|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M005251200 on August 14, 2000
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 275, Issue 44, 34140-34146, November 3, 2000
Cpr6 and Cpr7, Two Closely Related Hsp90-associated Immunophilins
from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Differ in Their
Functional Properties*
Christian
Mayr ,
Klaus
Richter ,
Hauke
Lilie§, and
Johannes
Buchner ¶
From the Institut für Organische Chemie und
Biochemie, Technische Universität München, 85747 Garching
and § Institut für Biotechnologie, Universität
Halle-Wittenberg, 06114 Halle, Germany
Received for publication, June 16, 2000, and in revised form, August 7, 2000
 |
ABSTRACT |
Hsp90 is an abundant cytosolic molecular
chaperone. It controls the folding of target proteins including steroid
hormone receptors and kinases in complex with several partner proteins.
Prominent members of this protein family are large peptidyl prolyl
cis/trans isomerases (PPIases), which catalyze the cis/trans
isomerization of prolyl peptide bonds in proteins and possess chaperone
activity. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, two closely related
large Hsp90-associated PPIases, Cpr6 and Cpr7, exist. We show here that
these homologous proteins bind with comparable affinity to Hsp90 but
exhibit significant structural and functional differences. Cpr6 is more
stable than Cpr7 against thermal denaturation and displays an up to
100-fold higher PPIase activity. In contrast, the chaperone activity of Cpr6 is much lower than that of Cpr7. Based on these results we suggest
that the two immunophilins perform overlapping but not identical tasks
in the Hsp90 chaperone cycle.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
PPIases1 are enzymes
that are able to catalyze the cis-trans isomerization of Xaa-Pro
peptide bonds in short synthetic peptides as well as in proteins (1).
The isomerization of these bonds is a slow process (2) and often a
rate-determining step in protein folding (3-6). PPIases have been
found in all organisms and subcellular compartments studied so far (1,
7, 8). Until now three unrelated families of PPIases could be
identified: parvulins, cyclophilins, and FKBPs (1, 5, 9). Because of
their inhibition by the immunosuppressive drugs cyclosporin A (CsA) or
FK506/rapamycin, the cyclophilins and FKBPs are also termed
immunophilins (10-13). Several large immunophilins with a molecular
mass of about 40-54 kDa are components of the Hsp90 chaperone complex.
In higher eukaryotes, FKBP51, FKBP52, and Cyp40 act together with
Hsp90; in yeast these are Cpr6 and Cpr7, two cyclophilins. The Hsp90
complex seems to regulate the conformation of its target proteins.
These substrates include steroid hormone receptors. Here, the Hsp90
chaperone cycle is well established (reviewed in Refs. 14-16). In the
case of the progesterone receptor, the receptor is bound to Hsp70 in an
early complex (15, 17). Then an intermediate complex is formed in
which Hsp90, Hsp70, Hip, Hop, and perhaps Hsp40 participate. The last
step of this activation cycle is a complex, consisting of the
progesterone receptor, Hsp90, p23, and one of the large immunophilins.
The specific function of the immunophilins in the chaperone cycle is
far from clear. However, it is well established that progesterone receptor has to be bound in this complex to allow binding of the hormone, dimerization, and subsequently, interaction with DNA. In the
absence of hormone, the receptor is released from the complex, and the
cycle starts again. The large immunophilins interact with Hsp90 via
tetratricopeptide repeats (18-21). The partner site for the
tetratricopeptide-repeat motifs is located in a 12-kDa
carboxyl-terminal domain of Hsp90 (22, 23). The
tetratricopeptide-repeat proteins compete with each other for this
binding site (18, 19, 24, 25). In vitro large immunophilins
are able to recognize and bind nonnative proteins. Cyp40, the human
relative of Cpr6 and Cpr7, was found to be able to keep
-galactosidase in a folding-competent state (26). FKBP52 is able to
suppress the aggregation process of citrate synthase (CS) and to bind
unfolding intermediates of CS (27).
Although Cpr6 and Cpr7 share 47% sequence homology and 38% sequence
identity (28), in vivo several differences have been found.
Cpr6 and Cpr7 are both constitutively expressed, but only Cpr6 is
additionally induced by heat shock (29). Depletion of Cpr7 led to a
growth defect that could not be rescued by the overexpression of Cpr6
(28, 30). In vitro it was shown that Cpr6 is able to
catalyze the isomerization of Xaa-Pro peptide bonds (29, 31), whereas
Cpr7 is assumed to be inactive (32). Here we analyzed and compared the
function and stability of Cpr6 and Cpr7. We demonstrate that
significant differences exist between the two Hsp90 partner proteins.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Proteins--
Cpr6, Cpr7, and yeast Hsp90 were purified as
described (33, 34). Mitochondrial pig heart CS was obtained from Roche
Molecular Biochemicals. CS was stored in TE buffer (50 mM
Tris, 2 mM EDTA, pH 8.0). The reduced and carboxymethylated
form of -lactalbumin and casein were obtained from Sigma. The
reduced and carboxymethylated form of -lactalbumin (RCM-La)
was stored in 100 mM Tris, 2 M NaCl, pH 8.0. Purified Sti1 was a kind gift of Paul Muschler (Technische Universität München). The RNase T1(P55)-carrying plasmid
was a kind gift of F. X. Schmid (University of Bayreuth). RNase
T1(P55) was purified and modified (35) as described previously. The protein concentrations were determined using the extinction
coefficients of 0.51, 0.88, 2.1, and 1.9 of Cpr6, Cpr7, RCM-La, and
RCM-T1(P55) for a 0.1% solution at 280 nm and a path length of 10 mm,
respectively. The extinction coefficients of the proteins were
calculated according to Pace et al. (36).
The antibodies against Cpr6, Cpr7, and RCM-La were produced by standard
procedures in rabbits. The RNase T1 antibody was a kind gift of U. Hahn
(University of Leipzig). The Hsp90 antibody Spa840 was obtained
from Stressgen Biotechnologies Corp. (Victoria, Canada).
Immunoblots were probed with a 1:1000 dilution of the respective antibody.
