Advertisement

Structural Insights into IbpA–IbpB Interactions to Predict Their Roles in Heat Shock Response

Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology book series (BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES)

Abstract

Cells respond to stress conditions. As a result of stress, most genes are deactivated, while a few are activated with antistress response. The latter involves a variety of molecules including molecular chaperones or heat shock proteins (Shps) whose levels get increased in stressed conditions, particularly at elevated temperatures. Heat shock proteins help the other cellular proteins to achieve their native states, i.e. correct folding or functional conformations. Thus, heat shock proteins play a major role in protein homeostasis network of the cell. Small heat shock proteins (sHsps) are one of the families of molecular chaperones that prevent the irreversible aggregation and assist in the refolding of denatured proteins. Two members of the sHsp family, IbpA and IbpB, are present in Escherichia coli. The IbpA and IbpB proteins are 48 % identical at the amino acid sequence level and have the characteristic α-crystalline domain. It is known that the cooperation between IbpA and IbpB is crucial for their chaperone activity in heat stressed condition. So far, the molecular mechanisms of the stress response of the IbpA/IbpB protein system have not been well understood. In the present work, an attempt has been made to identify the amino acid residues of the IbpA and IbpB proteins, which are found to be involved in protein–protein interactions. The interactions between IbpA and IbpB are studied with and without the presence of substrate Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) at cold shock, physiological and heat shock temperatures to observe the changes in the pattern of interaction. This study is the first report to elucidate the mechanism of interactions between the proteins.

