Cargando…

The interactions of molecular chaperones with client proteins: why are they so weak?

The major classes of molecular chaperones have highly variable sequences, sizes, and shapes, yet they all bind to unfolded proteins, limit their aggregation, and assist in their folding. Despite the central importance of this process to protein homeostasis, it has not been clear exactly how chaperon...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arhar, Taylor, Shkedi, Arielle, Nadel, Cory M., Gestwicki, Jason E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8567204/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34624315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2021.101282
_version_ 1784594184464760832
author Arhar, Taylor
Shkedi, Arielle
Nadel, Cory M.
Gestwicki, Jason E.
author_facet Arhar, Taylor
Shkedi, Arielle
Nadel, Cory M.
Gestwicki, Jason E.
author_sort Arhar, Taylor
collection PubMed
description The major classes of molecular chaperones have highly variable sequences, sizes, and shapes, yet they all bind to unfolded proteins, limit their aggregation, and assist in their folding. Despite the central importance of this process to protein homeostasis, it has not been clear exactly how chaperones guide this process or whether the diverse families of chaperones use similar mechanisms. For the first time, recent advances in NMR spectroscopy have enabled detailed studies of how unfolded, “client” proteins interact with both ATP-dependent and ATP-independent classes of chaperones. Here, we review examples from four distinct chaperones, Spy, Trigger Factor, DnaK, and HscA-HscB, highlighting the similarities and differences between their mechanisms. One striking similarity is that the chaperones all bind weakly to their clients, such that the chaperone–client interactions are readily outcompeted by stronger, intra- and intermolecular contacts in the folded state. Thus, the relatively weak affinity of these interactions seems to provide directionality to the folding process. However, there are also key differences, especially in the details of how the chaperones release clients and how ATP cycling impacts that process. For example, Spy releases clients in a largely folded state, while clients seem to be unfolded upon release from Trigger Factor or DnaK. Together, these studies are beginning to uncover the similarities and differences in how chaperones use weak interactions to guide protein folding.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8567204
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85672042021-11-09 The interactions of molecular chaperones with client proteins: why are they so weak? Arhar, Taylor Shkedi, Arielle Nadel, Cory M. Gestwicki, Jason E. J Biol Chem JBC Reviews The major classes of molecular chaperones have highly variable sequences, sizes, and shapes, yet they all bind to unfolded proteins, limit their aggregation, and assist in their folding. Despite the central importance of this process to protein homeostasis, it has not been clear exactly how chaperones guide this process or whether the diverse families of chaperones use similar mechanisms. For the first time, recent advances in NMR spectroscopy have enabled detailed studies of how unfolded, “client” proteins interact with both ATP-dependent and ATP-independent classes of chaperones. Here, we review examples from four distinct chaperones, Spy, Trigger Factor, DnaK, and HscA-HscB, highlighting the similarities and differences between their mechanisms. One striking similarity is that the chaperones all bind weakly to their clients, such that the chaperone–client interactions are readily outcompeted by stronger, intra- and intermolecular contacts in the folded state. Thus, the relatively weak affinity of these interactions seems to provide directionality to the folding process. However, there are also key differences, especially in the details of how the chaperones release clients and how ATP cycling impacts that process. For example, Spy releases clients in a largely folded state, while clients seem to be unfolded upon release from Trigger Factor or DnaK. Together, these studies are beginning to uncover the similarities and differences in how chaperones use weak interactions to guide protein folding. American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 2021-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8567204/ /pubmed/34624315 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2021.101282 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle JBC Reviews
Arhar, Taylor
Shkedi, Arielle
Nadel, Cory M.
Gestwicki, Jason E.
The interactions of molecular chaperones with client proteins: why are they so weak?
title The interactions of molecular chaperones with client proteins: why are they so weak?
title_full The interactions of molecular chaperones with client proteins: why are they so weak?
title_fullStr The interactions of molecular chaperones with client proteins: why are they so weak?
title_full_unstemmed The interactions of molecular chaperones with client proteins: why are they so weak?
title_short The interactions of molecular chaperones with client proteins: why are they so weak?
title_sort interactions of molecular chaperones with client proteins: why are they so weak?
topic JBC Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8567204/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34624315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2021.101282
work_keys_str_mv AT arhartaylor theinteractionsofmolecularchaperoneswithclientproteinswhyaretheysoweak
AT shkediarielle theinteractionsofmolecularchaperoneswithclientproteinswhyaretheysoweak
AT nadelcorym theinteractionsofmolecularchaperoneswithclientproteinswhyaretheysoweak
AT gestwickijasone theinteractionsofmolecularchaperoneswithclientproteinswhyaretheysoweak
AT arhartaylor interactionsofmolecularchaperoneswithclientproteinswhyaretheysoweak
AT shkediarielle interactionsofmolecularchaperoneswithclientproteinswhyaretheysoweak
AT nadelcorym interactionsofmolecularchaperoneswithclientproteinswhyaretheysoweak
AT gestwickijasone interactionsofmolecularchaperoneswithclientproteinswhyaretheysoweak