Hubbry Logo
GroELGroELMain
Open search
GroEL
Community hub
GroEL
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
GroEL
GroEL
GroEL
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
HSPD1
Available structures
PDBOrtholog search: PDBe RCSB
Identifiers
AliasesHSPD1, CPN60, GROEL, HLD4, HSP-60, HSP60, HSP65, HuCHA60, SPG13, heat shock protein family D (Hsp60) member 1
External IDsOMIM: 118190; MGI: 96242; HomoloGene: 1626; GeneCards: HSPD1; OMA:HSPD1 - orthologs
Orthologs
SpeciesHumanMouse
Entrez

3329

15510

Ensembl

ENSG00000144381

ENSMUSG00000025980

UniProt

P10809

P63038

RefSeq (mRNA)

NM_002156
NM_199440

NM_010477
NM_001356512

RefSeq (protein)

NP_002147
NP_955472

NP_034607
NP_001343441

Location (UCSC)Chr 2: 197.49 – 197.52 MbChr 1: 55.12 – 55.13 Mb
PubMed search[3][4]
Wikidata
View/Edit HumanView/Edit Mouse
This article is about the bacterial and human mitochondrial gene. For the protein family, see HSP60.

GroEL is a protein which belongs to the chaperonin family of molecular chaperones, and is found in many bacteria.[5] It is required for the proper folding of many proteins. To function properly, GroEL requires the lid-like cochaperonin protein complex GroES. In eukaryotes the organellar proteins Hsp60 and Hsp10 are structurally and functionally nearly identical to GroEL and GroES, respectively, due to their endosymbiotic origin.

HSP60 is implicated in mitochondrial protein import and macromolecular assembly. It may facilitate the correct folding of imported proteins, and may also prevent misfolding and promote the refolding and proper assembly of unfolded polypeptides generated under stress conditions in the mitochondrial matrix. HSP60 interacts with HRAS and with HBV protein X and HTLV-1 protein p40tax. HSP60 belongs to the chaperonin (HSP60) family. Note: This description may include information from UniProtKB.

Alternate Names: 60 kDa chaperonin, Chaperonin 60, CPN60, Heat shock protein 60, HSP-60, HuCHA60, Mitochondrial matrix protein P1, P60 lymphocyte protein, HSPD1

Heat shock protein 60 (HSP60) is a mitochondrial chaperonin that is typically held responsible for the transportation and refolding of proteins from the cytoplasm into the mitochondrial matrix. In addition to its role as a heat shock protein, HSP60 functions as a chaperonin to assist in folding linear amino acid chains into their respective three-dimensional structure. Through the extensive study of groEL, HSP60’s bacterial homolog, HSP60 has been deemed essential in the synthesis and transportation of essential mitochondrial proteins from the cell's cytoplasm into the mitochondrial matrix. Further studies have linked HSP60 to diabetes, stress response, cancer and certain types of immunological disorders.

Discovery

[edit]

Not much is known about the function of HSP60. Mammalian HSP60 was first reported as a mitochondrial P1 protein. It was subsequently cloned and sequenced by Radhey Gupta and coworkers.[6] The amino acid sequence showed a strong homology to GroEL. It was initially believed that HSP60 functioned only in the mitochondria and that there was no equivalent protein located in the cytoplasm. Recent discoveries have discredited this claim and have suggested that there is a recognizable difference between HSP60 in the mitochondria and in the cytoplasm.[7] A similar protein structure exists in the chloroplast of certain plants. This protein presence provides evidence for the evolutionary relationship of the development of the mitochondria and the chloroplast by means of endosymbiosis.[6]

Structure

[edit]

Under normal physiological conditions, HSP60 is a 60 kilodalton oligomer composed of monomers that form a complex arranged as two stacked heptameric rings.[8] This double ring structure forms a large central cavity in which the unfolded protein binds via hydrophobic interactions.[9] This structure is typically in equilibrium with each of its individual components: monomers, heptamers, and tetradecamers.[10] Recent studies have begun to suggest that in addition to its typical location in the mitochondria, HSP60 can also be found in the cytoplasm under normal physiological conditions.[7]

Each subunit of HSP60 has three domains: the apical domain, the equatorial domain, and the intermediate domain.[11] The equatorial domain contains the binding site for ATP and for the other heptameric ring. The intermediate domain binds the equatorial domain and the apical domain together.[11] The intermediate domain induces a conformational change when ATP is bound allowing for an alternation between the hydrophilic and hydrophobic substrate binding sites.[11] In its inactive state, the protein is in a hydrophobic state. When activated by ATP, the intermediate domain undergoes a conformational change that exposes the hydrophilic region. This insures fidelity in protein binding.[11] Chaperonin 10 aids HSP60 in folding by acting as a dome-like cover on the ATP active form of HSP60. This causes the central cavity to enlarge and aids in protein folding.[11] See the above figure for further detail on the structure.

A monoclonal antibody to HSP60 was used to stain human HeLa cells grown in tissue culture. The antibody reveals cellular mitochondria in red. The blue signal is due to a DNA binding dye which reveals cell nuclei. Antibody staining and image courtesy of EnCor Biotechnology Inc.
Amino acid and structural sequence of HSP60 Protein.[12]

The mitochondrial HSP60 sequence contains a series of G repeats at the C-terminal.[6] The structure and function of this sequence is not quite known. The N-terminal contains a pre-sequence of hydroxylated amino acids, namely arginine, lysine, serine, and threonine, which serve as directors for the importation of the protein into the mitochondria.[6]

The predicted structure of HSP60 includes several vertical sine waves, alpha helices, beta sheets, and 90 degree turns. There are regions of hydrophobicity where the protein presumably spans the membrane. There are also three N-linked glycosylation sites at positions 104, 230, 436.[9] The sequence and secondary structure for the mitochondrial protein are illustrated in the above image obtained from the Protein Data Bank.

Newer information has begun to suggest that the HSP60 found in the mitochondria differs from that of the cytoplasm. With respect to the amino acid sequence, the cytoplasmic HSP60 has an N-terminal sequence not found in the mitochondrial protein.[7] In gel electrophoresis analysis, significant differences were found in the migration of cytoplasmic and mitochondrial HSP60. The cytoplasmic HSP60 contains a signal sequence of 26 amino acids on the N terminus. This sequence is highly degenerate and is capable of folding into amphiphilic helix.[7] Antibodies against HSP60 targeted both the mitochondrial and cytoplasmic form.[7] Nonetheless, antibodies against the signal sequence targeted only the cytoplasmic form. Under normal physiological condition, both are found in relatively equal concentrations.[7] In times of stress or high need of HSP60 in either the cytoplasm or the mitochondria, the cell is capable for compensating by increasing the presence of HSP60 in one compartment and decreasing its concentration in the opposite compartment.