Circular Dichroism Measurements--
Near and far UV circular
dichroism (CD) spectra were recorded in a Jasco J715 spectropolarimeter
equipped with a peltier unit. Cpr6 and Cpr7 were dialyzed overnight
against 100 mM potassium phosphate, pH 6.8. Near UV CD
spectra were recorded from 250 to 350 nm in thermostated 0.5-cm quartz
cuvettes at 25 °C. Far-UV CD spectra were recorded from 197 to 250 nm in thermostated 0.1-cm quartz cuvettes at the same temperature. All
spectra were buffer-corrected. Mean residue ellipticities for near and
far UV CD spectra were calculated based on a mean residue weight of
112. Temperature transitions were recorded at a wavelength of 222 nm
from 20 to 80 °C with a heating rate of 0.5 °C/min. To prevent
vaporization, the protein solution was covered with mineral oil.
Biacore Measurements--
Surface plasmon resonance data were
collected on a Biacore X Instrument. Hsp90 was covalently linked to the
CM5 chip via amine residues according to the supplier's instructions.
Measurements were performed at a flow rate of 20 µl/min at 20 °C.
To calculate the binding constants, two different approaches were used:
(i) direct measurements in which different concentrations of the
respective partner protein were injected onto the Hsp90-coated chip and
(ii) competitive measurements in which increasing amounts of Hsp90 were
added to the respective partner protein before injection. After complex
formation, these samples were then injected onto the Hsp90 chip, and
the amount of free partner protein was measured.
Data analysis for direct binding curves uses the linear relationship
between the resonance signal RU and the amount of protein bound to the
chip. RUmax (Equation 1) gives the maximum signal, at which
all Hsp90 molecules on the chip are saturated with partner protein.
|
(Eq. 1)
|
For the competitive approach, data analysis was done using
Equation 2. This equation can be derived from the equation for the
equilibrium constant and the assumption that the total ligand concentration L0 equals the sum of the free
ligand concentration and the concentration of the complex.
|
(Eq. 2)
|
RU0 in this equation represents the initial value of
the resonance signal without the addition of Hsp90, and
RUmin is the value obtained at maximal suppression of the
signal with external Hsp90. c, as well as in the equation
above, is the concentration of the protein added, whereas the value
L0 represents the concentration of partner
protein, which was kept constant throughout the titration. For the
different buffer conditions, different concentrations of partner
protein were used in the competition experiments because the resonance
signal proved to be sensitive to the buffer conditions. In the low salt
buffers, partner protein concentrations were between 80 nM
(Cpr6 and Cpr7) and 120 nM (Sti1). For the data analysis, these concentrations were used as L0 values and
kept constant during the data fitting. The statistical interpretation
of the data sets was done with the program Scientist from MicroMath.
Prolyl Isomerase Activity--
The PPIase activity was measured
in a Amersham Pharmacia Biotech Biochrom 4060 spectrophotometer
equipped with a thermostated cell holder using the protease-coupled
assay (37). The X-Pro bond in the
N-Succinyl-Ala-Xaa-Pro-Phe-4-nitroanilide peptide is only
cleaved by chymotrypsin if the peptide bond is in the trans position.
The increasing amount of the cleaved Pro-Phe-(4)-nitroanilide peptide
can be observed photometrically at 390 nm. The protease-free assay was
performed as described by Janowski et al. (38). Both assays
were performed at 10 °C with two different peptides, one containing
Ala and the other one containing Leu at the P1 position.
RNase T1(P55) Refolding Experiments--
The RNase T1(P55)
refolding experiments were performed as described previously (39) with
a Spex Fluoromax fluorescence spectrometer at 15 °C. The spectral
bandwidths were set to 1.5 and 3.5 nm for excitation and emission,
respectively. For the competition experiments with RCM-La, the
bandwidths for excitation and emission were set to 1.5 nm. The
excitation wavelength was set to 268 nm, and the emission wavelength
was set to 320 nm, respectively. The slow refolding of RNase-T1 under
these conditions is a mono-exponential process. The rate constants of
the reaction were determined using the program SigmaPlot 4.0 (Jandel
Corp., Erkrath, Germany).
The analysis of the Michaelis-Menten kinetic experiments was performed
by determining the initial velocities of RCM-T1 refolding from the
progress curves of refolding in the presence of 125 nM Cpr6
under the conditions described above. The RCM-T1 concentration was
varied between 0.1 and 10 µM. The observed refolding
rates were corrected for the contribution of the uncatalyzed refolding of RCM-T1. To estimate Km and
Vmax, we made a Lineweaver-Burk plot with the
corrected initial velocities. The values obtained from this plot
(Km 9 µM and
Vmax 0.027 µM
s 1) were used for simulations according to
the method of Konfron et al. (40), which accounts for both
catalyzed and uncatalyzed prolyl isomerization in a peptide. The time
course of RCM-T1 refolding in the presence of a PPIase is
described by the following differential equation (Equation 3).
|
(Eq. 3)
|
dU/dt corresponds to the rate of refolding,
k0*[U] is the contribution of the uncatalyzed
folding,
kcat*[E0]*[U]/[U] + Km is the contribution of the catalyzed folding,
with [E0] corresponding to the concentration of
the PPIase and Km, and kcat
are the Michaelis constant and the catalytic rate constant. During the
simulations k0 was kept constant (according to
measured value), and Km and
Vmax were varied until the resulting curve fit
the measured values.
85% of the RCM-T1 molecules contain the Pro-39 in the trans position
(41). These are the molecules responsible for the slow refolding
reaction. At a given concentration of the enzyme, the kcat value can be calculated.
CS Assays--
CS was thermally denatured by incubation at
43 °C in 40 mM Hepes, pH 7.5. Aggregation of CS was
measured by light scattering in stirred quartz cuvettes in a
PerkinElmer MPF 44A luminescence spectrophotometer with a thermostated
cell holder. Excitation and emission wavelengths were set to 500 nm,
with a spectral bandwidth of 2 nm. The CS inactivation and reactivation
assays were performed at 41 °C in 40 mM Hepes, 10 mM KCl, pH 7.5. Assays were performed in a Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech Ultrospec 3000 photometer with a thermostated cell
holder. All assays were performed according to Buchner et
al. (42) and Grallert et al. (43). Acetyl-CoA was from
Roche Molecular Biochemicals, and oxaloacetic acid and 5,5'-dithiobis(2-nitrobenzoic acid) were purchased from Sigma.
