Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39597738›Full record

ArticleMicroorganisms2024

Structural Stability Comparisons Between Natural and Engineered Group II Chaperonins: Are Crenarchaeal "Heat Shock" Proteins Also "pH Shock" Resistant?

Mercede Furr, Shadi A Badiee, Sreenivasulu Basha, Shilpi Agrawal, Zeina Alraawi, Sobroney Heng, Carson Stacy, Yeasin Ahmed, Mahmoud Moradi, Thallapuranam K S Kumar and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microorganisms, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Mercede FurrDepartment of Biology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
Shadi A BadieeDepartment of Chemistry, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1037-6226
Sreenivasulu BashaDepartment of Biology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
Shilpi AgrawalDepartment of Chemistry, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4209-571X
Zeina AlraawiDepartment of Chemistry, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
Sobroney HengDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California Merced, Merced, CA 95343, USA.
Carson StacyCell and Molecular Biology Program, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
Yeasin AhmedCell and Molecular Biology Program, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
Mahmoud MoradiDepartment of Chemistry, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0601-402X
Thallapuranam K S KumarDepartment of Chemistry, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
Ruben Michael CeballosDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California Merced, Merced, CA 95343, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8869-2800

Funding

U.S. National Science Foundation 1818346U.S. National Science Foundation 1945565U.S. National Science Foundation 2119968
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Archaeal group II chaperonins, also known as heat shock proteins (HSPs), are abundantly expressed in Sulfolobales. HSPα and HSPβ gene expression is upregulated during thermal shock. HSPs form large 18-mer complexes that assist in folding nascent proteins and protecting resident proteins during thermal stress. Engineered HSPs have been designed for industrial applications. Since temperature flux in the geothermal habitats of Sulfolobales impacts intracellular temperature, it follows that HSPs have developed thermotolerance. However, despite the low pH (i.e., pH < 4) typical for these habitats, intracellular pH in Sulfolobales is maintained at ~6.5. Therefore, it is not presumed that HSPs have evolved acid-tolerance. To test tolerance to low pH, HSPs were studied at various pH and temperature values. Both circular dichroism and intrinsic fluorescence indicate that HSPα and HSPβ retain structural integrity at neutral pH over a wide range of temperatures. Structural integrity is compromised for all HSPs at ultra-low pH (e.g., pH 2). Secondary structures in HSPs are resilient under mildly acidic conditions (pH 4) but Anilino naphthalene 8-sulfonate binding shows shifts in tertiary structure at lower pH. Trypsin digestion shows that the HSPβ-coh backbone is the most flexible and HSPβ is the most resilient. Overall, results suggest that HSPα and HSPβ exhibit greater thermostability than HSPβ-coh and that there are limits to HSP acid-tolerance. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations complement the wet lab data. Specifically, MD suggests that the HSPβ secondary structure is the most stable. Also, despite similarities in pH- and temperature-dependent behavior, there are clear differences in how each HSP subtype is perturbed.

Indexed as

acido-tolerancecircular dichroismgroup II chaperoninheat shock proteinHSP60intrinsic fluorescencemolecular dynamicsprotein stabilitySulfolobalesthermotolerance

Identifiers

PMID39597738
PMCPMC11596651

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.