 |
PDBsum entry 1la1
|
|
|
|
 |
Contents |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Residue conservation analysis
|
|
|
|
|
PDB id:
|
 |
|
 |
| Name: |
 |
Chaperone
|
 |
|
Title:
|
 |
Gro-el fragment (apical domain) comprising residues 188-379
|
|
Structure:
|
 |
Groel. Chain: a. Fragment: apical domain. Synonym: chaperone hsp60, peptide-dependent atpase, heat shock protein. Engineered: yes
|
|
Source:
|
 |
Escherichia coli. Organism_taxid: 562. Expressed in: escherichia coli. Expression_system_taxid: 562
|
|
Resolution:
|
 |
|
2.06Å
|
R-factor:
|
0.197
|
R-free:
|
0.257
|
|
|
Authors:
|
 |
A.E.Ashcroft,A.Brinker,J.E.Coyle,F.Weber,M.Kaiser,L.Moroder, M.R.Parsons,J.Jager,U.F.Hartl,M.Hayer-Hartl,S.E.Radford
|
Key ref:
|
 |
A.E.Ashcroft
et al.
(2002).
Structural plasticity and noncovalent substrate binding in the GroEL apical domain. A study using electrospay ionization mass spectrometry and fluorescence binding studies.
J Biol Chem,
277,
33115-33126.
PubMed id:
DOI:
|
 |
|
Date:
|
 |
|
27-Mar-02
|
Release date:
|
03-Apr-02
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROCHECK
|
|
|
|
|
Headers
|
 |
|
|
References
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P0A6F5
(CH60_ECOLI) -
Chaperonin GroEL from Escherichia coli (strain K12)
|
|
|
|
Seq: Struc:
|
 |
 |
 |
548 a.a.
192 a.a.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Key: |
 |
PfamA domain |
 |
 |
 |
Secondary structure |
 |
 |
CATH domain |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Enzyme class:
|
 |
E.C.5.6.1.7
- chaperonin ATPase.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Reaction:
|
 |
ATP + H2O + a folded polypeptide = ADP + phosphate + an unfolded polypeptide
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
ATP
|
+
|
H2O
|
+
|
folded polypeptide
|
=
|
ADP
|
+
|
phosphate
|
+
|
unfolded polypeptide
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Molecule diagrams generated from .mol files obtained from the
KEGG ftp site
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
DOI no:
|
J Biol Chem
277:33115-33126
(2002)
|
|
PubMed id:
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Structural plasticity and noncovalent substrate binding in the GroEL apical domain. A study using electrospay ionization mass spectrometry and fluorescence binding studies.
|
|
A.E.Ashcroft,
A.Brinker,
J.E.Coyle,
F.Weber,
M.Kaiser,
L.Moroder,
M.R.Parsons,
J.Jager,
U.F.Hartl,
M.Hayer-Hartl,
S.E.Radford.
|
|
|
|
| |
ABSTRACT
|
|
|
| |
|
Advances in understanding how GroEL binds to non-native proteins are reported.
Conformational flexibility in the GroEL apical domain, which could account for
the variety of substrates that GroEL binds, is illustrated by comparison of
several independent crystallographic structures of apical domain constructs that
show conformational plasticity in helices H and I. Additionally, ESI-MS
indicates that apical domain constructs have co-populated conformations at
neutral pH. To assess the ability of different apical domain conformers to bind
co-chaperone and substrate, model peptides corresponding to the mobile loop of
GroES and to helix D from rhodanese were studied. Analysis of apical
domain-peptide complexes by ESI-MS indicates that only the folded or partially
folded apical domain conformations form complexes that survive gas phase
conditions. Fluorescence binding studies show that the apical domain can fully
bind both peptides independently. No competition for binding was observed,
suggesting the peptides have distinct apical domain-binding sites. Blocking the
GroES-apical domain-binding site in GroEL rendered the chaperonin inactive in
binding GroES and in assisting the folding of denatured rhodanese, but still
capable of binding non-native proteins, supporting the conclusion that GroES and
substrate proteins have, at least partially, distinct binding sites even in the
intact GroEL tetradecamer.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Selected figure(s)
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
 |
Figure 1.
