Advertisement

The Role of p23, Hop, Immunophilins, and Other Co-chaperones in Regulating Hsp90 Function

  • Marc B. Cox
  • Jill L. JohnsonEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 787)

Abstract

Molecular chaperones are a diverse group of highly conserved proteins that transiently interact with partially folded polypeptide chains during normal cellular processes, such as protein translation, translocation, and disassembly of protein complexes (1). Prior to folding or after denaturation, hydrophobic residues that are normally sequestered within a folded protein are exposed to the aqueous environment and are prone to aggregation or misfolding. Multiple classes of molecular chaperones, such as Hsp70s and Hsp40s, recognize and transiently bind polypeptides with exposed hydrophobic stretches in order to prevent misfolding. Other types of chaperones, such as Hsp90, have more specialized functions in that they appear to interact with only a subset of cellular proteins. This chapter focuses on the role of Hsp90 and partner co-chaperones in promoting the folding and activation of a diverse group of proteins with critical roles in cellular signaling and function.

Key words

Hsp90 p23 Co-chaperone Immunophilin Protein folding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

J.L.J. is funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation MCB-0744522. M.B.C. is supported in part by NIH/NIGMS grant No. 1SC1GM084863 and Grant Number 5G12RR008124 (to the Border Biomedical Research Center/University of Texas at El Paso) from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR/NIH). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NCRR or NIH.

References

  1. 1.
    Mayer MP, Bukau B. Hsp70 chaperones: ­cellular functions and molecular mechanism. Cell Mol Life Sci 2005;62:670–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pearl LH, Prodromou C. Structure and mechanism of the hsp90 molecular chaperone machinery. Annu Rev Biochem 2006;75:271–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wandinger SK, Richter K, Buchner J. The Hsp90 chaperone machinery. J Biol Chem 2008;283:18473–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pratt WB, Toft DO. Regulation of signaling protein function and trafficking by the hsp90/hsp70-based chaperone machinery. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 2003;228:111–33.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhao R, Davey M, Hsu YC, et al. Navigating the chaperone network: an integrative map of physical and genetic interactions mediated by the hsp90 chaperone. Cell 2005;120:715–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McClellan AJ, Xia Y, Deutschbauer AM, Davis RW, Gerstein M, Frydman J. Diverse cellular functions of the hsp90 molecular chaperone uncovered using systems approaches. Cell 2007;131:121–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pearl LH, Prodromou C, Workman P. The Hsp90 molecular chaperone: an open and shut case for treatment. Biochem J 2008;410:439–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neckers L, Mollapour M, Tsutsumi S. The complex dance of the molecular chaperone Hsp90. Trends Biochem Sci 2009;34:223–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Southworth DR, Agard DA. Species-dependent ensembles of conserved conformational states define the Hsp90 chaperone ATPase cycle. Mol Cell 2008;32:631–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vaughan CK, Gohlke U, Sobott F, et al. Structure of an Hsp90-Cdc37-Cdk4 complex. Mol Cell 2006;23:697–707.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riggs D, Cox M, Cheung-Flynn J, Prapapanich V, Carrigan P, Smith D. Functional specificity of co-chaperone interactions with Hsp90 client proteins. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 2004;39:279–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harst A, Lin H, Obermann WM. Aha1 competes with Hop, p50 and p23 for binding to the molecular chaperone Hsp90 and contributes to kinase and hormone receptor activation. Biochem J 2005;387:789–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siligardi G, Hu B, Panaretou B, Piper PW, Pearl LH, Prodromou C. Co-chaperone regulation of conformational switching in the Hsp90 ATPase cycle. J Biol Chem 2004;279:51989–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McLaughlin SH, Sobott F, Yao ZP, et al. The co-chaperone p23 arrests the Hsp90 ATPase cycle to trap client proteins. J Mol Biol 2006;356:746–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Young JC, Hartl FU. Polypeptide release by Hsp90 involves ATP hydrolysis and is enhanced by the co-chaperone p23. Embo J 2000;19:5930–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richter K, Walter S, Buchner J. The Co-chaperone Sba1 connects the ATPase reaction of Hsp90 to the progression of the chaperone cycle. J Mol Biol 2004;342:1403–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ali MM, Roe SM, Vaughan CK, et al. Crystal structure of an Hsp90-nucleotide-p23/Sba1 closed chaperone complex. Nature 2006;440:1013–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cox MB, Miller CA, 3rd. Cooperation of heat shock protein 90 and p23 in aryl hydrocarbon receptor signaling. Cell Stress Chaperones 2004;9:4–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weikl T, Abelmann K, Buchner J. An unstructured C-terminal region of the Hsp90 co-chaperone p23 is important for its chaperone function. J Mol Biol 1999;293:685–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Freeman BC, Toft DO, Morimoto RI. Molecular chaperone machines: chaperone activities of the cyclophilin Cyp-40 and the steroid aporeceptor-associated protein p23. Science 1996;274:1718–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taguwa S, Kambara H, Omori H, et al. Co-chaperone activity of human butyrate-induced transcript 1 facilitates hepatitis C virus replication through an Hsp90-dependent pathway. J Virol 2009.