High Performance Liquid Chromatography Size Exclusion
Chromatography--
The HPLC size exclusion chromatography experiments
were performed with a Superdex 200HR column from Amersham Pharmacia
Biotech that was equilibrated in 40 mM Hepes, 150 mM KCl, pH 7.5. In the case of the CS experiments, 1 mM dithioerythritol was added. Proteins were detected by
fluorescence using a Jasco FP920 fluorescence detector at an excitation
wavelength of 280 nm and an emission wavelength of 330 nm.
 |
RESULTS |
Structure and Stability of the Cpr6 and Cpr7--
To gain insight
into the conformation of Cpr6 and Cpr7, the two large Hsp90-associated
immunophilins of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, CD spectra were
recorded in the far UV range. These measurements showed a maximum below
200 nm and two minima at 208 and 222 nm, characteristic for -helical
proteins (Fig. 1A). Using the
secondary structure prediction program SOPM (44), the -helical
content of Cpr6 was calculated to be 40%, and for Cpr7, it was 35%.
Size exclusion chromatography was performed to determine the quaternary structure of Cpr6 and Cpr7. Both Cpr6 and Cpr7 eluted at time points
that correspond to the respective monomer (data not shown). Having
established that the Cprs are monomeric helical proteins, we next
determined their stability. The stability against thermal unfolding was
measured by recording the decrease of the far UV CD signal at 222 nm.
Although Cpr7 starts to unfold at temperatures above 45 °C, Cpr6 is
stable up to 52 °C (Fig. 1B). Thus, although the
midpoints of the thermal denaturation are the same, Cpr7 is markedly
less stable than Cpr6. Due to aggregation of both proteins, the
transitions were not reversible.

View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Far UV CD spectra and temperature transitions
of Cpr6 and Cpr7. A, the far UV CD spectra were
recorded at a concentration of Cpr6 and Cpr7 of 300 µg/ml,
respectively. The solid line corresponds to the signal of
Cpr6, and the dotted line corresponds to the signal of Cpr7.
MRW, mean residue weight. B, the far UV CD
temperature transitions were recorded at a wavelength of 222 nm and a
concentration of Cpr6 and Cpr7 of 300 µg/ml, respectively. The
solid line corresponds to the signal of Cpr6, and the
dotted line corresponds to the signal of Cpr7.
|
|
Binding of Cpr6 and Cpr7 to Hsp90--
Cpr6 and Cpr7 form defined
complexes with Hsp90 (25, 45-47). We were interested in determining
the relative affinities of the immunophilins for Hsp90 by the plasmon
resonance technology. In addition to Cpr6 and Cpr7, we included the
Hsp90 partner protein Sti1, the yeast homologue of Hop, in this
analysis. To directly compare the affinities of Cpr6, Cpr7, and Sti1,
Hsp90 was covalently coupled to the chip surface. The potential bias
introduced by coupling Hsp90 covalently to the chip surface was avoided
by determining the binding constants for the proteins in solution by a
competitive approach. This can be achieved by first incubating constant
concentrations of a partner protein and increasing concentrations of
Hsp90 in solution. In a next step, this solution is added to the chip. Unliganded partner protein will now bind to Hsp90 immobilized on the
chip surface.
In a first set of experiments, binding of Cpr6, Cpr7, or Sti1 to
immobilized Hsp90 was analyzed in a low salt buffer. Since the His tag
could give rise to unspecific
binding,2 we included EDTA in
a second set of experiments. We found that these partner
proteins bind to Hsp90 with similar affinity in the range of 14 to 57 nM (Fig. 2 and Table
I).

View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Binding of partner proteins to Hsp90.
Surface plasmon resonance analysis of competition experiments were
performed with Hsp90-coated chips as described in the experimental
protocol. The assay buffer was 40 mM Hepes/KOH, pH 7.5, 20 mM KCl at a temperature of 20 °C. The lines
represent the fits according to the equation for competition
experiments. A, binding of Cpr6 (80 nM) in the
presence of increasing concentrations of Hsp90. B, binding
of Cpr7 (80 nM) in the presence of increasing
concentrations of Hsp90.
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table I
Binding constants of Hsp90 for partner proteins
The binding constants were determined using the competition approach
described under "Materials and Methods."
|
|
Taken together these results show that Cpr6 and Cpr7 bind with similar
affinity to Hsp90. The differences in binding between Cpr6 and Cpr7
were 2-4-fold. In addition, the competition experiments indicated a
stoichiometry of one partner protein bound to one Hsp90 monomer.
Prolyl Isomerase Activity of the Large Immunophilins--
First we
examined the activity of Cpr6 and Cpr7 in the protease-coupled peptide
assay (37). In contrast to recently published results, we could show
that Cpr7 is able to catalyze the isomerization of Xaa-Pro peptide
bonds, similar to Cpr6 (Table II). The
PPIase activity of both Cpr6 and Cpr7 is inhibited by CsA. Both large immunophilins from S. cerevisiae exhibited pseudo first
order kinetics, and the apparent rate constants increased linearly with enzyme concentrations (Fig. 3 and data
not shown). The specificity constants
kcat/Km could be estimated
from the slope in Fig. 3. The catalytic efficiency of Cpr6 of 4.8 × 105 M 1
s 1 is comparable with the value published by
Warth et al. (29). For Cpr7 (7.5 × 104
M 1 s 1),
a 6-fold lower activity was determined. Because for some PPIases the
catalytic activity strongly depends on the amino acid that precedes the
proline residue, we tested the ability of Cpr6 and Cpr7 to isomerase
Xaa-Pro bonds in a peptide in which this amino acid was replaced by a
leucine (Leu-Pro instead of Ala-Pro). We were not able to detect a
significant difference of the catalytic activity of Cpr6 and Cpr7 for
the two peptides, suggesting that they do not discriminate strongly
between different amino acids. Since Cpr7 is less stable than Cpr6, it
was possible that the low activity of Cpr7 was due to degradation in
the protease-coupled PPIase assay. Therefore we performed a different,
protease-free prolyl isomerase assay (38). The
kcat/Km values obtained here
were comparable with those of the protease-coupled assay (data not
shown). Thus, proteolytic digestion did not influence the activity in
the PPIase assays. Taken together, the results show that both proteins
are active as PPIases and that the catalytic efficiency of Cpr6 is
6-fold higher than that of Cpr7.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table II
PPIase activity of Cpr6 and Cpr7
The activities were determined as described under "Materials and
Methods." The kcat/Km values
were determined from the slopes of plots as shown in Fig. 2 for Cpr6.