Function

[edit]

Common

[edit]

Heat shock proteins are amongst the most evolutionarily conserved of proteins.[10] The significant function, structural, and sequential homology between HSP60 and its prokaryotic homolog, groEL, demonstrates this level of conservation. Moreover, HSP60’s amino acid sequence bears a similarity to its homolog in plants, bacteria, and humans.[13] Heat shock proteins are primarily responsible for maintaining the integrity of cellular proteins particularly in response to environmental changes. Stresses such as temperature, concentration imbalance, pH change, and toxins can all induce heat shock proteins to maintain the conformation of the cell’s proteins. HSP60 aids in the folding and conformation maintenance of approximately 15-30% of all cellular proteins.[11] In addition to HSP60’s typical role as a heat shock protein, studies have shown that HSP60 plays an important role in the transport and maintenance of mitochondrial proteins as well as the transmission and replication of mitochondrial DNA.

Mitochondrial protein transport

[edit]

HSP60 possesses two main responsibilities with respect to mitochondrial protein transport. It functions to catalyze the folding of proteins destined for the matrix and maintains protein in an unfolded state for transport across the inner membrane of the mitochondria.[14] Many proteins are targeted for processing in the matrix of the mitochondria but then are quickly exported to other parts of the cell. The hydrophobic portion HSP60 is responsible for maintaining the unfolded conformation of the protein for transmembrane transport.[14] Studies have shown how HSP60 binds to incoming proteins and induces conformational and structural changes. Subsequent changes in ATP concentrations hydrolyze the bonds between the protein and HSP60 which signals the protein to exit the mitochondria.[14] HSP60 is also capable of distinguishing between proteins designated for export and proteins destined to remain in the mitochondrial matrix by looking for an amphiphilic alpha-helix of 15-20 residues.[14] The existence of this sequence signals that the protein is to be exported while the absence signals that the protein is to remain in the mitochondria. The precise mechanism is not yet entirely understood.

DNA metabolism

[edit]

In addition to its critical role in protein folding, HSP60 is involved in the replication and transmission of mitochondrial DNA. In extensive studies of HSP60 activity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, scientists have proposed that HSP60 binds preferentially to the single stranded template DNA strand in a tetradecamer like complex [15] This tetradecamer complex interacts with other transcriptional elements to serve as a regulatory mechanism for the replication and transmission of mitochondrial DNA. Mutagenic studies have further supported HSP60 regulatory involvement in the replication and transmission of mitochondrial DNA.[16]Mutations in HSP60 increase the levels of mitochondrial DNA and result in subsequent transmission defects.

Cytoplasmic vs mitochondrial HSP60

[edit]

In addition to the already illustrated structural differences between cytoplasmic and mitochondrial HSP60, there are marked functional differences. Studies have suggested that HSP60 plays a key role in preventing apoptosis in the cytoplasm. The cytoplasmic HSP60 forms a complex with proteins responsible for apoptosis and regulates the activity of these proteins.[7] The cytoplasmic version is also involved in immune response and cancer.[7] These two aspects will be elaborated on later. Extremely recent investigations have begun to suggest a regulatory correlation between HSP60 and the glycolytic enzyme, 6-phosphofructokinase-1. Although not much information is available, cytoplasmic HSP60 concentrations have influenced the expression of 6-phosphofructokinase in glycolysis.[17] Despite these marked differences between the cytoplasmic and mitochondrial form, experimental analysis has shown that the cell is quickly capable of moving cytoplasmic HSP60 into the mitochondria if environmental conditions demand a higher presence of mitochondrial HSP60.[7]

Synthesis and assembly

[edit]

HSP60 is typically found in the mitochondria and has been found in organelles of endosymbiotic origin. HSP60 monomers form two heptameric rings that bind to the surface of linear proteins and catalyze their folding in an ATP dependent process.[18] HSP60 subunits are encoded by nuclear genes and translated into the cytosol. These subunits then move into the mitochondria where they are processed by other HSP60 molecules.[9] Several studies have shown how HSP60 proteins must be present in the mitochondria for the synthesis and assembly of additional HSP60 components.[9] There is a direct positive correlation between the presence of HSP60 proteins in the mitochondria and the production of additional HSP60 protein complexes.

The kinetics of assembly of HSP60 subunits into the 2-heptameric rings takes two minutes. The subsequent protease-resistant HSP60 is formed in a half-time of 5–10 minutes.[9] This rapid synthesis indicates that there is an ATP-dependent interaction where the formed HSP60 complex stabilizes the intermediate of the HSP60 assembly complex, effectively serving as a catalyst.[9] The necessity of preexisting HSP60 in order to synthesize additional HSP60 molecules supports the endosymbiotic theory of the origin of mitochondria. There must have been a rudimentary prokaryotic homologous protein that was capable of similar self-assembly.

Immunological role

[edit]

As discussed above, HSP60 has generally been known as a chaperonin which assists in protein folding in mitochondria. However, some new research has indicated that HSP60 possibly plays a role in a “danger signal cascade” immune response.[19] There is also mounting evidence that it plays a role in autoimmune disease.

Infection and disease are extremely stressful on the cell. When a cell is under stress, it naturally increases the production of stress proteins, including heat shock proteins such as HSP60. In order for HSP60 to act as a signal it must be present in the extracellular environment. In recent research “it has emerged that…chaperonin 60 can be found on the surface of various prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, and can even be released from cells”.[11] According to recent research, many different types of heat shock proteins are used in immune response signaling, but it appears that different proteins act and respond differently to other signaling molecules. HSP60 has been shown to be released from specific cells like peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) when there are lipopolysaccharides (LPS) or GroEL present. This suggests that the cell has different receptors and responses to human and bacterial HSP60.[19] In addition, it has been shown that HSP60 has the capability “of activating monocytes, macrophages and dendritic cells…and also of inducing secretion of a wide range of cytokines.” [19] The fact that HSP60 responds to other signal molecules like LPS or GroEL and has the ability to activate certain types of cells supports the idea that HSP60 is part of a danger signal cascade which is involved in activating an immune response.

There is however, a twist in the immunological role of HSP60. As mentioned above, there are two different types of HSP60 proteins, bacterial as well as mammalian. Since they are very similar in sequence, bacterial HSP60 wouldn’t be expected to cause a large immune response in humans. The immune system is “designed to ignore ‘self’, that is, host constituents; however, paradoxically, this is not the case with chaperonins”.[11] It has been found that many anti-chaperonin antibodies exist and are associated with many autoimmune diseases. According to Ranford, et al. experiments have been performed which have shown that antibodies which are “generated by a human host after exposure to bacterial chaperonin 60 proteins” can cross-react with human chaperonin 60 proteins.[11] Bacterial HSP60 is causing the immune system to create anti-chaperonin antibodies, even though bacterial and human HSP60 have similar protein sequences. These new antibodies are then recognizing and attacking human HSP60 which causes an autoimmune disease. This suggests that HSP60 may play a role in autoimmunity, however more research needs to be done in order to discover more completely its role in this disease.