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fang Y, Fliss AE, Rao J, Caplan AJ. SBA1 encodes a yeast hsp90 cochaperone that is homologous to vertebrate p23 proteins. Mol Cell Biol 1998;18:3727–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grad I, McKee TA, Ludwig SM, et al. The Hsp90 cochaperone p23 is essential for perinatal survival. Mol Cell Biol 2006;26:8976–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Catlett MG, Kaplan KB. Sgt1p is a unique co-chaperone that acts as a client-adaptor to link Hsp90 to Skp1p. J Biol Chem 2006;281:33739–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang M, Boter M, Li K, et al. Structural and functional coupling of Hsp90- and Sgt1-centred multi-protein complexes. Embo J 2008;27:2789–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kadota Y, Amigues B, Ducassou L, et al. Structural and functional analysis of SGT1-HSP90 core complex required for innate immunity in plants. EMBO Rep 2008;9:1209–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Picard D. A stress protein interface of innate immunity. EMBO Rep 2008;9:1193–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Caplan AJ, Mandal AK, Theodoraki MA. Molecular chaperones and protein kinase quality control. Trends Cell Biol 2007;17:87–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mandal AK, Lee P, Chen JA, et al. Cdc37 has distinct roles in protein kinase quality control that protect nascent chains from degradation and promote posttranslational maturation. J Cell Biol 2007;176:319–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chadli A, Graham JD, Abel MG, et al. GCUNC-45 is a novel regulator for the progesterone receptor/hsp90 chaperoning pathway. Mol Cell Biol 2006;26:1722–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hessling M, Richter K, Buchner J. Dissection of the ATP-induced conformational cycle of the molecular chaperone Hsp90. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2009;16:287–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang X, Venable J, LaPointe P, et al. Hsp90 cochaperone Aha1 downregulation rescues misfolding of CFTR in cystic fibrosis. Cell 2006;127:803–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scheufler C, Brinker A, Bourenkov G, et al. Structure of TPR domain-peptide complexes: critical elements in the assembly of the Hsp70-Hsp90 multichaperone machine. Cell 2000;101:199–210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chen S, Smith DF. Hop as an adaptor in the heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) and hsp90 chaperone machinery. J Biol Chem 1998;273:35194–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wegele H, Haslbeck M, Reinstein J, Buchner J. Sti1 is a novel activator of the Ssa proteins. J Biol Chem 2003;278:25970–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Flom G, Behal RH, Rosen L, Cole DG, Johnson JL. Definition of the minimal fragments of Sti1 required for dimerization, interaction with Hsp70 and Hsp90 and in vivo functions. Biochem J 2007;404:159–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Carrigan PE, Riggs DL, Chinkers M, Smith DF. Functional comparison of human and Drosophila Hop reveals novel role in steroid receptor maturation. J Biol Chem 2005;280:8906–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chang HC, Nathan DF, Lindquist S. In vivo analysis of the Hsp90 cochaperone Sti1 (p60). Mol Cell Biol 1997;17:318–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Barik S. Immunophilins: for the love of proteins. Cell Mol Life Sci 2006;63:2889–900.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bose S, Weikl T, Bugl H, Buchner J. Chaperone function of Hsp90-associated proteins. Science 1996;274:1715–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Prodromou C, Siligardi G, O’Brien R, et al. Regulation of Hsp90 ATPase activity by tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR)-domain co-chaperones. Embo J 1999;18:754–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mayr C, Richter K, Lilie H, Buchner J. Cpr6 and Cpr7, two closely related Hsp90-associated immunophilins from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, differ in their functional properties. J Biol Chem 2000;275:34140–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Duina AA, Chang HC, Marsh JA, Lindquist S, Gaber RF. A cyclophilin function in Hsp90-dependent signal transduction. Science 1996;274:1713–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Duina AA, Marsh JA, Kurtz RB, Chang HC, Lindquist S, Gaber RF. The peptidyl-prolyl