Keywords

Small heat shock proteins Heat stress Heat shock temperature Ibpa–IbpB interaction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics and BIF centre, University of Kalyani for their continuous support and for providing the necessary instruments to carry out the experiments. The authors would like to acknowledge the ongoing DST-PURSE programme (2012–2015) and DBT (project no. BT/PR6869/BID/7/417/2012) for support.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Gill RT, Valdes JJ, Bentley WE (2000) A comparative study on global stress gene regulation in response to over-expression of recombinant proteins in Escherichia coli. Metab Eng 2:178–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomas JG, Baneyx F (1998) Roles of the Escherichia coli small heat shock proteins IbpA and IbpB in thermal stress management: comparison with ClpA, ClpB, and HtpG in vivo. J Bacteriol 180:5165–5172Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kitagawa M, Matsumura Y, Tsuchido T (2000) Small heat shock proteins, IbpA and IbpB, are involved in resistances to heat and superoxide stresses in Escherichia coli. FEMS Microbiol Lett 184:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuczyńska-Winik D, Kdzierska S, Matuszewska E, Lund P, Taylor A, Lipinska B, Laskowska E (2002) The Escherichia coli small heat shock proteins IbpA and IbpB prevent the aggregation of endogenous proteins denatured in vivo during extreme heat shock. Microbiology 148:1757–1765Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carrió MM, Villaverde A (2003) Role of molecular chaperones in inclusion body formation. FEBS Lett 537:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strózecka J, Chrusciel E, Górna E, Szymanska A, Zietkiewicz S, Liberek K (2012) Importance of N- and C-terminal regions of IbpA, Escherichia coli small heat shock protein, for chaperone function and oligomerization. J Biol Chem 287:2843–2853. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.273847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Montfort R, Slingsby C, Vierling E (2001) Structure and function of the small heat shock protein α-crystallin family of molecular chaperones. Adv Protein Chem 59:105–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allen SP, Polazzi JO, Gierse JK, Easton AM (1992) Two novel heat shock genes encoding proteins produced in response to heterologous protein expression in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 174:6938–6947Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee GJ, Roseman AM, Saibil HR, Vierling E (1997) A small heat shock protein stably binds heat-denatured model substrates and can maintain a substrate in a folding-competent state. EMBO J 16:659–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jiao W, Qian M, Li P, Zhao L, Chang Z (2005) The essential role of the flexible termini in the temperature-responsiveness of the oligomeric state and chaperone-like activity for the polydisperse small heat shock protein IbpB from Escherichia coli. J Mol Biol 347:871–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuczyńska-Winik D, Kedzierska S, Matuszewska E, Lund P, Taylor A, Lipińska B, Laskowska E (2002) The Escherichia coli small heat shock proteins IbpA and IbpB prevent the aggregation of endogenous proteins denatured in vivo during extreme heat shock. Microbiology 148:1757–1765Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Motohashi K, Watanabe Y, Yohda M, Yoshida M (1999) Heat-inactivated proteins are rescued by the DnaKJ-GrpE set and ClpB chaperones. Pnas 13:7184–7189. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.13.7184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leinonen R, Diez FG, Binns D, Fleischmann W, Lopez R, Apweiler R (2004) UniProt archive. Bioinformatics 20(17):3236–3237. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth191 PMID15044231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berman HM (2008) The Protein Data Bank: a historical perspective. Acta Crystallogr Sect A Found Crystallogr A64(1):8895. doi: 10.1107/S0108767307035623, PMID 18156675
  15. 15.
    Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J, Bealer K, Madden TL (2009) BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics 10:421. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-421, PMID 20003500
  16. 16.
    Van Montfort RLM, Basha E, Friedrich KL, Slingsby C, Vierling E (2001) Crystal structure and assembly of a eukaryotic small heat shock protein. Nat Struct Biol 8:1025. doi: 10.1038/nsb722, PubMed: 11702068
  17. 17.
    Eswar N, Marti-Renom MA,Webb B, Madhusudhan MS, Eramian D, Shen M, Pieper U, Sali A (2006) Comparative protein structure modeling with MODELLER. In: Current protocols in bioinformatics, vol 15, Wiley, New York, pp 5.6.1–5.6.30Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peng J, Jinbo X, Raptor X (2011) Exploiting structure information for protein alignment by statistical inference. Proteins 79:161–71. doi: 10.1002/prot.23175, PMC 3226909, PMID 21987485
  19. 19.
    Bennett-Lovsey RM, Herbert AD, Sternberg MJE, Kelley LA (2007) Exploring the extremes of sequence/structure space with ensemble fold recognition in the program Phyre. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinf 70(3):611. doi: 10.1002/prot.21688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, States DJ, Swaminathan S, Karplus M (1983) CHARMM: a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J Comp Chem 4(2):187–217. doi: 10.1002/jcc.540040211
  21. 21.
    Fletcher R, Powell MJD (1963) A rapidly convergent descent method for minimization. Comput J 6:163–168CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laskowski RA, MacArthur MW, Moss DS, Thornton JM (1993) PROCHECK: a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures. J Appl Cryst 26:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lüthy R, Eisenberg JU, Bowie D (1992) Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Nature 356(6364):83–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramachandran GN, Ramachandran C, Sasisekharan V (1963) Stereochemistry of polypeptide chain configurations. J Mol Biol 7:95–99. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(63)80023-6 PMID 13990617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen R, Weng Z (2003) ZDOCK: an initial-stage protein-docking algorithm. Proteins 52:80–87Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jimenez-Garcia B, Pons C, Fernandez-Recio J (2013) pyDockWEB: a web server for rigid body protein-protein docking using electrostatics and desolvation scoring. Bioinformatics 29(13):1698–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schneidman-Duhovny D, Inbar Y, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ (2005) PatchDock and SymmDock: servers for rigid and symmetric docking. Nucleic Acids Res 33:W363–W367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tovchigrechko A, Vakser IA (2006) GRAMM-X public web server for protein–protein docking. Nucleic Acids Res 34:W310–W314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Comeau SR, Gatchell DW, Vajda S, Camacho CJ (2004) ClusPro: a fully automated algorithm for protein-protein docking. Nucleic Acids Res 32(Web Server issue):W96-9. PMID 15215358Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Deift P, Zhou X (1993) A steepest descent method for oscillatory Riemann-Hilbert problems. Asymptotics for the MKdV equation. Ann Math 137(2):295–368. doi: 10.2307/2946540
  31. 31.
    Lee MS, Salsbury FR, Olson MA (2004) An efficient hybrid explicit/implicit solvent method for biomolecular simulations. J Comput Chem 25(16):1967–1978. doi: 10.1002/jcc.20119 PMID 15470756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hess B, Kutzner C, Van Der Spoel D, Lindahl E (2008) GROMACS 4: algorithms for highly efficient, load-balanced, and scalable molecular simulation. J Chem Theory Comput 4(2):435–447. doi: 10.1021/ct700301
  33. 33.
    Swiderek K, Panczakiewicz A, Bujacz A, Bujacz G, Paneth P (2009) Modelling of isotope effects on binding oxamate to lactic dehydrogenase. J Phys Chem B 113(38):12782–12789. doi: 10.1021/jp903579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Spiess C, Beil A, Ehrmann M (1999) A temperature-dependent switch from chaperone to protease in a widely conserved heat shock protein. Cell 97(3):339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biochemistry and BiophysicsUniversity of KalyaniNadiaIndia

Personalised recommendations