Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23226518›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Identification of elements that dictate the specificity of mitochondrial Hsp60 for its co-chaperonin.

Avital Parnas, Shahar Nisemblat, Celeste Weiss, Galit Levy-Rimler, Amir Pri-Or, Tsaffrir Zor, Peter A Lund, Peter Bross, Abdussalam Azem

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Inhibitors and chemical probes for molecular chaperone networks.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2019
    Review
  8. Physicochemical Properties of the Mammalian Molecular Chaperone HSP60.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Crystal structure of the human mitochondrial chaperonin symmetrical football complex.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Avital ParnasDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Shahar Nisemblat
Celeste Weiss
Galit Levy-Rimler
Amir Pri-Or
Tsaffrir Zor
Peter A Lund
Peter Bross
Abdussalam Azem
Tel Aviv University · ILAarhus University Hospital · DKUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Type I chaperonins (cpn60/Hsp60) are essential proteins that mediate the folding of proteins in bacteria, chloroplast and mitochondria. Despite the high sequence homology among chaperonins, the mitochondrial chaperonin system has developed unique properties that distinguish it from the widely-studied bacterial system (GroEL and GroES). The most relevant difference to this study is that mitochondrial chaperonins are able to refold denatured proteins only with the assistance of the mitochondrial co-chaperonin. This is in contrast to the bacterial chaperonin, which is able to function with the help of co-chaperonin from any source. The goal of our work was to determine structural elements that govern the specificity between chaperonin and co-chaperonin pairs using mitochondrial Hsp60 as model system. We used a mutagenesis approach to obtain human mitochondrial Hsp60 mutants that are able to function with the bacterial co-chaperonin, GroES. We isolated two mutants, a single mutant (E321K) and a double mutant (R264K/E358K) that, together with GroES, were able to rescue an E. coli strain, in which the endogenous chaperonin system was silenced. Although the mutations are located in the apical domain of the chaperonin, where the interaction with co-chaperonin takes place, none of the residues are located in positions that are directly responsible for co-chaperonin binding. Moreover, while both mutants were able to function with GroES, they showed distinct functional and structural properties. Our results indicate that the phenotype of the E321K mutant is caused mainly by a profound increase in the binding affinity to all co-chaperonins, while the phenotype of R264K/E358K is caused by a slight increase in affinity toward co-chaperonins that is accompanied by an alteration in the allosteric signal transmitted upon nucleotide binding. The latter changes lead to a great increase in affinity for GroES, with only a minor increase in affinity toward the mammalian mitochondrial co-chaperonin.

Indexed as

Adenosine DiphosphateAmino Acid SequenceChaperonin 10Chaperonin 60MitochondriaModels, MolecularMolecular Sequence DataMutationProtein BindingProtein FoldingSequence Homology, Amino AcidAdenosine DiphosphateChaperonin 10Chaperonin 60

Identifiers

PMID23226518
PMCPMC3514286
OpenAlexW2025635334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.