Stress response

[edit]

HSP60, as a mitochondrial protein, has been shown to be involved in stress response as well. The heat shock response is a homeostatic mechanism that protects a cell from damage by upregulating the expression of genes that code for HSP60.[20] The upregulation of HSP60 production allows for the maintenance of other cellular processes occurring in the cell, especially during stressful times. In one experiment, investigators treated various mice with L-DOPA and discovered significant upregulation of HSP60 expression in the mitochondria and HSP70 expression in the cytoplasm. Researchers concluded that the heat shock signal pathway serves as “the basic mechanism of defense against neurotoxicity elicited by free radical oxygen and nitrogen species produced in aging and neurodegenerative disorders”.[21] Several studies have shown that HSP60 and other heat shock proteins are necessary for cellular survival under toxic or stressful circumstances.[22]

Relationship to cancer

[edit]
Immunohistochemical staining of paraffin-embedded human breast carcinoma using anti-Hsp60 RabMAb. Click on image for source. http://www.epitomics.com/images/products/1777IHC.jpg

Human Hsp60, the product of the HSPD1 gene, is a Group I mitochondrial chaperonin, phylogenetically related to bacterial GroEL. Recently, the presence of Hsp60 outside the mitochondria and outside the cell, e.g. in circulating blood, has been reported [1], [2]. Although it is assumed that Hsp60 extra-mitochondrial molecule is identical to the mitochondrial one, this has not yet been fully elucidated. Despite the increasing amount of experimental evidences showing Hsp60 outside the cell, it is not yet clear how general this process is and what are the mechanisms responsible for Hsp60 translocation outside the cell. Neither of these questions has been definitively answered, whereas there is some information regarding extracellular Hsp70. This chaperone was also classically regarded as an intracellular protein like Hsp60, but in the last few years considerable evidences showed its pericellular and extracellular residence

HSP60 has been shown to influence apoptosis in tumor cells which seems to be associated with a change in expression levels. There is some inconsistency in that some research shows a positive expression while other research shows a negative expression, and it seems to depend on the type of cancer. There are different hypotheses to explain the effects of positive versus negative expression. Positive expression seems to inhibit “apoptotic and necrotic cell death” while negative expression is thought to play a part “in activation of apoptosis”.[23][24]

As well as influencing apoptosis, HSP60 changes in expression level have been shown to be “useful new biomarkers for diagnostic and prognostic purposes.” [23] According to Lebret et al., a loss of HSP60 expression “indicates a poor prognosis and the risk of developing tumor infiltration” specifically with bladder carcinomas, but that does not necessarily hold true for other types of cancers.[25] For example, ovarian tumors research has shown that over expression is correlated with a better prognosis while a decreased expression is correlated with an aggressive tumor.[25] All this research indicates that it may be possible for HSP60 expression to be used in predicting survival for certain types of cancer and therefore may be able to identify patients who could benefit from certain treatments.[24]

Mechanism

[edit]

Within the cell, the process of GroEL/ES mediated protein folding involves multiple rounds of binding, encapsulation, and release of substrate protein. Unfolded substrate proteins bind to a hydrophobic binding patch on the interior rim of the open cavity of GroEL, forming a binary complex with the chaperonin. Binding of substrate protein in this manner, in addition to binding of ATP, induces a conformational change that allows association of the binary complex with a separate lid structure, GroES. Binding of GroES to the open cavity of the chaperonin induces the individual subunits of the chaperonin to rotate such that the hydrophobic substrate binding site is removed from the interior of the cavity, causing the substrate protein to be ejected from the rim into the now largely hydrophilic chamber. The hydrophilic environment of the chamber favors the burying of hydrophobic residues of the substrate, inducing substrate folding. Hydrolysis of ATP and binding of a new substrate protein to the opposite cavity sends an allosteric signal causing GroES and the encapsulated protein to be released into the cytosol. A given protein will undergo multiple rounds of folding, returning each time to its original unfolded state, until the native conformation or an intermediate structure committed to reaching the native state is achieved. Alternatively, the substrate may succumb to a competing reaction, such as misfolding and aggregation with other misfolded proteins.[26]

Thermodynamics

[edit]

The constricted nature of the interior of the molecular complex strongly favors compact molecular conformations of the substrate protein. Free in solution, long-range, non-polar interactions can only occur at a high cost in entropy. In the close quarters of the GroEL complex, the relative loss of entropy is much smaller. The method of capture also tends to concentrate the non-polar binding sites separately from the polar sites. When the GroEL non-polar surfaces are removed, the chance that any given non-polar group will encounter a non-polar intramolecular site are much greater than in bulk solution. The hydrophobic sites which were on the outside are gathered together at the top of the cis domain and bind each other. The geometry of GroEL requires that the polar structures lead, and they envelop the non-polar core as it emerges from the trans side.

Structure

[edit]

Structurally, GroEL is a dual-ringed tetradecamer, with both the cis and trans rings consisting of seven subunits each. The conformational changes that occur within the central cavity of GroEL cause for the inside of GroEL to become hydrophilic, rather than hydrophobic, and is likely what facilitates protein folding.

  • GroEL (side)
    GroEL (side)
  • GroEL (top)
    GroEL (top)
  • GroES/GroEL complex (side)
    GroES/GroEL complex (side)
  • GroES/GroEL complex (top)
    GroES/GroEL complex (top)

The key to the activity of GroEL is in the structure of the monomer. The Hsp60 monomer has three distinct sections separated by two hinge regions. The apical section contains many hydrophobic binding sites for unfolded protein substrates. Many globular proteins won't bind to the apical domain because their hydrophobic parts are clustered inside, away from the aqueous medium since this is the thermodynamically optimal conformation. Thus, these "substrate sites" will only bind to proteins which are not optimally folded. The apical domain also has binding sites for the Hsp10 monomers of GroES.

The equatorial domain has a slot near the hinge point for binding ATP, as well as two attachment points for the other half of the GroEL molecule. The rest of the equatorial section is moderately hydrophilic.

The addition of ATP and GroES has a drastic effect on the conformation of the cis domain. This effect is caused by flexion and rotation at the two hinge points on the Hsp60 monomers. The intermediate domain folds down and inward about 25° on the lower hinge. This effect, multiplied through the cooperative flexing of all monomers, increases the equatorial diameter of the GroEL cage. But the apical domain rotates a full 60° up and out on the upper hinge, and also rotates 90° around the hinge axis. This motion opens the cage very widely at the top of the cis domain, but completely removes the substrate binding sites from the inside of the cage.