isomerase domain of the CyP-40 cyclophilin homolog Cpr7 is not required to support growth or glucocorticoid receptor activity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biol Chem 1998;273:10819–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mok D, Allan RK, Carrello A, Wangoo K, Walkinshaw MD, Ratajczak T. The chaperone function of cyclophilin 40 maps to a cleft between the prolyl isomerase and tetratricopeptide repeat domains. FEBS Lett 2006;580:2761–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Riggs DL, Cox MB, Tardif HL, Hessling M, Buchner J, Smith DF. Noncatalytic role of the FKBP52 peptidyl-prolyl isomerase domain in the regulation of steroid hormone signaling. Mol Cell Biol 2007;27:8658–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Smith DF, Toft DO. The Intersection of Steroid Receptors with Molecular Chaperones: Observations and Questions. Mol Endocrinol 2008;22:2229–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hidalgo-de-Quintana J, Evans RJ, Cheetham ME, van der Spuy J. The Leber congenital amaurosis protein AIPL1 functions as part of a chaperone heterocomplex. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:2878–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hinds TD, Jr., Sanchez ER. Protein phosphatase 5. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 2007.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wandinger SK, Suhre MH, Wegele H, Buchner J. The phosphatase Ppt1 is a dedicated regulator of the molecular chaperone Hsp90. Embo J 2006;25:367–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vaughan CK, Mollapour M, Smith JR, et al. Hsp90-dependent activation of protein kinases is regulated by chaperone-targeted dephosphorylation of Cdc37. Mol Cell 2008;31:886–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Millson SH, Vaughan CK, Zhai C, et al. Chaperone ligand-discrimination by the TPR-domain protein Tah1. Biochem J 2008;413:261–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Boulon S, Marmier-Gourrier N, Pradet-Balade B, et al. The Hsp90 chaperone controls the biogenesis of L7Ae RNPs through conserved machinery. J Cell Biol 2008;180:579–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tesic M, Marsh JA, Cullinan SB, Gaber RF. Functional interactions between Hsp90 and the Co-chaperones Cns1 and Cpr7 in saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biol Chem 2003;278:32692–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hainzl O, Wegele H, Richter K, Buchner J. Cns1 is an activator of the Ssa1 ATPase activity. J Biol Chem 2004;279:23267–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Crevel G, Bennett D, Cotterill S. The Human TPR Protein TTC4 Is a Putative Hsp90 Co-Chaperone Which Interacts with CDC6 and Shows Alterations in Transformed Cells. PLoS ONE 2008;3:e0001737.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Young JC, Hoogenraad NJ, Hartl FU. Molecular chaperones Hsp90 and Hsp70 deliver preproteins to the mitochondrial import receptor Tom70. Cell 2003;112:41–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dickey CA, Kamal A, Lundgren K, et al. The high-affinity HSP90-CHIP complex recognizes and selectively degrades phosphorylated tau client proteins. J Clin Invest 2007;117:648–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brychzy A, Rein T, Winklhofer KF, Hartl FU, Young JC, Obermann WM. Cofactor Tpr2 combines two TPR domains and a J domain to regulate the Hsp70/Hsp90 chaperone system. EMBO J 2003;22:3613–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Moffatt NS, Bruinsma E, Uhl C, Obermann WM, Toft D. Role of the cochaperone Tpr2 in Hsp90 chaperoning. Biochemistry 2008;47:8203–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Cziepluch C, Kordes E, Poirey R, Grewenig A, Rommelaere J, Jauniaux JC. Identification of a novel cellular TPR-containing protein, SGT, that interacts with the nonstructural protein NS1 of parvovirus H-1. J Virol 1998;72:4149–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Callahan MA, Handley MA, Lee YH, Talbot KJ, Harper JW, Panganiban AT. Functional interaction of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Vpu and Gag with a novel member of the tetratricopeptide repeat protein family. J Virol 1998;72:5189–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dutta S, Tan YJ. Structural and functional characterization of human SGT and its interaction with Vpu of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Biochemistry 2008;47:10123–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Angeletti PC, Walker D, Panganiban AT. Small glutamine-rich protein/viral protein U-binding protein is a novel cochaperone that affects heat shock protein 70 activity. Cell Stress Chaperones 2002;7:258–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fielding BC, Gunalan V, Tan TH, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus protein 7a interacts with hSGT. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2006;343:1201–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fonte V, Kapulkin V, Taft A, Fluet A, Friedman D, Link CD. Interaction of intracellular beta amyloid peptide with chaperone proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:9439–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Liou ST, Wang C. Small glutamine-rich tetratricopeptide repeat-containing protein is composed of three structural units with distinct functions. Arch Biochem Biophys 2005;435:253–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Natochin M, Campbell TN, Barren B, et al. Characterization of the G alpha(s) regulator cysteine string protein. J Biol Chem 2005;280:30236–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schantl JA, Roza M, De Jong AP, Strous GJ. Small glutamine-rich tetratricopeptide repeat-containing protein (SGT) interacts with the ubiquitin-dependent endocytosis (UbE) motif of the growth hormone receptor. Biochem J 2003;373:855–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wang H, Shen H, Wang Y, et al. Overexpression of small glutamine-rich TPR-containing protein promotes apoptosis in 7721 cells. FEBS Lett 2005;579:1279–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wang H, Zhang Q, Zhu D. hSGT interacts with the N-terminal region of myostatin. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003;311:877–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Winnefeld M, Rommelaere J, Cziepluch C. The human small glutamine-rich TPR-containing protein is required for progress through cell division. Exp Cell Res 2004;293:43–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yin H, Wang H, Zong H, et al. SGT, a Hsp90beta binding partner, is accumulated in the nucleus during cell apoptosis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2006;343:1153–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Buchanan G, Ricciardelli C, Harris JM, et al. Control of androgen receptor signaling in prostate cancer by the cochaperone small glutamine rich tetratricopeptide repeat containing protein alpha. Cancer Res 2007;67:10087–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wu SJ, Liu FH, Hu SM, Wang C. Different combinations of the heat-shock cognate protein 70 (hsc70) C-terminal functional groups are utilized to interact with distinct tetratricopeptide repeat-containing proteins. Biochem J 2001;359:419–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kordes E, Savelyeva L, Schwab M, Rommelaere J, Jauniaux JC, Cziepluch C. Isolation and characterization of human SGT and identification of homologues in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Caenorhabditis elegans. Genomics 1998;52:90–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    de Groot PW, Ruiz C, Vazquez de Aldana CR, et al. A genomic approach for the identification and classification of genes involved in cell wall formation and its regulation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Comp Funct Genomics 2001;2:124–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Niu W, Li Z, Zhan W, Iyer VR, Marcotte EM. Mechanisms of cell cycle control revealed by a systematic and quantitative overexpression screen in S. cerevisiae. PLoS Genet 2008;4:e1000120.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Liou ST, Cheng MY, Wang C. SGT2 and MDY2 interact with molecular chaperone YDJ1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Cell Stress Chaperones 2007;12:59–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kimura Y, Yahara I, Lindquist S. Role of the protein chaperone YDJ1 in establishing Hsp90-mediated signal transduction pathways. Science 1995;268:1362–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Cyr DM. Swapping nucleotides, tuning Hsp70. Cell 2008;133:945–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Liu XD, Morano KA, Thiele DJ. The yeast Hsp110 family member, Sse1, is an Hsp90 cochaperone. J Biol Chem 1999;274:26654–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Hohfeld J, Minami Y, Hartl FU. Hip, a novel cochaperone involved in the eukaryotic Hsc70/Hsp40 reaction cycle. Cell 1995;83:589–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Prapapanich V, Chen S, Toran EJ, Rimerman RA, Smith DF. Mutational analysis of the hsp70-interacting protein Hip. Mol Cell Biol 1996;16:6200–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Kosano H, Stensgard B, Charlesworth MC, McMahon N, Toft D. The assembly of progesterone receptor-hsp90 complexes using purified proteins. J Biol Chem 1998;273:32973–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Arlander SJ, Felts SJ, Wagner JM, Stensgard B, Toft DO, Karnitz LM. Chaperoning checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1), an Hsp90 client, with purified chaperones. J Biol Chem 2006;281:2989–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Chang HC, Lindquist S. Conservation of Hsp90 macromolecular complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biol Chem 1994;269:24983–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Johnson JL, Craig EA. A role for the Hsp40 Ydj1 in repression of basal steroid receptor activity in yeast. Mol Cell Biol 2000;20:3027–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Mandal AK, Nillegoda N, Chen JA, Caplan AJ. Ydj1 protects nascent protein kinases from degradation and controls the rate of their maturation. Mol Cell Biol 2008;28:4434–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Hon T, Lee HC, Hach A, et al. The Hsp70-Ydj1 molecular chaperone represses the activity of the heme activator protein Hap1 in the absence of heme. Mol Cell Biol 2001;21:7923–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Sahi C, Craig EA. Network of general and specialty J protein chaperones of the yeast cytosol. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007;104:7163–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Dittmar KD, Banach M, Galigniana MD, Pratt WB. The role of DnaJ-like proteins in glucocorticoid receptor.hsp90 heterocomplex assembly by the reconstituted hsp90.p60.hsp70 foldosome complex. J Biol Chem 1998;273:7358–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Hernandez MP, Chadli A, Toft DO. HSP40 binding is the first step in the HSP90 chaperoning pathway for the progesterone receptor. J Biol Chem 2002;277:11873–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Murphy PJ, Morishima Y, Chen H, et al. Visualization and mechanism of assembly of a glucocorticoid receptor.Hsp70 complex that is primed for subsequent Hsp90-dependent opening of the steroid binding cleft. J Biol Chem 2003;278:34764–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Flom GA, Lemieszek M, Fortunato EA, Johnson JL. Farnesylation of Ydj1 is required for in vivo interaction with Hsp90 client proteins. Mol Biol Cell 2008;19:5249–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Smith DF. Dynamics of heat shock protein 90- progesterone receptor binding and the disactivation loop model for steroid receptor complexes. Molecular Endocrinology 1993;7:1418–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Wegele H, Wandinger SK, Schmid AB, Reinstein J, Buchner J. Substrate transfer from the chaperone Hsp70 to Hsp90. J Mol Biol 2006;356:802–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Lee P, Shabbir A, Cardozo C, Caplan AJ. Sti1 and Cdc37 can stabilize Hsp90 in chaperone complexes with a protein kinase. Mol Biol Cell 2004;15:1785–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Cheung J, Smith DF. Molecular chaperone interactions with steroid receptors: an update. Mol Endocrinol 2000;14:939–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Davies TH, Ning YM, Sanchez ER. Differential control of glucocorticoid receptor hormone-binding function by tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) proteins and the immunosuppressive ligand FK506. Biochemistry 2005;44:2030–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Riggs DL, Roberts PJ, Chirillo SC, et al. The Hsp90-binding peptidylprolyl isomerase FKBP52 potentiates glucocorticoid signaling in vivo. Embo J 2003;22:1158–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Tranguch S, Cheung-Flynn J, Daikoku T, et al. Cochaperone immunophilin FKBP52 is critical to uterine receptivity for embryo implantation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102:14326–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Galigniana MD, Harrell JM, Murphy PJ, et al. Binding of hsp90-associated immunophilins to cytoplasmic dynein: direct binding and in vivo evidence that the peptidylprolyl isomerase domain is a dynein interaction domain. Biochemistry 2002;41:13602–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Galigniana MD, Radanyi C, Renoir JM, Housley PR, Pratt WB. Evidence that the peptidylprolyl isomerase domain of the hsp90-binding immunophilin FKBP52 is involved in both dynein interaction and glucocorticoid receptor movement to the nucleus. J Biol Chem 2001;276:14884–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Echeverria PC, Mazaira G, Erlejman A, Gomez-Sanchez C, Piwien Pilipuk G, Galigniana MD. Nuclear import of the glucocorticoid receptor-hsp90 complex through the nuclear pore complex is mediated by its interaction with Nup62 and importin beta. Mol Cell Biol 2009;29:4788–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Pratt WB, Galigniana MD, Harrell JM, DeFranco DB. Role of hsp90 and the hsp90-binding immunophilins in signalling protein movement. Cell Signal 2004;16:857–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Htun H, Holth LT, Walker D, Davie JR, Hager GL. Direct visualization of the human estrogen receptor alpha reveals a role for ligand in the nuclear distribution of the receptor. Mol Biol Cell 1999;10:471–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Lim CS, Baumann CT, Htun H, et al. Differential localization and activity of the A- and B-forms of the human progesterone receptor using green fluorescent protein chimeras. Mol Endocrinol 1999;13:366–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Freeman BC, Yamamoto KR. Disassembly of transcriptional regulatory complexes by molecular chaperones. Science 2002;296:2232–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Silverstein AM, Galigniana MD, Kanelakis KC, Radanyi C, Renoir JM, Pratt WB. Different regions of the immunophilin FKBP52 determine its association with the glucocorticoid receptor, hsp90, and cytoplasmic dynein. J Biol Chem 1999;274:36980–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Hu J, Toft DO, Seeger C. Hepadnavirus assembly and reverse transcription require a multi-component chaperone complex which is incorporated into nucleocapsids. Embo J 1997;16:59–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Koga F, Kihara K, Neckers L. Inhibition of cancer invasion and metastasis by targeting the molecular chaperone heat-shock protein 90. Anticancer Res 2009;29:797–807.