ND, not determined.
|
|

View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Prolyl isomerase activity of Cpr6 in the
protease-coupled assay. The rate constant of the isomerization of
the synthetic peptide Suc-Ala-Ala-Pro-Phe-4-nitroanilide is shown as a
function of Cpr6 concentration. Measurements were carried out in 50 mM Hepes, pH 7.5, at 10 °C in the presence of 50 µM peptide. The isomerization was monitored by the change
of absorbance at 390 nm. The slope of the plot is equivalent to
kcat/Km, as given in Table
II.
|
|
Catalytic Activity of the Large Immunophilins in the Acceleration
of the Slow Refolding of RCM-RNase T1(P55)--
Although peptides are
a good model for analyzing prolyl isomerase activity, they do not allow
conclusions to be drawn on the ability of these enzymes to catalyze
slow-refolding reactions in proteins. This is especially important for
a prolyl isomerase exhibiting chaperone properties. To test this
ability, we determined the influence of Cpr6 and Cpr7 on the refolding
of reduced and carboxymethylated RNase T1(P55) (39, 48). The folding
mechanism of RCM RNase T1(P55) is well described and characterized
(41). In the native conformation, this protein contains one cis proline peptide bond, which determines the rate of refolding. The acceleration of refolding could be achieved with different PPIases (49, 50). To
determine whether the catalytic activity of Cpr6 and Cpr7 is influenced
by high salt concentrations, which are required in the RNase T1
refolding assay, we performed the protease-coupled assay in the
presence of increasing amounts of NaCl. Our results show clearly that
neither the spontaneous reaction itself nor the activity of the
proteins tested is affected by salt concentrations up to 2 M NaCl (cf. Table II). The first order rate
constant of folding increased in a linear fashion with the
concentration of Cpr6 (Fig.
4A). The specificity constants
kcat/Km, which could be
determined from the slopes in the inset of Fig. 4A, showed that Cpr6 exhibited a much higher
kcat/Km value than Cpr7
(cf. Table II). Interestingly, the specific rate constant of
Cpr7 is 100-fold lower than that of Cpr6 (3.6 ×104
M 1
s 1).

View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Refolding kinetics of RNase T1(P55) in the
presence of Cpr6 and the influence of a unfolded protein on the
catalyzed refolding of RNase T1(P55) A, the kinetics of
refolding of 0.7 µM RNase T1(P55) at 15 °C in the
absence and presence of 5.2, 10.5, 21, 42, and 84 nM Cpr6,
followed by the change in fluorescence at 320 nm, are shown. The
lines represent the respective fits. The inset
shows the dependence of the slow refolding of RNase T1(P55) on
increasing concentrations of Cpr6. The ratios of the observed rate
constants in the presence (k) and in absence
(k0) of Cpr6 are shown as a function of Cpr6
concentration. The slope of the plot is equivalent to
kcat/Km, as given in Table
II. The refolding experiments of RNase T1(P55) at 0.1 M
Tris, pH 8.0, at 15 °C were initiated by a 40-fold dilution to 2 M NaCl in the same buffer. B, the influence of
increasing concentrations of RCM-La on the Cpr6-catalyzed refolding of
RNase T1(P55) is shown. The relative rate of Cpr6-catalyzed refolding
(k/ k0) of 0.7 µM RCM-T1 in
0.1 M Tris-HCl, 2.0 M NaCl, pH 8.0, is shown as
function of the concentration of RCM-La. The concentration of Cpr6 was
21 nM.
|
|
To gain insight in the kinetic properties of Cpr6, we determined the
parameters Km and kcat. In
this experiment, the concentration of Cpr6 was kept constant at 125 nM, and the RCM-T1 concentration was increased from 0.1 to
10 µM. Because both catalyzed and uncatalyzed folding
reactions occur in the presence of a PPIase, the initial rates were
corrected for the values of the uncatalyzed reaction. From a
Lineweaver-Burk plot, obtained with the corrected initial velocities,
we estimated Km and Vmax.
These values were used for a simulation according to Konfron et
al. (40). In these simulations we obtained a value of 6.2 µM for Km and 0.3 s 1 for kcat. The ratio
of these two values corresponds to the value obtained from the slope in
Fig. 4A. The good agreement of the values (3.6 × 104 M 1
s 1 and 4.9 × 104
M 1 s 1)
confirms our analysis of the kinetic data. Because RCM-T1 starts to
aggregate at high concentrations (39) and because of the very low
kcat/Km value of Cpr7, this
assay could not be performed with Cpr7.
Influence of an Unfolded Protein on the Cpr6-mediated Catalysis of
RNase T1(P55)--
In the RNase T1 assay, competition experiments with
another unfolded protein allows further insight into the binding
properties of the folding catalyst for its substrate (39). Provided
that PPIases bind their substrates in a nonspecific manner, the
presence of another unfolded protein should interfere with the binding of the substrate and, thus, slow down the refolding rate. As a competitor, we used the RCM-La, which, under the conditions used, represents a soluble, permanently unfolded protein (39). Small PPIases
were not inhibited by RCM-La. However, for the large immunophilin trigger factor, it was shown that RCM-La competitively inhibits its
catalytic activity (39). This suggested that RCM-La and RNase T1(P55)
bind with similar rate constants to the same binding site on
trigger factor. When we performed this assay with Cpr6, we obtained a
different picture. For Cpr6, the experiments showed that the refolding
rate of RNase T1(P55) is further accelerated when RCM-La is added (Fig.