Interactions

[edit]

GroEL has been shown to interact with GroES,[27][28] ALDH2,[28] Caspase 3[27][29] and Dihydrofolate reductase.[30]

Phage T4 morphogenesis

[edit]

The genes of bacteriophage (phage) T4 that encode proteins with a role in determining phage T4 structure were identified using conditional lethal mutants.[31] Most of these proteins proved to be either major or minor structural components of the completed phage particle. However among the gene products (gps) necessary for phage assembly, Snustad[32] identified a group of gps that act catalytically rather than being incorporated themselves into the phage structure. These catalytic gps included gp31. The bacterium E. coli is the host for phage T4, and the phage encoded gp31 protein appears to be functionally homologous to E. coli chaparone protein GroES and able to substitute for it in the assembly of phage T4 virions during infection.[5] The role of the phage encoded gp31 protein appears be to interact with the E. coli host encoded GroEL protein to assist in the correct folding and assembly of the major phage head capsid protein of the phage, gp23.[5]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

GroEL

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
GroEL is a molecular chaperonin that serves as an essential for in the bacterium , where it captures non-native polypeptides and facilitates their correct folding in an ATP-dependent manner with the aid of its cofactor GroES. Composed of 14 identical subunits arranged into two back-to-back heptameric rings forming a large cylindrical structure approximately 15 nm in height and 14 nm in diameter, GroEL features a central cavity divided into two independent chambers that provide a sequestered environment for substrate proteins. Each subunit is organized into three distinct domains: the equatorial domain for ATP binding and , the intermediate hinge domain, and the apical domain responsible for substrate binding and interaction with GroES. The GroEL-GroES system operates through a dynamic cycle that promotes de novo protein folding, particularly under stress conditions, by binding unfolded or partially folded polypeptides via hydrophobic interactions at the apical domain, followed by encapsulation within an enclosed hydrophilic chamber upon GroES binding and to prevent aggregation and allow iterative folding attempts. This chaperonin is indispensable for E. coli viability at all temperatures, as depletion leads to the accumulation of misfolded proteins and cellular dysfunction, underscoring its role in maintaining for approximately 10-15% of the bacterial . Beyond its canonical function, GroEL exhibits versatility in applications such as and has been studied extensively for its allosteric mechanisms, which involve negative between rings to ensure efficient substrate release.

Discovery and History

Initial Isolation

The initial isolation of what would later be known as GroEL stemmed from genetic screens conducted in 1973 by Costa Georgopoulos and colleagues at , targeting Escherichia coli mutants defective in the propagation of bacteriophage λ at elevated temperatures. These temperature-sensitive mutants were selected by their inability to support λ phage growth at 42°C (non-permissive temperature) while permitting normal growth at 30°C, revealing defects specifically in phage head assembly despite intact , tail formation, and cell . The responsible locus was named groE, highlighting its essential role in viral , as lysates from infected groE mutants accumulated aberrant "head-related monsters" similar to those seen in phage B or C mutants. To confirm the specificity of the groE defect, the researchers isolated and mapped suppressor mutations in the λ phage genome, all clustered near gene E (encoding the major head subunit), indicating direct host-phage interactions during assembly. Complementation assays further validated this: wild-type E. coli extracts restored head formation in groE mutant lysates infected with λ, whereas mutant extracts did not, establishing groE as a host factor indispensable for converting phage protein pB (or pC) into the mature head component h3 via proteolytic processing. These findings positioned groE as critical for phage propagation under , though its broader cellular role remained unclear at the time. Biochemical purification of the GroE protein followed in 1979, achieved through a multi-step process involving , DEAE-cellulose , and gel filtration from overproducing E. coli strains induced by a λ groE+ transducing phage. The purified protein appeared as a soluble, 850 oligomer comprising 14 identical subunits of approximately 60 each, exhibiting a cylindrical morphology with 7-fold (125 diameter, 100 height) and weak activity. This purification confirmed its identity as a host protein required for of multiple phages (λ, T4, T5), distinct from previously misidentified associations with . Early studies also linked the groEL product (the larger component of the groE , distinguished from groES in subsequent work, with the distinction between the larger groEL and smaller groES components established in 1981 by Tilly et al.) to the , with its synthesis strongly induced upon temperature upshift to 42°C, elevating levels to about 2% of total cellular protein. This identification as a major heat-inducible protein (initially denoted as 64.5 on 2D gels) underscored its dual importance in stress adaptation and phage assembly, though full essentiality for was established later.

Key Milestones

The confirmation of GroEL's induction under heat-shock conditions occurred in 1978, when studies in Escherichia coli revealed a set of proteins, including those later identified as chaperonins, whose synthesis rates transiently increased in response to elevated temperatures. In the 1980s, the cloning and sequencing of the groEL gene marked a pivotal advancement, enabling detailed analysis of its product. In 1988, researchers led by R. John Ellis cloned and sequenced the groEL gene from E. coli, uncovering its sequence homology to the β-subunit of the Rubisco-binding protein in plant chloroplasts and to the mitochondrial heat-shock protein HSP60. This homology provided strong evidence supporting the endosymbiotic theory of organelle origins, as it indicated that GroEL-like chaperonins in eukaryotes derived from bacterial ancestors. The identification of GroES as GroEL's co-chaperonin partner emerged in the late 1980s through genetic and biochemical approaches. In 1989, reconstitution experiments demonstrated that GroES, a smaller heptameric protein, cooperates with GroEL and ATP to facilitate the folding of denatured , establishing GroES's essential role in the chaperonin system. A landmark structural insight came in 1994 with the determination of GroEL's at 2.8 Å resolution by the groups of Arthur L. Horwich and Paul B. Sigler, in collaboration with Franz-Ulrich Hartl's laboratory. This work revealed GroEL's tetradecameric barrel-shaped architecture, consisting of two stacked heptameric rings, providing the first atomic-level visualization of its oligomeric form and laying the foundation for understanding its mechanistic function. During the 1990s, early biochemical and genetic studies provided evidence that GroEL's role extended beyond supporting bacteriophage assembly—its initial discovery context—to assisting de novo folding of newly synthesized bacterial proteins. For instance, essentiality assays and in vitro folding experiments showed that GroEL/GroES promotes the productive folding of a subset of cytosolic proteins, preventing aggregation and highlighting its broad cellular importance. This period also saw indirect recognition of the chaperone field's impact through awards honoring foundational work by Hartl and colleagues on protein folding mechanisms.

Molecular Structure

Overall Architecture

GroEL is a homo-oligomeric composed of 14 identical subunits, each with a molecular weight of approximately 57 , arranged as two stacked heptameric rings to form a tetradecameric with a total of about 800 . The overall architecture resembles a barrel or double-ring cylinder, exhibiting C7 (seven-fold) within each ring and back-to-back stacking of the rings mediated by interactions between their equatorial domains. The cylindrical measures approximately 15 nm in height and 14 nm in outer diameter, with a central cavity of about 6 nm in diameter that provides an enclosed environment for . Each subunit is organized into three distinct domains: the equatorial domain at the base, which forms the inter-ring interface and houses conserved ATP-binding sites; the apical domain at the ends, involved in substrate interactions; and the intermediate domain, which connects the other two. The domains are linked by flexible hinges, including glycine-rich regions such as those at hinge 2 (involving residues Gly192, Gly374, and Gly375), which enable conformational flexibility. At the sequence level, GroEL exhibits evolutionary conservation, sharing approximately 50-60% identity with eukaryotic mitochondrial homologs like Hsp60 and lower but significant similarity with archaeal group II chaperonins, reflecting a common ancestral origin for these molecular chaperones.

