Mimicking the action of GroEL in molecular dynamics simulations: Application to the refinement of protein structures

Protein Science

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 441-448

  Fan, Hao ^a   Mark, Alan E ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Chaperone; GroEL; Molecular dynamics; Protein structure prediction; Structure refinement

Indexed keywords

CHAPERONIN;

AB INITIO CALCULATION; ARTICLE; HYDROPHOBICITY; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN SECRETION; PROTEIN STABILITY; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SIMULATION;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GROEL PROTEIN; HYDROPHOBICITY; KINETICS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; PROTEINS;

BACTERIA (MICROORGANISMS);

EID: 33644515328     PISSN: 09618368     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1110/ps.051721006     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Baumketner, A., Jewett, A., and Shea, J.E. 2003. Effects of confinement in chaperonin assisted protein folding: Rate enhancement by decreasing the roughness of the folding energy landscape. J. Mol. Biol. 332: 701-713.
2. Berendsen, H.J.C., Postma, J.P.M., van Gunsteren, W.F., and Hermans, J. 1981. Interaction models for water in relation to protein hydration. In Intermolecular forces (ed. B. Pullman), pp. 331-342. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
3. Berendsen, H.J.C., Postma, J.P.M., van Gunsteren, W.F., Di Nola, A., and Haak, J.R. 1984. Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath. J. Chem. Phys. 81: 3684-3690.
4. Berendsen, H.J.C., van der Spoel, D., and van Drunen, R. 1995. GROMACS: A message-passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation. Comp. Phys. Comm. 91: 43-56.
5. Betancourt, M.R. and Thirumalai, D. 1999. Exploring the kinetic requirements for enhancement of protein folding rates in the GroEL cavity. J. Mol. Biol. 287: 627-644.
6. Bonneau, R., Strauss, C.E.M., and Baker, D. 2001. Improving the performance of Rosetta using multiple sequence alignment information and global measures of hydrophobic core formation. Proteins 43: 1-11.
7. Braig, K., Otwinowski, Z., Hegde, R., Boisvert, D.C., Joachimiak, A., Horwich, A.L., and Sigler, P.B. 1994. The crystal structure of the bacterial chaperonin GroEL at 2.8 Å. Nature 371: 578-586.
8. Brinker, A., Pfeifer, G., Kerner, M.J., Naylor, D.J., Hartl, F.U., and Hayer-Hartl, M. 2001. Dual function of protein confinement in chaperonin-assisted protein folding. Cell 107: 223-233.
9. Bukau, B. and Horwich, A.L. 1998. The Hsp70 and Hsp60 chaperone machines. Cell 92: 351-366.
10. Bycroft, M., Hubbard, T.J., Proctor, M., Freund, S.M., and Murzin, A.G. 1997. The solution structure of the S1 RNA binding domain: A member of an ancient nucleic acid-binding fold. Cell 88: 235-242.
11. Chan, H.S. and Dill, K.A. 1996. A simple model of chaperone-mediated protein folding. Proteins 24: 345-351.
12. Fan, H. and Mark, A.E. 2003. Relative stability of protein structures determined by x-ray crystallography or NMR spectroscopy: A molecular dynamics simulation study. Proteins 53: 111-120.
13. _. 2004a. Mimicking the action of folding chaperones in molecular dynamics simulations: Application to the refinement of homology based protein structures. Protein Sci. 13: 992-999.
14. _. 2004b. Refinement of homology based protein structures by molecular dynamics simulation techniques. Protein Sci. 13: 211-220.
15. Feenstra, K.A., Hess, B., and Berendsen, H.J.C. 1999. Improving efficiency of large time-scale molecular dynamics simulations of hydrogen-rich systems. J. Comp. Chem. 20: 786-798.
16. Fenton, W.A., Kashl, Y., Kurtak, K., and Horwich, A.L. 1994. Residues in chaperonin GroEL required for polypeptide binding and release. Nature 371: 614-619.
17. Hess, B., Bekker, H., Berendsen, H.J.C., and Fraaije, J.G.E.M. 1997. LINCS: A linear constraint solver for molecular simulations. J. Comp. Chem. 18: 1463-1472.
18. Hlodan, R., Tempst, P., and Hartl, F.U. 1995. Binding of defined regions of a polypeptide to GroEL and its implications for chaperonin-mediated protein-folding. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2: 587-595.
19. Houry, W.A., Frishman, D., Eckerskorn, C., Lottspeich, F., and Hartl, F.U. 1999. Identification of in vivo substrates of the chaperonin GroEL. Nature 402: 147-154.
20. Itzhaki, L.S., Otzen, D.E., and Fersht, A.R. 1995. Nature and consequences of GroEL-protein interactions. Biochemistry 34: 14581-14587.
21. Jewett, A.I., Baumketner, A., and Shea, J.E. 2004. Accelerated folding in the weak hydrophobic environment of a chaperonin cavity: Creation of an alternate fast folding pathway. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101: 13192-13197.
22. Kim, S., Schilke, B., Craig, E.A., and Horwich, A.L. 1998. Folding in vivo of a newly translated yeast cytosolic enzyme is mediated by the SSA class of cytosolic yeast Hsp70 proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 95: 12860-12865.