Fig. 1. Apical domain constructs of GroEL. A, GroEL
apical domain constructs indicating the amino acid residues
included and modifications made in the proteins expressed for
these studies. B, ribbon diagram showing a comparison of the
overall structures of five independent GroEL apical domains:
C-His ApEL (determined here) ( purple), N-His ApEL (22) (red),
ApEL-(191-336)·peptide complex (19) (yellow), intact WT
GroEL (9) (blue), and a GroEL·ADP complex (45) (green).
The diagram shows the conformational flexibility in the region
around helices H and I.
C, r.m.s. deviation plot showing the differences in C- positions
between C-His ApEL and N-His ApEL (22) (unbroken line), and
C-His ApEL and an ApEL-(191-336)·peptide complex (19)
(dotted line).
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
The above figure is
reprinted
by permission from the ASBMB:
J Biol Chem
(2002,
277,
33115-33126)
copyright 2002.
|
|
| |
Figure was
selected
by the author.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Literature references that cite this PDB file's key reference
|
|
 |
| |
PubMed id
|
 |
Reference
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
Y.Li,
Z.Zheng,
A.Ramsey,
and
L.Chen
(2010).
Analysis of peptides and proteins in their binding to GroEL.
|
| |
J Pept Sci,
16,
693-700.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
T.L.Tapley,
J.L.Körner,
M.T.Barge,
J.Hupfeld,
J.A.Schauerte,
A.Gafni,
U.Jakob,
and
J.C.Bardwell
(2009).
Structural plasticity of an acid-activated chaperone allows promiscuous substrate binding.
|
| |
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A,
106,
5557-5562.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Y.Yoshiike,
R.Minai,
Y.Matsuo,
Y.R.Chen,
T.Kimura,
and
A.Takashima
(2008).
Amyloid oligomer conformation in a group of natively folded proteins.
|
| |
PLoS ONE,
3,
e3235.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
D.P.Smith,
K.Giles,
R.H.Bateman,
S.E.Radford,
and
A.E.Ashcroft
(2007).
Monitoring copopulated conformational states during protein folding events using electrospray ionization-ion mobility spectrometry-mass spectrometry.
|
| |
J Am Soc Mass Spectrom,
18,
2180-2190.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
H.D.White,
and
A.E.Ashcroft
(2007).
Real-time measurement of myosin-nucleotide noncovalent complexes by electrospray ionization mass spectrometry.
|
| |
Biophys J,
93,
914-919.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
N.Elad,
G.W.Farr,
D.K.Clare,
E.V.Orlova,
A.L.Horwich,
and
H.R.Saibil
(2007).
Topologies of a substrate protein bound to the chaperonin GroEL.
|
| |
Mol Cell,
26,
415-426.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
C.Spiess,
E.J.Miller,
A.J.McClellan,
and
J.Frydman
(2006).
Identification of the TRiC/CCT substrate binding sites uncovers the function of subunit diversity in eukaryotic chaperonins.
|
| |
Mol Cell,
24,
25-37.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
A.E.Ashcroft
(2005).
Recent developments in electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry: noncovalently bound protein complexes.
|
| |
Nat Prod Rep,
22,
452-464.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
A.J.Borysik,
P.Read,
D.R.Little,
R.H.Bateman,
S.E.Radford,
and
A.E.Ashcroft
(2004).
Separation of beta2-microglobulin conformers by high-field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS) coupled to electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry.
|
| |
Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom,
18,
2229-2234.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
A.J.Heck,
and
R.H.Van Den Heuvel
(2004).
Investigation of intact protein complexes by mass spectrometry.
|
| |
Mass Spectrom Rev,
23,
368-389.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
T.Shimamura,
A.Koike-Takeshita,
K.Yokoyama,
R.Masui,
N.Murai,
M.Yoshida,
H.Taguchi,
and
S.Iwata
(2004).
Crystal structure of the native chaperonin complex from Thermus thermophilus revealed unexpected asymmetry at the cis-cavity.
|
| |
Structure,
12,
1471-1480.
|
 |
|
PDB codes:
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
R.L.Rich,
and
D.G.Myszka
(2003).
A survey of the year 2002 commercial optical biosensor literature.
|
| |
J Mol Recognit,
16,
351-382.
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
The most recent references are shown first.
Citation data come partly from CiteXplore and partly
from an automated harvesting procedure. Note that this is likely to be
only a partial list as not all journals are covered by
either method. However, we are continually building up the citation data
so more and more references will be included with time.
Where a reference describes a PDB structure, the PDB
codes are
shown on the right.
|
');
}
}
 |