Domains and Conformational Changes

Each GroEL subunit is composed of three modular domains that enable its dynamic functionality: the equatorial domain at the base, which houses the ATP/ADP binding site and mediates inter-ring contacts through extensive interfaces; the intermediate domain serving as a flexible hinge that connects the equatorial and apical domains, allowing for subunit rotations; and the apical domain at the top, featuring hydrophobic grooves that facilitate initial substrate protein binding. Recent structural analyses indicate the disordered C-terminal tails (residues ~525–547) also contribute to substrate binding within the cavity, complementing the apical domain's hydrophobic sites, as observed in interactions with nascent polypeptides. GroEL exhibits distinct conformational states driven by ligand binding, transitioning from an open configuration where the apical domains expose hydrophobic surfaces to accept unfolded substrates, to a closed state upon GroES capping where the cavity interior becomes hydrophilic to promote folding. These transitions involve allosteric mechanisms with positive cooperativity within each ring for ATP binding but negative cooperativity between rings, ensuring alternating activity and preventing simultaneous encapsulation in both rings. Upon ATP binding, the apical domain twists approximately 90° clockwise relative to its unliganded position, while the intermediate domain rotates about 25° toward the equatorial domain; further GroES binding elevates these domains, inducing a 60° upward rotation of the apical domain and forming a dome-shaped enclosure that enlarges the central cavity to roughly 10 nm in height. Recent structural studies have illuminated these dynamics in greater detail. Cryo-EM analysis in 2023 captured intermediate states during substrate progression within GroEL, as seen in the ADP·BeF₃-bound complex (PDB 8BA8), revealing how conformational shifts accommodate folding intermediates without full encapsulation. Complementing this, in situ cryo-electron tomography in 2024 visualized GroEL distributions in E. coli , showing asymmetric GroES binding on one ring in 55–70% of complexes under varying growth conditions, with increased asymmetry (up to 70%) during heat stress, highlighting cellular for ring-specific conformations. Investigations into thermophilic variants further underscore domain adaptations for stability. In 2024 structural studies of GroEL homologs from thermophilic bacteria like Hydrogenophilus thermoluteolus, the equatorial and apical domains exhibit reinforced interfaces and altered helix angles, conferring enhanced thermal stability with melting temperatures reaching 83°C compared to 67°C for the mesophilic E. coli counterpart, while maintaining ATP-driven conformational flexibility. Similar enhancements in archaeal Hsp60 homologs, such as from Sulfolobus acidocaldarius, involve domain-specific oligomeric adjustments that support function at high temperatures without compromising hinge-mediated dynamics.

Chaperone Mechanism

ATP-Dependent Cycle

The ATP-dependent cycle of GroEL operates through a seven-step mechanism that harnesses binding and to drive conformational changes essential for substrate protein encapsulation and folding. In the initial step, an unfolded substrate binds to the apical domains of an open cis ring in the GroEL tetradecamer. Subsequent ATP binding to all seven subunits in the cis ring induces positive intra-ring , elevating the intermediate and apical domains and tilting the equatorial domains to create a more hydrophilic cavity. This conformational shift, in the third step, enables GroES to cap the cis ring, displacing the substrate into the enlarged central cavity for isolated folding, a process that proceeds for approximately 10-15 seconds. then occurs in the fourth step within the cis ring, committing the complex to the folding phase while maintaining the capped state through negative inter-ring that inhibits ATP binding to the trans ring. In the fifth step, the trans ring binds a new set of seven ATP molecules, which triggers allosteric signaling to destabilize the cis ring's GroES cap. This leads to the sixth step, where GroES and ADP are ejected from the cis ring, allowing release of the folded substrate. Finally, in the seventh step, the emptied cis ring resets to its open conformation, ready for the next substrate, while the trans ring proceeds to become the new cis ring. Allosteric regulation ensures ordered progression, with positive facilitating rapid, concerted ATP binding within a ring (Hill coefficient ≈4) and negative inter-ring preventing simultaneous activity of both rings to maintain . The ATP rate is approximately 0.1 s⁻¹ per ring, setting the tempo of the cycle under physiological conditions. Thermodynamically, each ATP event supplies a free energy change of approximately -30 kJ/mol, which powers cavity expansion from ≈85,000 ų to ≈175,000 ų and sequesters the substrate in a confined, hydrophilic environment that flattens the folding free energy landscape, reducing kinetic barriers and preventing off-pathway aggregation. The overall reaction for one full cycle per ring is: GroEL+7ATP+substrate→GroEL+7ADP+7Pi+folded substrate\text{GroEL} + 7\text{ATP} + \text{substrate} \to \text{GroEL} + 7\text{ADP} + 7\text{P}_\text{i} + \text{folded substrate} Recent quantification using cryo-electron (cryo-ET) in E. coli cells has confirmed that asymmetric states predominate, with 55-70% of GroEL complexes featuring GroES bound to across various growth conditions, underscoring the physiological relevance of the asymmetric cycle.

Substrate Binding and Folding

GroEL recognizes non-native substrate proteins primarily through the exposure of hydrophobic residues on these unfolded or partially folded polypeptides, which interact with complementary hydrophobic grooves located in the apical domains of the GroEL cylinder. This binding is promiscuous yet selective for aggregation-prone states, preventing premature intermolecular associations in the crowded cellular environment. Notable obligate clients include enzymes such as ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase () and , which require GroEL assistance for efficient folding. Proteomics studies have identified over 250 GroEL-dependent proteins in Escherichia coli, representing approximately 10% of the cytosolic proteome and highlighting GroEL's broad role in folding a significant fraction of newly synthesized proteins. Recent in vivo analyses from 2023 confirm this repertoire, emphasizing that these clients often exhibit high aggregation propensity and rely on GroEL to maintain proteostasis. Furthermore, GroEL contributes to preventing amyloid formation by sequestering hydrophobic segments of amyloidogenic peptides, such as amyloid-β, thereby inhibiting fibril nucleation and elongation. Upon and GroES capping, the substrate is encapsulated within the hydrophilic, enclosed folding chamber of GroEL, which isolates it from the and shields it from aggregation with other non-native molecules. This anoxic-like, sequestered space promotes unimpeded folding by providing a low-volume, solvated environment that favors intramolecular interactions over intermolecular ones. Recent cryo-EM studies as of November 2025 show that GroEL can actively unfold nascent protein chains to facilitate encapsulation. For recalcitrant substrates, GroEL facilitates iterative binding and release through multiple cycles, often many for proteins like , allowing repeated attempts at productive folding without permanent entrapment. Cryo-electron microscopy structures from 2023 reveal detailed snapshots of substrate progression within the GroEL cycle, particularly for the Rubisco large subunit, demonstrating initial threading into the apical domain followed by compaction and advancement through asymmetric intermediate states toward encapsulation. These visualizations show the substrate transitioning from extended, non-native conformations bound across rings to more compact, native-like densities within the cis chamber, underscoring the dynamic nature of chaperonin-assisted maturation. For many clients, GroEL achieves folding yields of 50–90%, varying by substrate complexity; failures typically result in re-binding for another cycle or targeting for proteasomal degradation to avert cellular toxicity.

