Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35486698›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022

Conserved and divergent chaperoning effects of Hsp60/10 chaperonins on protein folding landscapes.

Anwar Sadat, Satyam Tiwari, S Sunidhi, Aseem Chaphalkar, Manisha Kochar, Mudassar Ali, Zainab Zaidi, Akanksha Sharma, Kanika Verma, Kannan Boosi Narayana Rao and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A conservedMicrobiology (Reading, England) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anwar SadatAcademy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India.
Satyam TiwariChemical and System Biology Unit, CSIR-Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology, New Delhi 110025, India.
S SunidhiDepartment of Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology-Delhi, New Delhi 110020, India.
Aseem ChaphalkarAcademy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4208-229X
Manisha KocharAcademy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India.ORCID 0000-0002-7722-4403
Mudassar AliDepartment of Life Sciences, School of Natural Sciences, Shiv Nadar University, Greater Noida 201314, India.
Zainab ZaidiAcademy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India.
Akanksha SharmaAcademy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India.
Kanika VermaAcademy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India.
Kannan Boosi Narayana RaoAcademy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India.
Manjul TripathiChemical and System Biology Unit, CSIR-Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology, New Delhi 110025, India.
Asmita GhoshAcademy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India.ORCID 0000-0003-1016-9881
Deepika GautamAcademy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India.
AtulDepartment of Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology-Delhi, New Delhi 110020, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0845-0711
Arjun RayDepartment of Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology-Delhi, New Delhi 110020, India.
Koyeli MapaAcademy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0080-9243
Kausik ChakrabortyAcademy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India.
Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology · INIndraprastha Institute of Information Technology Delhi · INShiv Nadar University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The GroEL/ES chaperonin cavity surface charge properties, especially the negative charges, play an important role in its capacity to assist intracavity protein folding. Remarkably, the larger fraction of GroEL/ES negative charges are not conserved among different bacterial species, resulting in a large variation in negative-charge density in the GroEL/ES cavity across prokaryotes. Intriguingly, eukaryotic GroEL/ES homologs have the lowest negative-charge density in the chaperonin cavity. This prompted us to investigate if GroEL’s chaperoning mechanism changed during evolution. Using a model in vivo GroEL/ES substrate, we show that the ability of GroEL/ES to buffer entropic traps in the folding pathway of its substrate was partially dependent upon the negative-charge density inside its cavity. While this activity of GroEL/ES was found to be essential for Escherichia coli, it has been perfected in some organisms and diminished in others. However, irrespective of their charges, all the tested homologs retained their ability to regulate polypeptide chain collapse and remove enthalpic traps from folding pathways. The ability of these GroEL/ES homologs to buffer mutational variations in a model substrate correlated with their negative-charge density. Thus, Hsp60/10 chaperonins in different organisms may have changed to accommodate a different spectrum of mutations on their substrates.

Indexed as

Chaperonin 60Protein FoldingHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsMolecular ChaperonesPeptidesChaperonin 60Molecular ChaperonesPeptideschaperonemutational bufferingprotein folding

Identifiers

PMID35486698
PMCPMC9170145
OpenAlexW4225126553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.