23. Klimov, D.K., Newfield, D., and Thirumalai, D. 2002. Simulations of β-hairpin folding confined to spherical pores using distributed computing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99: 8019-8024.
24. Landry, S.J. and Gierasch, L.M. 1991. The chaperonin GroEL binds a polypeptide in an α-helical conformation. Biochemistry 30: 7359-7362.
25. Landry, S.J., Jordan, R., McMacken, R., and Gierasch, L.M. 1992. Different conformations for the same polypeptide bound to chaperones DnaK and GroEL. Nature 355: 455-457.
26. Lin, Z., Schwarz, F.P., and Eisenstein, E. 1995. The hydrophobic nature of GroEL-substrate binding. J. Biol. Chem. 270: 1011-1014.
27. Lindahl, E., Hess, B., and van der Spoel, D. 2001. GROMACS 3.0: A package for molecular simulation and trajectory analysis. J. Mol. Model. 7: 306-317.
28. Mayhew, M., da Silva, A.C.R., Martin, J., Erdjument-Bromage, H., Tempst, P., and Hartl, F.U. 1996. Protein folding in the central cavity of the GroEL-GroES chaperonin complex. Nature 379: 420-426.
29. Miyamoto, S. and Kollman, P.A. 1992. SETTLE: An analytical version of the SHAKE and RATTLE algorithm for rigid water models. J. Comp. Chem. 13: 952-962.
30. Ranson, N.A., Dunster, N.J., Burston, S.G., and Clarke, A.R. 1995. Chaperonins can catalyse the reversal of early aggregation steps when a protein misfolds. J. Mol. Biol. 250: 581-586.
31. Sfatos, C.D., Gutin, A.M., Abkevich, V.I., and Shakhnovich, E.I. 1996. Simulations of chaperone-assisted folding. Biochemistry 35: 334-339.
32. Sharma, A., Hanai, R., and Mondragon, A. 1994. Crystal structure of the amino-terminal fragment of vaccinia virus DNA topoisomerase I at 1.6 Å resolution. Structure 2: 767-777.
33. Shtilerman, M., Lorimer, G.H., and Englander, S.W. 1999. Chaperonin function: Folding by forced unfolding. Science 284: 822-825.
34. Simons, K.T., Bonneau, R., Ruczinski, I., and Baker, D. 1999. Ab initio protein structure prediction of CASP III targets using ROSETTA. Proteins 37 Suppl 3: 171-176.
35. Simons, K.T., Strauss, C., and Baker, D. 2001. Prospects for ab initio protein structural genomics. J. Mol. Biol. 306: 1191-1199.
36. Stan, G., Thirumalai, D., Lorimer, G.H., and Brooks, B.R. 2003. Annealing function of GroEL: Structural and bioinformatics analysis. Biophys. Chem. 100: 453-467.
37. Steele, R.A. and Opella, S.J. 1997. Structures of the reduced and mercury-bound forms of MerP, the periplasmic protein from the bacterial mercury detoxification system. Biochemistry 36: 6885-6895.
38. Takagi, F., Koga, N., and Takada, S. 2003. How protein thermodynamics and folding mechanisms are altered by the chaperonin cage: Molecular simulations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100: 11367-11372.
39. Thirumalai, D. and Lorimer, G.H. 2001. Chaperonin-mediated protein folding. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 30: 245-269.
40. Tironi, I.G., Sperb, R., Smith, P.E., and van Gunsteren, W.F. 1995. A generalized reaction field method for molecular dynamics simulations. J. Chem. Phys. 102: 5451-5459.
41. Todd, M.J., Lorimer, G.H., and Thirumalai, D. 1996. Chaperonin- facilitated protein folding: Optimization of rate and yield by an iterative annealing mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 93: 4030-4035.
42. van der Spoel, D., van Buuren, A.R., Apol, E., Meulenhoff, P.J., Tieleman, D.P., Sijbers, A.L.T.M., Hess, B., Feenstra, K.A., Lindahl, E., van Drunen, R., et al. 2001. Gromacs user manual, version 3.0. University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Internet: http://www.gromacs.org.
43. van Gunsteren, W.F., Billeter, S.R., Eising, A.A., Hünenberger, P.H., Krüger, P.K.H.C., Mark, A.E., Scott, W.R.P., and Tironi, I.G. 1996. Biomolecular simulation: The GROMOS96 manual and user guide. vdf Hochschulverlag AG, Zürich, Switzerland.
44. van Gunsteren, W.F., Daura, X., and Mark, A.E. 1998. GROMOS force field. In Encyclopedia of computational chemistry (eds. von Ragué Schleyer et al.), Vol. 2, pp. 1211-1216. Wiley, New York.
45. Vriend, G. 1990. WHAT IF: A molecular modeling and drug design program. J. Mol. Graph. 8: 52-56.
46. Wang, J. and Boisvert, D.C. 2003. Structural basis for GroEL-assisted protein folding from the crystal structure of (GroEL-KMgATP)14 at 2.0 Å resolution. J. Mol. Biol. 327: 843-855.
47. Wang, J. and Chen, L. 2003. Domain motions in GroEL upon binding of an oligopeptide. J. Mol. Biol. 334: 489-499.
48. Weissman, J.S., Hohl, C.M., Kovalenko, O., Kashi, Y., Chen, S., Braig, K., Saibil, H.R., Fenton, W.A., and Horwich, A.L. 1995. Mechanism of GroEL action: Productive release of polypeptide from a sequestered position under GroES. Cell 83: 577-587.
49. Xu, Z., Horwich, A.L., and Sigler, P.B. 1997. The crystal structure of the asymmetric GroEL-GroES-(ADP)7 chaperonin complex. Nature 388: 741-749.
50. Zahn, R., Spitzfaden, C., Ottiger, M., Wuthrich, K., and Pluckthun, A. 1994. Destabilization of the complete protein secondary structure on binding to the chaperone GroEL. Nature 368: 261-265.
51. Zahn, R., Perrett, S., and Fersht, A.R. 1996. Conformational states bound by the molecular chaperones GroEL and SecB: A hidden unfolding (annealing) activity. J. Mol. Biol. 261: 43-61.