Biological Functions

Protein Folding in Bacteria

GroEL plays a central role in maintaining protein homeostasis in bacteria, particularly by assisting the post-translational folding of newly synthesized polypeptides in the crowded cytoplasmic environment. In Escherichia coli, GroEL is essential for cellular viability, as it facilitates the folding of approximately 10–15% of the proteome, including many essential proteins; null mutants are lethal, underscoring its indispensable function under normal growth conditions. This folding activity prevents aggregation of aggregation-prone substrates, ensuring proper cellular function without relying on stress-induced upregulation. Localized exclusively in the of E. coli, GroEL constitutes approximately 1% of the total soluble protein under standard conditions, providing sufficient capacity to handle the flux of nascent chains emerging from . Its high abundance reflects the constant demand for chaperone assistance in de novo protein synthesis. Furthermore, GroEL integrates with the translational machinery by binding nascent polypeptides in close proximity to the , enabling co-translational folding support that stabilizes emerging domains and reduces premature misfolding risks. Recent studies as of 2025 have shown that the GroEL/GroES system can unfold and encapsulate nascent proteins directly emerging from the , further supporting its role in co-translational folding. Recent interactome studies have illuminated GroEL's client repertoire, revealing a bias toward metabolic enzymes critical for bacterial . For instance, approximately 70% of obligate GroEL-dependent substrates (Class IV clients) are involved in , including central pathways such as those for and biosynthesis; examples include aspartate-semialdehyde dehydrogenase (ASD) in lysine production and HemB in synthesis, both essential for viability. These findings highlight how GroEL ensures the folding of structurally challenging proteins with TIM-barrel folds, which are prevalent in metabolic . While the core ATP-dependent encapsulation mechanism drives this process, as detailed elsewhere, the context emphasizes GroEL's selective role in buffering metabolic flux. Evolutionarily, GroEL is highly conserved across Proteobacteria, reflecting its ancient and fundamental contribution to bacterial in this phylum. In contrast, predominantly utilize group II chaperonins for analogous functions, with studies demonstrating that a group II chaperonin from Methanococcus maripaludis can partially replace GroEL in E. coli, restoring limited viability and suggesting functional divergence between the two chaperonin groups over evolutionary time. This partial substitutability underscores GroEL's specialized adaptations for bacterial cytoplasmic folding demands.

Roles in Stress Response

In Escherichia coli, GroEL expression is strongly upregulated during heat shock through the sigma-32 (σ32)-dependent promoter, which recognizes specific promoter elements in the groESL to initiate transcription of heat shock genes. Upon a shift from 30°C to 42°C, the rate of GroEL synthesis increases dramatically, up to approximately 50-fold in the initial phase of the response, before adapting to a sustained elevation of 2- to 3-fold in steady-state protein levels. This induction is mediated by stabilization and increased translation of σ32, allowing rapid accumulation of GroEL to counter protein misfolding caused by . GroEL plays a critical protective role against protein aggregation induced by various environmental stresses, including heat, oxidative, and osmotic challenges, by binding non-native polypeptides and facilitating their refolding in an ATP-dependent manner with its co-chaperone GroES. In E. coli cells depleted of GroEL, sensitivity to oxidative damage (e.g., from ) and osmotic stress (e.g., high salt) is markedly heightened, as aggregated proteins accumulate and impair cellular viability. This refolding activity helps maintain , preventing irreversible aggregation and supporting cell survival during acute stress episodes. In pathogenic bacteria, GroEL contributes to enhanced survival within the host environment, particularly during latency phases. For instance, in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the homolog GroEL1 is upregulated under low-oxygen and oxidative stress conditions mimicking latency in granulomas, aiding protein folding to promote long-term persistence and resistance to host immune pressures. Recent studies have revealed multifaceted "Swiss-knife" activities of GroEL beyond canonical chaperoning, including non-chaperone functions such as modulating enzyme activities and interacting with diverse substrates under stress to fine-tune metabolic responses. During T4 infection, GroEL and GroES (or the phage-encoded gp31 homolog) are essential for the proper folding of major proteins gp23 and gp24, enabling efficient head and viral assembly. Mutants lacking functional GroEL/GroES fail to produce viable T4 virions, underscoring GroEL's role in stress-like conditions imposed by rapid viral protein synthesis.

Interactions and Partners

With GroES

GroES is a co-chaperonin consisting of seven 10 subunits that assemble into a dome-shaped heptameric cap, which binds to the apical domains of one GroEL ring following to seal the central folding cavity and create a hydrophilic environment for substrate protein isolation. This binding occurs after ATP binding to the cis ring induces conformational changes in the apical domains, expanding the cavity volume to approximately 85,000 ų and preventing aggregation by sequestering the non-native substrate. The interaction is transient, forming the GroEL:GroES:ATP complex, where GroES's mobile loops insert into hydrophobic grooves on GroEL's apical domains to stabilize the closed state. The mechanism involves ATP-driven allostery: binding of ATP to the trans ring ejects GroES from the cis ring, releasing the folded or partially folded substrate and resetting the cycle for new substrate binding. This ejection is powered by negative allostery, where trans-ATP binding propagates conformational signals across the equatorial interface, causing 90° rotations in the cis apical domains to dislodge GroES. Recent cryo-EM studies from 2021 to 2024 have revealed asymmetric ADP-bound states of the GroEL-GroES complex, such as bullet-shaped conformations with one ring capped and the other open, highlighting inter-ring asymmetry essential for coordinated cycling. These structures also show that GroES mimics substrate binding to apical domains, activating allosteric responses that mimic full substrate encapsulation for regulatory purposes. GroES is functionally necessary for efficient , as GroEL alone exhibits significantly reduced folding yields for many substrates due to the lack of cavity enclosure, which allows aggregation; for instance, encapsulation by GroES can increase folding efficiency by over 10-fold for certain proteins like mitochondrial . In T4, GroES is substituted by the phage-encoded gp31, a structural homolog that forms a larger cavity to accommodate the folding of the major protein gp23, demonstrating the co-chaperonin's critical role in specialized folding pathways. This partnership is conserved across organisms, with eukaryotic homologs such as mitochondrial and Cpn10 (also known as chaperonin 10) performing analogous functions with group I chaperonins like Hsp60 to assist in organellar protein biogenesis.

With Other Proteins

GroEL interacts with a diverse array of client proteins in , estimated at approximately 300 potential substrates that require its assistance for proper folding, including well-studied examples such as (DHFR) and (MDH). These clients typically bind to GroEL in their non-native states, where exposed hydrophobic regions on the substrate engage with complementary hydrophobic patches on the inner surface of GroEL's apical domains, facilitating capture with high affinity (association rate constants often exceeding 10^7 M^{-1} s^{-1}). This binding prevents aggregation and positions the substrate for subsequent chaperonin-mediated folding cycles. In addition to direct substrate interactions, GroEL engages in regulatory partnerships with other chaperones, notably DnaK (Hsp70), which acts upstream in the folding pathway by stabilizing early polypeptide intermediates before handing them over to GroEL for encapsulation and further maturation. This sequential cooperation ensures efficient triage of nascent or stress-denatured proteins, with DnaK-DnaJ complexes delivering substrates to GroEL upon to mitigate kinetic traps in folding. Phage-specific adaptations highlight GroEL's versatility in interactions beyond bacterial hosts; in bacteriophage T4 infection, the viral protein gp31 serves as a specialized co-chaperonin that replaces GroES, forming a GroEL-gp31 complex essential for folding the major protein gp23 and other late-stage assembly components. Furthermore, GroEL assists in the folding of T4 tail proteins, such as those in the baseplate and fiber assembly, by binding their unfolded forms to prevent misassembly during virion . Recent proteomic studies have refined the identification of GroEL clients—proteins that depend on GroEL for viability—revealing a core set of around 80-100 in E. coli, including critical regulators like the heat shock σ^{32} (RpoH), which requires GroEL-mediated stabilization to activate stress response genes. GroEL also participates in cross-talk with cellular proteases, such as Lon and ClpXP, to manage irreparable substrates; if folding attempts fail, bound proteins may be released or transferred for ubiquitin-independent degradation, preventing toxic accumulation of aggregates while prioritizing salvageable clients.

Synthesis and Regulation

Gene Expression

In Escherichia coli, the groEL gene is part of the rpoH regulon, which encodes the alternative sigma factor σ32 responsible for directing RNA polymerase to heat shock promoters. The groEL promoter features specific σ32 binding sites, including conserved -35 (TTGAAA) and -10 (CCCCATNT) regions located upstream of the transcription start site, enabling σ32-dependent activation. Under normal growth conditions, groEL transcription occurs at a basal level, contributing to the steady-state production of chaperonin essential for routine . Upon heat shock or other stresses, groEL expression is rapidly induced, with mRNA levels increasing up to 20-fold due to stabilization of σ32 through sequestration by the DnaK-DnaJ-GrpE chaperone system, which releases σ32 when overwhelmed by misfolded proteins. While HtpG, another chaperone, contributes to higher-temperature stress sensing and indirectly supports the , the primary transcriptional induction of groEL relies on the DnaK-mediated derepression of σ32. Post-transcriptionally, heat shock enhances groEL mRNA stability, thereby amplifying protein synthesis during stress. of groEL mRNA is coupled to nascent polypeptide folding, with GroEL itself binding co-translationally to emerging proteins via interactions with , preventing aggregation and ensuring efficient chaperone function. The groEL is highly conserved as a single-copy locus across , reflecting its essential role in prokaryotic protein . In eukaryotes, the homolog is nuclear-encoded by the HSPD1 gene, which produces the mitochondrial HSP60 chaperonin. Recent studies have revealed epigenetic modulation of groEL (as part of the groESL ) in bacterial pathogens, such as , where deficiency in the VchM leads to hypomethylation of promoter regions, resulting in upregulated expression that enhances tolerance to antibiotics and supports under stress conditions.

Assembly Process

The folding of individual GroEL monomers occurs independently and autocatalytically, as the polypeptide contains all necessary information for achieving a compact, assembly-competent conformation without reliance on other chaperones or the oligomeric GroEL itself. This process can be recapitulated from fully denatured states, such as after exposure to 8 M , yielding monomers with structured equatorial, intermediate, and apical domains that are primed for oligomerization. In vivo, the assembly of these folded monomers into the functional tetradecameric oligomer is ATP-dependent, requiring Mg-ATP to facilitate subunit interactions and stabilize the under physiological conditions. The process begins with the formation of intra-ring contacts primarily involving the equatorial domains, which serve as the foundational for ring assembly, followed by incorporation of apical and intermediate domain interactions to complete the heptameric rings and enable inter-ring stacking. Initial monomer association may be assisted by the chaperone DnaK, which helps prevent aggregation of nascent polypeptides during early stages, though GroEL's proceeds robustly thereafter. Kinetically, single-ring (heptameric) intermediates form rapidly, with assembly progressing to full tetradecamer stabilization on the order of minutes under optimal conditions, such as in the presence of approximately 1 mM ATP. Heptameric rings represent a key transient state, detectable during reassembly, before the second ring stacks via equatorial contacts to yield the mature cylinder. In vitro, assembly is induced by Mg-ATP (minimal ~0.1 mM) combined with salts like 0.4 M or 2 M NaCl, which enhance subunit affinity and yield up to 90% functional oligomers, while binding—rather than —is essential for conformational rearrangement. Mutants, such as single-ring variants (e.g., SR1), exhibit altered kinetics with monoexponential assembly profiles and reduced stability, leading to imbalanced ring formation and incomplete tetradecamers.

Medical and Biotechnological Relevance

Role in Bacterial Pathogenesis and Antibiotics

In bacterial pathogens, GroEL plays a critical role in survival and virulence, particularly under host-imposed stresses. In Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the GroEL homolog GroEL1 (Cpn60.1) is upregulated during heat shock, oxidative stress, and infection, enabling the bacterium to maintain proteostasis and persist within macrophages. This upregulation supports mycolic acid biosynthesis essential for cell wall integrity and virulence, with GroEL1 mutants exhibiting attenuated persistence and reduced inflammatory responses in animal models. Similarly, in Porphyromonas gingivalis, a key periodontal pathogen, GroEL promotes chronic inflammation by inducing M1 macrophage polarization, which exacerbates abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) formation through increased matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) activity via SUMOylation in vascular smooth muscle cells. As a , GroEL directly interacts with host cells to modulate immune responses. It induces pro-inflammatory production, such as TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-8, by activating the pathway and NLRP3 in macrophages and epithelial cells. In oral infections, P. gingivalis GroEL accelerates tumor by upregulating microRNAs (e.g., miR-1248 and miR-1291) in endothelial progenitor cells, which downregulate and enhance neovascularization, promoting tumor growth and in mouse models. These mechanisms highlight GroEL's contribution to pathogen-host crosstalk, amplifying and tissue damage without direct . The essentiality of GroEL/GroES for bacterial viability positions it as a promising antibiotic target, particularly for multidrug-resistant strains. Small-molecule inhibitors that occupy the ATP-binding site, such as bis-sulfonamido-2-phenylbenzoxazoles, disrupt chaperonin function and exhibit potent bactericidal activity against Gram-negative pathogens like and at low micromolar concentrations, with minimal eukaryotic toxicity. Recent advances include GroEL modulators that reduce biofilm formation in by impairing initial attachment and matrix production, achieving up to 80% inhibition . For tuberculosis, novel GroEL inhibitors show efficacy against replicating M. tuberculosis and persisters, advancing as preclinical candidates with synergy potential alongside existing regimens.