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Sawai A, Chandarlapaty S, Greulich H, et al. Inhibition of Hsp90 down-regulates mutant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression and sensitizes EGFR mutant tumors to paclitaxel. Cancer Res 2008;68:589–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    McDowell CL, Bryan Sutton R, Obermann WM. Expression of Hsp90 chaperome proteins in human tumor tissue. Int J Biol Macromol 2009;45:310–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Periyasamy S, Warrier M, Tillekeratne MP, Shou W, Sanchez ER. The immunophilin ligands cyclosporin A and FK506 suppress prostate cancer cell growth by androgen receptor-dependent and -independent mechanisms. Endocrinology 2007;148:4716–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Bredemeyer AJ, Carrigan PE, Fehniger TA, Smith DF, Ley TJ. Hop cleavage and function in granzyme B-induced apoptosis. J Biol Chem 2006;281:37130–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Radanyi C, Le Bras G, Bouclier C, et al. Tosylcyclonovobiocic acids promote cleavage of the hsp90-associated cochaperone p23. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2009;379:514–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Mollerup J, Berchtold MW. The co-chaperone p23 is degraded by caspases and the proteasome during apoptosis. FEBS Lett 2005;579:4187–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Johnson JL, Brown C. Plasticity of the Hsp90 chaperone machine in divergent eukaryotic organisms. Cell Stress Chaperones 2009;14:83–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Zhang L, Hach A, Wang C. Molecular mechanism governing heme signaling in yeast: a higher-order complex mediates heme regulation of the transcriptional activator HAP1. Mol Cell Biol 1998;18:3819–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Nair SC, Toran EJ, Rimerman RA, Hjermstad S, Smithgall TE, Smith DF. A pathway of multi-chaperone interactions common to diverse regulatory proteins: estrogen receptor, Fes tyrosine kinase, heat shock transcription factor Hsf1, and the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Cell Stress Chaperones 1996;1:237–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Blagosklonny MV, Toretsky J, Bohen S, Neckers L. Mutant conformation of p53 translated in vitro or in vivo requires functional HSP90. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996;93:8379–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Minet E, Ernest I, Michel G, et al. HIF1A gene transcription is dependent on a core promoter sequence encompassing activating and inhibiting sequences located upstream from the transcription initiation site and cis elements located within the 5′UTR. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1999;261:534–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Xu Y, Lindquist S. Heat-shock protein hsp90 governs the activity of pp60v-src kinase. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1993;90:7074–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Louvion JF, Abbas-Terki T, Picard D. Hsp90 is required for pheromone signaling in yeast. Mol Biol Cell 1998;9:3071–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Donze O, Abbas-Terki T, Picard D. The Hsp90 chaperone complex is both a facilitator and a repressor of the dsRNA-dependent kinase PKR. Embo J 2001;20:3771–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Aligue R, Akhavan-Niak H, Russell P. A role for Hsp90 in cell cycle control: Wee1 tyrosine kinase activity requires interaction with Hsp90. EMBO J 1994;13:6099–106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Xu W, Mimnaugh E, Rosser MF, et al. Sensitivity of mature Erbb2 to geldanamycin is conferred by its kinase domain and is mediated by the chaperone protein Hsp90. The Journal of biological chemistry 2001;276(5):3702–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Sato S, Fujita N, Tsuruo T. Modulation of Akt kinase activity by binding to Hsp90. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000;97:10832–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Eustace BK, Sakurai T, Stewart JK, et al. Functional proteomic screens reveal an essential extracellular role for hsp90 alpha in cancer cell invasiveness. Nat Cell Biol 2004;6:507–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Siligardi G, Panaretou B, Meyer P, et al. Regulation of Hsp90 ATPase activity by the co-chaperone Cdc37p/p50cdc37. J Biol Chem 2002;277:20151–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Panaretou B, Siligardi G, Meyer P, et al. Activation of the ATPase activity of hsp90 by the stress-regulated cochaperone aha1. Mol Cell 2002;10:1307–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Murata S, Minami Y, Minami M, Chiba T, Tanaka K. CHIP is a chaperone-dependent E3 ligase that ubiquitylates unfolded protein. EMBO Rep 2001;2:1133–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA
  2. 2.Border Biomedical Research CenterEl PasoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Microbiology, Molecular Biology, and BiochemistryUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations