). https://doi.org/10.1379/CSC-64R1.1
Received: 18 June 2004; Accepted: 1 August 2004; Published: 1 March 2005

This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.

Get copyright permission
Back to Top