Skip to main content
PMC home page
Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society logoLink to Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society
. 2000 Mar;9(3):476–486. doi: 10.1110/ps.9.3.476

Conservation among HSP60 sequences in relation to structure, function, and evolution.

L Brocchieri 1, S Karlin 1
PMCID: PMC2144576  PMID: 10752609

Abstract

The chaperonin HSP60 (GroEL) proteins are essential in eubacterial genomes and in eukaryotic organelles. Functional regions inferred from mutation studies and the Escherichia coli GroEL 3D crystal complexes are evaluated in a multiple alignment across 43 diverse HSP60 sequences, centering on ATP/ADP and Mg2+ binding sites, on residues interacting with substrate, on GroES contact positions, on interface regions between monomers and domains, and on residues important in allosteric conformational changes. The most evolutionary conserved residues relate to the ATP/ADP and Mg2+ binding sites. Hydrophobic residues that contribute in substrate binding are also significantly conserved. A large number of charged residues line the central cavity of the GroEL-GroES complex in the substrate-releasing conformation. These span statistically significant intra- and inter-monomer three-dimensional (3D) charge clusters that are highly conserved among sequences and presumably play an important role interacting with the substrate. Unaligned short segments between blocks of alignment are generally exposed at the outside wall of the Anfinsen cage complex. The multiple alignment reveals regions of divergence common to specific evolutionary groups. For example, rickettsial sequences diverge in the ATP/ADP binding domain and gram-positive sequences diverge in the allosteric transition domain. The evolutionary information of the multiple alignment proffers attractive sites for mutational studies.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (2.1 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Aharoni A., Horovitz A. Detection of changes in pairwise interactions during allosteric transitions: coupling between local and global conformational changes in GroEL. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Mar 4;94(5):1698–1702. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.5.1698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boisvert D. C., Wang J., Otwinowski Z., Horwich A. L., Sigler P. B. The 2.4 A crystal structure of the bacterial chaperonin GroEL complexed with ATP gamma S. Nat Struct Biol. 1996 Feb;3(2):170–177. doi: 10.1038/nsb0296-170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brendel V., Brocchieri L., Sandler S. J., Clark A. J., Karlin S. Evolutionary comparisons of RecA-like proteins across all major kingdoms of living organisms. J Mol Evol. 1997 May;44(5):528–541. doi: 10.1007/pl00006177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brocchieri L., Karlin S. A symmetric-iterated multiple alignment of protein sequences. J Mol Biol. 1998 Feb 13;276(1):249–264. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1997.1527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Buckle A. M., Zahn R., Fersht A. R. A structural model for GroEL-polypeptide recognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Apr 15;94(8):3571–3575. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.8.3571. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Burnett B. P., Horwich A. L., Low K. B. A carboxy-terminal deletion impairs the assembly of GroEL and confers a pleiotropic phenotype in Escherichia coli K-12. J Bacteriol. 1994 Nov;176(22):6980–6985. doi: 10.1128/jb.176.22.6980-6985.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fenton W. A., Kashi Y., Furtak K., Horwich A. L. Residues in chaperonin GroEL required for polypeptide binding and release. Nature. 1994 Oct 13;371(6498):614–619. doi: 10.1038/371614a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hartl F. U. Molecular chaperones in cellular protein folding. Nature. 1996 Jun 13;381(6583):571–579. doi: 10.1038/381571a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Horovitz A. Structural aspects of GroEL function. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1998 Feb;8(1):93–100. doi: 10.1016/s0959-440x(98)80015-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Karlin S., Brocchieri L. Heat shock protein 70 family: multiple sequence comparisons, function, and evolution. J Mol Evol. 1998 Nov;47(5):565–577. doi: 10.1007/pl00006413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Karlin S., Weinstock G. M., Brendel V. Bacterial classifications derived from recA protein sequence comparisons. J Bacteriol. 1995 Dec;177(23):6881–6893. doi: 10.1128/jb.177.23.6881-6893.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Karlin S., Zhu Z. Y. Characterizations of diverse residue clusters in protein three-dimensional structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Aug 6;93(16):8344–8349. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.16.8344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Netzer W. J., Hartl F. U. Protein folding in the cytosol: chaperonin-dependent and -independent mechanisms. Trends Biochem Sci. 1998 Feb;23(2):68–73. doi: 10.1016/s0968-0004(97)01171-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Nielsen K. L., Cowan N. J. A single ring is sufficient for productive chaperonin-mediated folding in vivo. Mol Cell. 1998 Jul;2(1):93–99. doi: 10.1016/s1097-2765(00)80117-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Roseman A. M., Chen S., White H., Braig K., Saibil H. R. The chaperonin ATPase cycle: mechanism of allosteric switching and movements of substrate-binding domains in GroEL. Cell. 1996 Oct 18;87(2):241–251. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81342-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sigler P. B., Xu Z., Rye H. S., Burston S. G., Fenton W. A., Horwich A. L. Structure and function in GroEL-mediated protein folding. Annu Rev Biochem. 1998;67:581–608. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.67.1.581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Weissman J. S., Rye H. S., Fenton W. A., Beechem J. M., Horwich A. L. Characterization of the active intermediate of a GroEL-GroES-mediated protein folding reaction. Cell. 1996 Feb 9;84(3):481–490. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81293-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. White H. E., Chen S., Roseman A. M., Yifrach O., Horovitz A., Saibil H. R. Structural basis of allosteric changes in the GroEL mutant Arg197-->Ala. Nat Struct Biol. 1997 Sep;4(9):690–694. doi: 10.1038/nsb0997-690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Xu Z., Horwich A. L., Sigler P. B. The crystal structure of the asymmetric GroEL-GroES-(ADP)7 chaperonin complex. Nature. 1997 Aug 21;388(6644):741–750. doi: 10.1038/41944. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhu Z. Y., Karlin S. Clusters of charged residues in protein three-dimensional structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Aug 6;93(16):8350–8355. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.16.8350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society are provided here courtesy of The Protein Society

RESOURCES