4B, cf. Table II). The acceleration followed a
saturation curve and reached a plateau at 12 µM RCM-La. The addition of CsA resulted in a deceleration of the refolding reaction that is equal to the velocity constant of the uncatalyzed refolding reaction of RNase T1(P55) (data not shown). Neither RCM-La
nor CsA alone affected the slow refolding of RNase T1(P55) (data not
shown). When the amount of Cpr6 was increased (from 21 nM
up to 500 nM), the folding reaction was accelerated up to 1.6-fold (data not shown). Again, because of its very low activity, this assay could not be performed with Cpr7.
Because the interaction of prolyl isomerases with peptides could also
be influenced by the addition of an unfolded protein, we checked the
effect of RCM-La on the activity of the PPIases in the protease-coupled
assay as well as in the protease-free assay (38). We were not able to
detect any influence of RCM-La on Cpr6 and Cpr7 (cf. Table
II and data not shown). Thus, the active site of the PPIase domain is
not directly affected by RCM-La.
Chaperone Properties of Cpr6 and Cpr7--
A key feature of
molecular chaperones is their ability to suppress the aggregation of
proteins under stress conditions (51, 52). To analyze the chaperone
properties of Cpr6 and Cpr7, we examined their ability to inhibit the
thermal aggregation of CS in vitro. Dimeric CS aggregates
spontaneously upon incubation at 43 °C (42). Both Cpr6 and Cpr7 were
able to suppress the aggregation of CS in a
concentration-dependent manner (Fig.
5A). In this assay, Cpr7 had
significantly higher activity than Cpr6. Cpr7 was able to suppress CS
aggregation completely at a ratio of CS to Cpr7 of 1:4. This is in
agreement with results by Bose et al. (27) demonstrating
that rabbit FKBP52 is able to completely suppress the aggregation of CS
at a molar ratio of 1:6. In contrast, Cpr6 showed nearly maximum
suppression of aggregation only at a ratio of 1:16 (Fig.
5A). The inhibition of the prolyl isomerase activity by the
addition of CsA had no influence on the chaperone properties of the
examined proteins (data not shown). Also IgG, used as a control for
unspecific protein effects, did not affect the aggregation reaction
(Fig. 5A). Having established that Cpr6 and Cpr7 were able
to interfere with late steps of the unfolding pathway of CS, we were
interested in determining their influences on early steps of this
reaction. To this end we examined the inactivation kinetics of CS at
41 °C (27, 42, 43, 53). Under the conditions used here, CS loses its
activity within 30 min (Fig. 5B). The addition of Cpr7 or
Cpr6 led to a deceleration of the inactivation process. This effect is
strongly dependent on the molar ratio of chaperone to CS. The addition
of a control protein, IgG, had no significant effect on the
inactivation process (data not shown). As in the aggregation assay,
Cpr7 showed a higher chaperone activity than Cpr6. At equimolar ratios
of the chaperones, CS inactivation was two times slower in the presence
of Cpr7 compared with Cpr6.

View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Chaperone properties of Cpr6 and Cpr7.
A, influence of Cpr6 and Cpr7 on the thermal aggregation,
inactivation, and reactivation of CS. A, influence of
different concentrations of Cpr6 and Cpr7 on the thermal aggregation of
CS. CS was diluted to a final concentration of 0.075 µM
in the absence ( ) and presence of IgG (1.2 µM ( ))
and different amounts of Cpr6 (0.6 µM (trif]) and 1.2 µM ( )) or Cpr7 (0.15 µM ( ) and 0.3 µM ( )). Aggregation was determined by light scattering
as described. B, CS (0.075 µM) was incubated
at 41 °C in 40 mM Hepes, 10 mM KCl, pH 7.5, in the absence ( ) and in the presence of 1.2 µM Cpr6
( ) or 1.2 µM Cpr7 ( ). At the indicated time points,
aliquots were withdrawn, and the activity was determined as described.
The open symbols represent the respective reactivation
kinetics under the same conditions. Reactivation was started by a
temperature shift to 25 °C and the addition of oxaloacetic acid. The
reactivation kinetics of CS in the absence ( ) and presence of Cpr6
( ) and Cpr7 ( ). C, time course of the formation of
reactivatable intermediates of CS in the absence ( ) and
presence of 1.2 µM Cpr6 ( ) or 1.2 µM
Cpr7 ( ), respectively.
|
|
Next, we were interested in determining in which way the formation and
population of CS unfolding intermediates was influenced by the presence
of Cprs. Previously, the unfolding process of CS was shown to involve
inactive, dimeric intermediates (53). The addition of oxaloacetic acid,
a substrate known to stabilize CS (53, 54), leads to a reactivation of
inactive dimeric CS molecules. This allows determination of the number
of these intermediates during the unfolding reaction (16, 53). Fig.
5C shows the time course of formation of reactivatable
intermediates in the absence and presence of Cprs. Both Cpr6 and Cpr7
significantly increased the amount of reactivatable intermediates.
Furthermore, these intermediates were present for a longer period of
time. Again, Cpr7 was more effective than Cpr6 in maintaining
reactivatable intermediates. Taken together, these results suggest that
Cpr6 and Cpr7 prevent irreversible aggregation of CS by interacting transiently with specific unfolding intermediates.
 |
DISCUSSION |
S. cerevisiae possesses two large immunophilins of the
cyclophilin type that are specific cofactors of Hsp90. Previous studies have shown that the deletion of Cpr6 has no effect on the viability of
yeast cells (55, 29, 31). In contrast, the deletion of Cpr7 caused a
growth defect (28, 45). Additionally, Cpr7-depleted cells are more
sensitive to geldanamycin, a specific Hsp90 inhibitor, and are
defective in restoring the full glucocorticoid receptor activity (30).
Our results demonstrate that purified Cpr6 and Cpr7 differ in their
stability, their ability to isomerase Xaa-Pro peptide bonds, and in
their activity as molecular chaperones, although they share 47%
sequence homology and 38% sequence identity (28). We show that, based
on CD measurements and secondary structure prediction, Cpr6 and Cpr7
are predominantly -helical proteins. The highly conserved PPIase
domain consists of an eight-stranded antiparallel -sheet and two
-helices. Thus, the putative chaperone domain including the three
tetratricopeptide repeats (28) seems to be mainly -helical.
Interestingly, only Cpr6 and not Cpr7 is increasingly expressed at
elevated temperatures (29, 46). In agreement with these results, we
find that Cpr6 is significantly more stable against heat denaturation
than Cpr7.
Using a plasmon resonance approach we were able to determine binding
constants for the two immunophilins and Hsp90. Both immunophilins, as
well as Sti1, which was included as a control, bind to Hsp90 with low
nanomolar binding constants (14 and 57 nM for Cpr6 and Cpr7, respectively; 32 nM for Sti1). In both this and the
previous study (25), the stoichiometry of the complexes is one partner protein binding to one Hsp90 monomer.
The binding constants of Cpr6 or Cpr7 for Hsp90 differed by a factor of
2-4. We conclude from these data that both proteins bind with similar
affinity and the same stoichiometry to Hsp90. It is therefore unlikely
that one of the immunophilins is preferentially associated with Hsp90
in the absence of additional factors. Despite their binding to Hsp90,
the two immunophilins are functionally strikingly different. In
contrast to previously published results (32), we were able to measure
a low, but specific PPIase activity for Cpr7. However, the efficacy of
the catalysis of prolyl isomerization by Cpr7 is about 6-fold lower
than that of Cpr6 for peptides. This difference is drastically
increased in the isomerization of proline peptide bonds in proteins. In
the RNase T1 assay, Cpr7 showed a 100-fold lower activity than Cpr6.
The specific catalytic rate constant of Cpr6 in the RNase T1 refolding
assay is in the range of that of the small immunophilin FKBP12 (56).
The Km of Cpr6 (6.2 µM) is 9-fold
lower than that of the trigger factor (0.7 µM),
reflecting the difference in their catalytic activities. A sequence
alignment the PPIase domains of hCyp18, hCyp40, Cpr3, Cpr6, and Cpr7
showed that from 73 residues that are conserved in these proteins, 19 residues are different in Cpr7 (data not shown). These exchanges could
influence binding and catalysis and, thus, be responsible for the low
PPIase activity of Cpr7. One may speculate that the PPIase activity of
Cpr7 may have evolved for special substrates. It is interesting to note
that a conserved proline of glucocorticoid receptor is required for the
stabilization of Hsp90 heterocomplexes and receptor signaling (57).
Although Cpr7 is less efficient than Cpr6 as a prolyl isomerase, it is
the more potent chaperone. The efficiency of Cpr7 is comparable with
that of FKBP52, which was found to suppress the aggregation of CS
completely (27). For Cpr6, suppression of aggregation was observed only
at high ratios of Cpr6 to CS. This is reminiscent of p23, another
protein that is found in complexes with Hsp90 (27, 58). Both Cpr6 and
Cpr7 slow down the thermal inactivation kinetics of CS, suggesting that
they interact transiently with the substrate. This results in an
increasing amount of reactivatable intermediates of CS. In
vivo the deletion of Cpr7 led to a decrease of steroid hormone
receptor activation that could not be rescued by overexpression of Cpr6
(32, 45). Additionally, it was shown that the PPIase domain of Cpr7 is
dispensable for the activation of steroid hormone receptors (32). Thus,
these effects may be due to the different chaperone properties of the
immunophilins. It is well possible that in vivo Cpr6 and
Cpr7 are specialized for a certain protein or a group of proteins. This
is supported by recent results showing that FKBP52 is able to bind
directly to the glucocorticoid receptor (59) as previously suggested (27).
An important point in understanding the function of large immunophilins
is the interplay between PPIase activity and the binding of nonnative
proteins. Competition experiments with RCM-La on the ability of Cpr6
and Cpr7 to isomerize Xaa-Pro peptide bonds in short peptides suggest
that the prolyl isomerase active site and the binding site for
polypeptides are located in different parts of the proteins. In
proteins, the ability of Cpr6 to catalyze the isomerization of
proline-peptide bonds is enhanced by the addition of RCM-La, used as
competitive inhibitor. In contrast, RCM-La inhibits the PPIase activity
of trigger factor, supposedly due to the competitive binding of
substrate and unfolded protein to the same binding site (39). This
interpretation does not apply for Cpr6. A plausible explanation for our
results is that RNase T1 can bind either to the PPIase domain or to the
putative chaperone domain of Cpr6.
Taken together our data show that, although the overall architecture of
the proteins and their interaction with Hsp90 is remarkably similar,
Cpr6 and Cpr7 exhibit striking functional differences. Although Cpr6 is
a strong prolyl isomerase and a weak chaperone, Cpr7 is a weak prolyl
isomerase but a potent chaperone. The marked difference in their
ability to interact with nonnative proteins may explain why Cpr7 is
more important for the activity of Hsp90 complexes in yeast. It remains
to be seen whether this reflects the specific requirements for folding
different subgroups of Hsp90 substrates.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank Paul Muschler for purified Sti1
protein, Franz X. Schmid (Laboratorium für Biochemie,
Universität Bayreuth, Germany) for the plasmid
carrying RNase T1(P55), Laurence Pearl (Dept. of Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology, University College, London) for the plasmids of Cpr6
and Cpr7, and U. Hahn (Institut für Biochemie, Universität
Leipzig) for the RNase T1 antibody. Additionally, we thank Holger
Grallert for help with the CS experiments and Christian Scholz for help
with the RNase T1 assay and for critically reading the manuscript.
Finally, we thank Francesca Pirkl for helpful discussions and sharing
unpublished results.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by the Bundes ministerium für
Forschung und Technologic (BMBF), the SFB 521, and the Fonds du
Chemischen Industrie.The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
¶
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 49-89-289 13340; Fax: 49-89-289-13345; E-mail: johannes.buchner@ch.tum.de.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, August 14, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M005251200
2
C. Mayr, K. Richter, H. Lilie, and J. Buchner,
unpublished results.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
PPIase, peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerases;
CsA, cyclosporin A;
CS, citrate
synthase;
FKBP, FK506-binding protein;
Hsp, heat shock protein;
LA, -lactalbumin;
RCM, reduced and carboxymethylated;
RNAse T1(P55), RNAse T1 mutated at position 55;
RU, resonance units.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Fischer, G.
(1994)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl.
33,
1415-1436
|
| 2.
|
Stein, R. L.
(1993)
Adv. Protein Chem.
44,
1-24
|
| 3.
|
Brandts, J. F.,
Halvorson, H. R.,
and Brennan, M.
(1975)
Biochemistry
14,
4953-4963
|
| 4.
|
Kim, P. S.,
and Baldwin, R. L.
(1982)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
51,
247-265
|
| 5.
|
Schmid, F. X.
(1993)
Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct.
22,
123-14
|
| 6.
|
Schmid, F. X.,
Mayr, L. M.,
Mücke, M.,
and Schrönnbrunner, E. R.
(1993)
Adv. Protein Chem.
44,
25-66
|
| 7.
|
Galat, A.,
and Metcalfe, S. M.
(1995)
Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol.
63,
67-118
|
| 8.
|
Gothel, S. F.,
and Marahiel, M. A.
(1999)
Cell. Mol. Life Sci.
55,
423-436
|
| 9.
|
Scholz, C.,
Rahfeld, J.,
Fischer, G.,
and Schmid, F. X.
(1997)
J. Mol. Biol.
273,
752-762
|
| 10.
|
Harding, M. W.,
Galat, A.,
Uehling, D. E.,
and Schreiber, S. L.
(1989)
Nature
341,
761-763
|
| 11.
|
Siekierka, J. J.,
Hung, S. H. Y.,
Poe, M.,
Lin, S. C.,
and Sigal, N. H.
(1989)
Nature
341,
755-757
|
| 12.
|
Galat, A.,
Lane, W. S.,
Standaert, R. F.,
and Schreiber, S. L.
(1992)
Biochemistry
31,
21607-21611
|
| 13.
|
Peattie, D. A.,
Harding, M. W.,
Fleming, M. A.,
DeCenzo, M. T.,
Lippke, J. A.,
Livingston, D. J.,
and Benasutti, M.
(1992)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
89,
10974-10978
|
| 14.
|
Pratt, W. B.,
and Toft, D. O.
(1997)
Endocr. Rev.
18,
306-360
|
| 15.
|
Smith, D. F.
(1995)
Sci. Med.
2,
38-47
|
| 16.
|
Buchner, J.
(1999)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
24,
136-141
|
| 17.
|
Smith, D. F.
(1993)
Mol. Endocrinol.
7,
1418-1429
|
| 18.
|
Owens-Grillo, J. K.,
Hoffmann, K.,
Hutchinson, K. A.,
Yem, A. W.,
Deibel, M. R., Jr.,
Handschumacher, R. E.,
and Pratt, W. B.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
20479-20484
|
| 19.
|
Ratajczak, T.,
and Carrello, A.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
2961-2965
|
| 20.
|
Lamb, J. R.,
Tugendreich, S.,
and Hieter, P.
(1995)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
20,
257-259
|
| 21.
|
Radanyi, C.,
Chambraud, B.,
and Baulieu, E. E.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
91,
11197-11201
|
| 22.
|
Young, J. C.,
Obermann, W. M. J.,
and Hartl, F. U.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
18007-18010
|
| 23.
|
Carrello, A.,
Ingley, E.,
Minchin, R. F.,
Tasai, S.,
and Ratajczak, T.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
2682-2689
|
| 24.
|
Silverstein, A. M.,
Galigniana, M. D.,
Chen, M. S.,
Owens-Grillo, J. K.,
Chinkers, M.,
and Pratt, W. B.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
16224-16230
|
| 25.
|
Prodromou, C.,
Siligardi, G.,
O'Brian, R.,
Woolfson, D. N.,
Regan, L.,
Panaretou, B.,
Ladbury, J. E.,
Piper, W. P.,
and Pearl, L. H.
(1999)
EMBO J.
18,
754-762
|
| 26.
|
Freeman, B. C.,
Toft, D. O.,
and Morimoto, R. I.
(1996)
Science
274,
1718-1720
|
| 27.
|
Bose, S,
Weikl, T.,
Bügl, H.,
and Buchner, J.
(1996)
Science
274,
1715-1717
|
| 28.
|
Duina, A. A.,
Marsh, J. A.,
and Garber, R. F.
(1996)
Yeast
12,
943-952
|
| 29.
|
Warth, R.,
Briand, P-A.,
and Picard, D.
(1997)
Biol. Chem.
378,
381-391
|
| 30.
|
Marsh, J. A.,
Kalton, H. M.,
and Gaber, R. F.
(1998)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18,
7353-7359
|
| 31.
|
Dolinski, K.,
Muir, R. S.,
Cardenas, M. E.,
and Heitman, J.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
13093-13098
|
| 32.
|
Duina, A. A.,
Marsh, J. A.,
Kurtz, R. B.,
Chang, H.-C. J.,
Lindquist, S.,
and Garber, R. F.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
10819-10822
|
| 33.
|
Mayr, C
(2000)
J. Chromatogr. B
737,
295-299
|
| 34.
|
Buchner, J.,
Bose, S.,
Mayr, C.,
and Jakob, U.
(1998)
Methods Enzymol.
290,
409-418
|
| 35.
|
Mücke, M,
and Schmid, F. X.
(1994)
J. Mol. Biol.
239,
713-725
|
| 36.
|
Pace, C. N.,
Vajdos, F.,
Fee, L.,
Grimsley, G.,
and Gray, T.
(1995)
Protein Sci.
4,
2411-2423
|
| 37.
|
Fischer, G.,
Bang, H.,
and Mech, C.
(1984)
Biomed. Biochim. Acta
43,
1101-1111
|
| 38.
|
Janowski, B.,
Wöllner, S.,
Schutkowski, M.,
and Fischer, G.
(1997)
Anal. Biochem.
252,
299-307
|
| 39.
|
Scholz, C.,
Stoller, G.,
Zarnt, T.,
Fischer, G.,
and Schmid, F. X.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
54-58
|
| 40.
|
Konfron, J. L.,
Kuzmic, P.,
Kishore, V.,
Colon-Bonilla, E.,
and Rich, D. H.
(1991)
Biochemistry
30,
6127-6134
|
| 41.
|
Mayr, L. M.,
Odefey, C.,
Schutkowski, M.,
and Schmid, F. X.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
5550-5561
|
| 42.
|
Buchner, J.,
Grallert, H.,
and Jakob, U.
(1998)
Methods Enzymol.
290,
323-338
|
| 43.
|
Grallert, H.,
Rutkat, K.,
and Buchner, J.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
33305-33310
|
| 44.
|
Geourjon, C.,
and Deleage, G.
(1994)
Protein Eng.
7,
157-164
|
| 45.
|
Duina, A. A,
Chang, H.-C. J.,
Marsh, J.,
Lindquist, S.,
and Garber, R. F.
(1996)
Science
274,
1713-1715
|
| 46.
|
Dolinski, K. J.,
Cardenas, M. E.,
and Heitman, J.
(1998)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
18,
7344-7352
|
| 47.
|
Scheibel, T.,
Siegmund, H. I.,
Jaenicke, R.,
Ganz, P.,
Lilie, H.,
and Buchner, J.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
1297-1302
|
| 48.
|
Schmid, F. X.,
Frech, C.,
Scholz, C.,
and Walter, S.
(1996)
Biol Chem.
377,
417-424
|
| 49.
|
Scholz, C.,
Mücke, M.,
Rape, M.,
Pecht, A.,
Pahl, A.,
Bang, H.,
and Schmid, F. X.
(1998)
J. Mol. Biol.
277,
723-732
|
| 50.
|
Stoller, G.,
Rucknagel, K. P.,
Nierhaus, K. H.,
Schmid, F. X.,
Fischer, G.,
and Rahfeld, J. U.
(1995)
EMBO J.
14,
4939-4948
|
| 51.
|
Jakob, U.,
and Buchner, J.
(1994)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
19,
205-211
|
| 52.
|
Buchner, J.
(1996)
FASEB J.
10,
10-19
|
| 53.
|
Jakob, U.,
Lilie, H.,
Meyer, I.,
and Buchner, J.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
7288-7294
|
| 54.
|
Wieland, O.,
Remington, S.,
and Egger-Neufeld, I.
(1964)
Biochem. Z.
339,
501-513
|
| 55.
|
Kay, J. E.
(1996)
Biochem. J.
314,
361-385
|
| 56.
|
Scholz, C.,
Schindler, T.,
Dolinski, K.,
Heitman, J.,
and Schmid, F. X.
(1997)
FEBS Lett.
414,
69-73
|
| 57.
|
Caamaño, C. A.,
Morano, M. I.,
Dalman, F. C.,
Pratt, W. B.,
and Akil, H.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
20473-20480
|
| 58.
|
Weikl, T.,
Abelmann, K.,
and Buchner, J.
(1999)
J. Mol. Biol.
293,
685-691
|
| 59.
|
Silverstein, A. M.,
Galigniana, M. D.,
Kanelakis, K. C.,
Radanyi, C.,
Renoir, J.-M.,
and Pratt, W. B.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
36980-36986
|
Copyright © 2000 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. K. Wandinger, K. Richter, and J. Buchner
The Hsp90 Chaperone Machinery
J. Biol. Chem.,
July 4, 2008;
283(27):
18473 - 18477.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. K. Mandal, N. B. Nillegoda, J. A. Chen, and A. J. Caplan
Ydj1 Protects Nascent Protein Kinases from Degradation and Controls the Rate of Their Maturation
Mol. Cell. Biol.,
July 1, 2008;
28(13):
4434 - 4444.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. L. Holmes, S. Y. Sharp, S. Hobbs, and P. Workman
Silencing of HSP90 Cochaperone AHA1 Expression Decreases Client Protein Activation and Increases Cellular Sensitivity to the HSP90 Inhibitor 17-Allylamino-17-Demethoxygeldanamycin
Cancer Res.,
February 15, 2008;
68(4):
1188 - 1197.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. L. Johnson, A. Halas, and G. Flom
Nucleotide-Dependent Interaction of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Hsp90 with the Cochaperone Proteins Sti1, Cpr6, and Sba1
Mol. Cell. Biol.,
January 15, 2007;
27(2):
768 - 776.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Jordens, V. Janssens, S. Longin, I. Stevens, E. Martens, G. Bultynck, Y. Engelborghs, E. Lescrinier, E. Waelkens, J. Goris, et al.
The Protein Phosphatase 2A Phosphatase Activator Is a Novel Peptidyl-Prolyl cis/trans-Isomerase
J. Biol. Chem.,
March 10, 2006;
281(10):
6349 - 6357.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
O. Hainzl, H. Wegele, K. Richter, and J. Buchner
Cns1 Is an Activator of the Ssa1 ATPase Activity
J. Biol. Chem.,
May 28, 2004;
279(22):
23267 - 23273.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. Lee, A. Shabbir, C. Cardozo, and A. J. Caplan
Sti1 and Cdc37 Can Stabilize Hsp90 in Chaperone Complexes with a Protein Kinase
Mol. Biol. Cell,
April 1, 2004;
15(4):
1785 - 1792.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. G.N. Romano, P. Horton, and J. E. Gray
The Arabidopsis Cyclophilin Gene Family
Plant Physiology,
April 1, 2004;
134(4):
1268 - 1282.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Tesic, J. A. Marsh, S. B. Cullinan, and R. F. Gaber
Functional Interactions between Hsp90 and the Co-chaperones Cns1 and Cpr7 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
J. Biol. Chem.,
August 29, 2003;
278(35):
32692 - 32701.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Wegele, M. Haslbeck, J. Reinstein, and J. Buchner
Sti1 Is a Novel Activator of the Ssa Proteins
J. Biol. Chem.,
July 3, 2003;
278(28):
25970 - 25976.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. Richter, P. Muschler, O. Hainzl, J. Reinstein, and J. Buchner
Sti1 Is a Non-competitive Inhibitor of the Hsp90 ATPase. BINDING PREVENTS THE N-TERMINAL DIMERIZATION REACTION DURING THE ATPASE CYCLE
J. Biol. Chem.,
March 14, 2003;
278(12):
10328 - 10333.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. Abbas-Terki, O. Donze, P.-A. Briand, and D. Picard
Hsp104 Interacts with Hsp90 Cochaperones in Respiring Yeast
Mol. Cell. Biol.,
November 15, 2001;
21(22):
7569 - 7575.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2000 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|