Homologs in Eukaryotes and Diseases

In eukaryotes, the primary homolog of the bacterial chaperonin GroEL is heat shock protein 60 (HSP60), also referred to as Cpn60, which resides predominantly in the mitochondrial matrix where it assists in the folding of nuclear-encoded proteins imported into the organelle. Unlike GroEL, which is encoded by the bacterial genome and functions in the cytoplasm, HSP60 is nuclear-encoded, featuring a 26-amino-acid mitochondrial import signal that directs its translocation to mitochondria upon synthesis in the cytosol. Structurally, HSP60 forms a conserved tetradecameric double-ring complex similar to GroEL, but its assembly into double rings requires ATP, and it exhibits no negative inter-ring cooperativity in ATP binding, allowing both rings to engage nucleotides simultaneously—a deviation from GroEL's asymmetric mechanism. Additionally, HSP60 pairs with the co-chaperone Hsp10 (Cpn10) rather than GroES, enabling substrate folding in a nucleotide-dependent manner within the mitochondrial environment. Under cellular stress conditions such as hypoxia, oxidative damage, or , a portion of HSP60 (approximately 15-20%) relocates from mitochondria to the , where it participates in non-canonical roles including , modulation via TLR4, and protection against . This translocation is mediated by stress-induced disassembly of mitochondrial complexes and has been observed in various cell types, including cardiomyocytes and hepatocytes, potentially contributing to adaptive responses but also pathological signaling. Functionally, HSP60 not only facilitates the biogenesis of mitochondrial proteins but also supports replication by binding single-stranded DNA and stabilizing replication intermediates, underscoring its broader role in maintenance distinct from GroEL's cytosolic in . HSP60 dysregulation is implicated in several human diseases, particularly through its extra-mitochondrial activities. In autoimmunity, such as rheumatoid arthritis, molecular mimicry arises from sequence homology (over 50%) between human HSP60 and bacterial HSP65, leading to cross-reactive T-cell responses that promote synovial inflammation and cytokine production like TNF-α and IFN-γ; anti-HSP60 autoantibodies are elevated in affected patients, exacerbating joint pathology. In cancer, HSP60 overexpression serves as a prognostic biomarker: in colorectal cancer, high levels correlate with improved event-free and disease-specific survival (HR 1.42-1.69 for low vs. high expression), particularly in advanced TNM stages III/IV, potentially reflecting cytoprotective effects against tumor stress, as shown in 2023 analyses of patient cohorts. Conversely, in ovarian cancer, elevated HSP60 expression is associated with aggressive features like advanced FIGO stage, lymph node metastasis, and poorer overall survival (P=0.004), based on 2025 studies of over 260 cases, highlighting its role in promoting proliferation and lipid metabolism dysregulation. Recent meta-analyses and cohort studies from 2022-2025 reinforce HSP60's dual context-dependent functions in oncogenesis, with cytoplasmic relocation enhancing tumor cell survival. Emerging post-2020 research links HSP60 to neurodegeneration and metabolic disorders. In , mitochondrial HSP60 prevents amyloid-β aggregation by altering oligomer conformations and maintaining , with upregulation observed in affected regions to counter mitochondrial dysfunction; studies from 2023 suggest therapeutic potential in enhancing HSP60 to mitigate Aβ toxicity and pathology. Similarly, in —particularly type 1—HSP60 expression on β-cell surfaces under or mitochondrial stress acts as an autoantigen, triggering immune-mediated destruction via MHC presentation of modified ; post-2020 investigations, including 2021 reviews, show that stress-induced HSP60 relocation in β-cells promotes and , while peptide therapies like P277 shift responses toward tolerance, preserving β-cell function. These associations underscore HSP60's translocation as a key factor in disease progression, differing from GroEL's strictly prokaryotic confinement.

Biotechnological Applications

GroEL has found applications in due to its robust protein-folding capabilities. It is widely used in to assist the refolding and stabilization of recombinant proteins expressed in bacterial systems, improving yields in industrial production of enzymes and therapeutics. For instance, immobilized GroEL columns facilitate ATP-dependent folding of denatured proteins . Additionally, GroEL's cage-like structure has been exploited in for encapsulating and delivering biomolecules, and in vaccine development as an adjuvant to enhance immune responses. As of 2025, engineered variants of GroEL are being explored for sustainable biocatalysis and applications.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10723157/
  2. https://doi.org/10.1038/371578a0
  3. https://doi.org/10.1038/371614a0
  4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12475168/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC551958/
  6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(73)90080-6
  7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(79)90502-3
  8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.78.6.3690
  9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(78)90317-3
  10. https://www.nature.com/articles/333330a0
  11. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(14)00404-8
  12. https://www.nature.com/articles/342884a0
  13. https://www.nature.com/articles/371578a0
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2825432/
  15. https://www.cell.com/structure/fulltext/S0969-2126(94)00114-6
  16. https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.90.9.3978
  17. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19130907/
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12571646/
  19. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2118465119
  20. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1311996110
  21. https://www.cell.com/structure/fulltext/S0969-2126(24)00051-0
  22. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64968-w
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867401006171
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23183375/
  25. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2308933120
  26. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07843-w
  27. https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/febs.17213
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC21105/
  29. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0911556106
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5899694/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11390479/
  32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11716298/
  33. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0406132101
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9950496/
  35. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1817477115
  36. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19577567/
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6954723/
  38. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mmi.15109
  39. https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1096/fasebj.10.1.8566548
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1046592811000763
  41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16754671/
  42. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2023.1091677/full
  43. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00383/full
  44. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jb.00317-16
  45. https://academic.oup.com/femsre/article/41/4/549/3574666
  46. https://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/18/22/2812.full
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1698207/
  48. https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(00)80509-7
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1472979215300809
  50. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.07.07.602466v1
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021925819884259
  52. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97657-x
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC28033/
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867400803438
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC47902/
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9159487/
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3710837/
  58. https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258%2820%2971034-3/fulltext
  59. https://www.nature.com/articles/356683a0
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC50334/
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7908418/
  62. https://journals.asm.org/journal/ecosalplus/molecular-biology-of-bacteriophage-t4-part3
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579315009710
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10044410/
  65. https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/5497066
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1522074/
  67. https://academic.oup.com/book/51141/chapter/421975899
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC528900/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC206150/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021925819477004
  71. https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-10-64
  72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318073930_HSPD1_Heat_Shock_60kDa_Protein_1
  73. https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1009748
  74. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.270.38.22113
  75. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom4020458
  76. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022116726142
  77. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40869102/
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2292875/
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11532219/
  80. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/omi.12415
  81. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsptsci.4c00397
  82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382493959_Bis-sulfonamido-2-phenylbenzoxazoles_Validate_the_GroESEL_Chaperone_System_as_a_Viable_Antibiotic_Target
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6467803/
  84. https://scholarworks.indianapolis.iu.edu/items/4f4807c9-6e7d-4a00-a24d-dac7b8545ebe
  85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2018.05.001
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7126845/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.