Repair or Degrade: the Thermodynamic Dilemma of Cellular Protein Quality-Control.

chaperones protein degradation protein repair proteostasis thermodynamics

Journal

Frontiers in molecular biosciences
ISSN: 2296-889X
Titre abrégé: Front Mol Biosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101653173

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021
Historique:
received: 01 09 2021
accepted: 13 10 2021
entrez: 15 11 2021
pubmed: 16 11 2021
medline: 16 11 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Life is a non-equilibrium phenomenon. Owing to their high free energy content, the macromolecules of life tend to spontaneously react with ambient oxygen and water and turn into more stable inorganic molecules. A similar thermodynamic picture applies to the complex shapes of proteins: While a polypeptide is emerging unfolded from the ribosome, it may spontaneously acquire secondary structures and collapse into its functional native conformation. The spontaneity of this process is evidence that the free energy of the unstructured state is higher than that of the structured native state. Yet, under stress or because of mutations, complex polypeptides may fail to reach their native conformation and form instead thermodynamically stable aggregates devoid of biological activity. Cells have evolved molecular chaperones to actively counteract the misfolding of stress-labile proteins dictated by equilibrium thermodynamics. HSP60, HSP70 and HSP100 can inject energy from ATP hydrolysis into the forceful unfolding of stable misfolded structures in proteins and convert them into unstable intermediates that can collapse into the native state, even under conditions inauspicious for that state. Aggregates and misfolded proteins may also be forcefully unfolded and degraded by chaperone-gated endo-cellular proteases, and in eukaryotes also by chaperone-mediated autophagy, paving the way for their replacement by new, unaltered functional proteins. The greater energy cost of degrading and replacing a polypeptide, with respect to the cost of its chaperone-mediated repair represents a thermodynamic dilemma: some easily repairable proteins are better to be processed by chaperones, while it can be wasteful to uselessly try recover overly compromised molecules, which should instead be degraded and replaced. Evolution has solved this conundrum by creating a host of unfolding chaperones and degradation machines and by tuning their cellular amounts and activity rates.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34778379
doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2021.768888
pii: 768888
pmc: PMC8578701
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

768888

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Fauvet, Rebeaud, Tiwari, De Los Rios and Goloubinoff.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Apr 11;92(8):3516-20
pubmed: 7724592
Genes Dev. 1998 Mar 1;12(5):654-66
pubmed: 9499401
Cell. 1984 Sep;38(2):371-81
pubmed: 6380764
Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2004 Sep;11(9):830-7
pubmed: 15311270
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 May 25;118(21):
pubmed: 34001607
Science. 2008 Nov 14;322(5904):1104-7
pubmed: 18832610
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Feb 28;103(9):3066-71
pubmed: 16484367
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 Sep;85(18):6632-6
pubmed: 2970643
Nature. 2017 Jan 19;541(7637):353-358
pubmed: 28077874
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 Mar;77(3):1365-8
pubmed: 6769112
Cell. 2009 Nov 13;139(4):744-56
pubmed: 19914167
J Mol Biol. 2013 Apr 12;425(7):1158-71
pubmed: 23306033
Proteins. 2011 Jun;79(6):1991-8
pubmed: 21488102
J Bacteriol. 2012 Aug;194(16):4446-7
pubmed: 22843584
Structure. 2012 Sep 5;20(9):1562-73
pubmed: 22841293
J Struct Biol. 2004 Apr-May;146(1-2):11-31
pubmed: 15037234
J Biol Chem. 1980 Aug 25;255(16):7529-32
pubmed: 6249803
J Biol Chem. 2000 Jul 14;275(28):21107-13
pubmed: 10801805
Cell Rep. 2014 Nov 6;9(3):955-66
pubmed: 25437552
Front Microbiol. 2019 Apr 15;10:780
pubmed: 31037068
Biophys J. 2010 Dec 15;99(12):3996-4002
pubmed: 21156142
ISME J. 2019 Jan;13(1):227-231
pubmed: 30116037
Genome Res. 1999 Jan;9(1):27-43
pubmed: 9927482
Mol Cell Biol. 1998 Sep;18(9):4949-60
pubmed: 9710578
Science. 1997 Sep 5;277(5331):1453-62
pubmed: 9278503
J Biol Chem. 2007 Aug 3;282(31):22921-9
pubmed: 17553803
Nature. 1987 Sep 24-30;329(6137):348-51
pubmed: 3306410
J Biol Chem. 1983 Jul 10;258(13):8206-14
pubmed: 6305978
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jul 9;110(28):11302-7
pubmed: 23798410
Physiol Rev. 1992 Apr;72(2):419-48
pubmed: 1557428
Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2016 Sep;23(9):821-9
pubmed: 27478930
Trends Cell Biol. 2019 Feb;29(2):164-177
pubmed: 30502916
Cell Rep. 2019 Jun 18;27(12):3433-3446.e4
pubmed: 31216466
Genes Dev. 1989 Dec;3(12A):2003-10
pubmed: 2695391
J Mol Biol. 2004 Sep 24;342(4):1265-78
pubmed: 15351650
Nat Commun. 2020 Jan 31;11(1):645
pubmed: 32005807
Nature. 1986 Jul 17-23;322(6076):209-10
pubmed: 3526158
J Biol Chem. 1998 May 1;273(18):11032-7
pubmed: 9556585
J Cell Sci. 2020 Sep 9;133(17):
pubmed: 32907930
Nat Chem Biol. 2010 Dec;6(12):914-20
pubmed: 20953191
Stand Genomic Sci. 2011 Dec 31;5(3):407-15
pubmed: 22675590
Mol Aspects Med. 2014 Feb;35:1-71
pubmed: 23107776
Science. 1973 Jul 20;181(4096):223-30
pubmed: 4124164
Biochemistry. 2013 Feb 12;52(6):1011-8
pubmed: 23331070
Front Mol Biosci. 2017 Jul 19;4:49
pubmed: 28770209
EMBO J. 1999 Dec 15;18(24):6934-49
pubmed: 10601016
Q Rev Biophys. 2006 May;39(2):167-201
pubmed: 16978447
Biotechnol J. 2013 Sep;8(9):1105-14
pubmed: 23744758
J Biol Chem. 1996 Jun 14;271(24):14035-40
pubmed: 8662828
Physiol Rev. 2002 Apr;82(2):373-428
pubmed: 11917093
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 May 17;108(20):8206-11
pubmed: 21525416
Mol Cell. 2018 May 3;70(3):545-552.e9
pubmed: 29706537
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006 Jul;17(7):1807-19
pubmed: 16738015
Front Mol Biosci. 2019 Jun 07;6:40
pubmed: 31231659
Biotechnol Bioeng. 2003 Apr 20;82(2):143-51
pubmed: 12584756
Biochemistry. 2002 Jul 30;41(30):9418-25
pubmed: 12135363
Cell Death Differ. 2015 Dec;22(12):2107-22
pubmed: 26138444
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jul 5;97(14):7790-5
pubmed: 10869428
Genes Dev. 1998 May 1;12(9):1338-47
pubmed: 9573050
Annu Rev Cell Biol. 1993;9:601-34
pubmed: 8280473
Cell Stress Chaperones. 2013 Sep;18(5):591-605
pubmed: 23430704
EMBO J. 2016 Jul 15;35(14):1522-36
pubmed: 27234297
Front Mol Biosci. 2021 Apr 15;8:653073
pubmed: 33937334
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jun 22;118(25):
pubmed: 34161281
Biochemistry. 2003 May 20;42(19):5748-53
pubmed: 12741832
Cell Rep. 2017 Apr 25;19(4):680-687
pubmed: 28445720
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016 Jan;14(1):33-44
pubmed: 26639779
Genes Dev. 1992 Jul;6(7):1165-72
pubmed: 1628824
J Bacteriol. 1998 Feb;180(4):767-72
pubmed: 9473028
Nat Chem Biol. 2018 Apr;14(4):388-395
pubmed: 29507388
Swiss Med Wkly. 2016 Apr 05;146:w14306
pubmed: 27045704
Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2009 Jun;16(6):574-81
pubmed: 19491934
Mol Biol Cell. 2004 Mar;15(3):1254-61
pubmed: 14668476
Nat Commun. 2020 Jan 24;11(1):477
pubmed: 31980598
Genes Dev. 1987 Apr;1(2):179-84
pubmed: 3315848

Auteurs

Bruno Fauvet (B)

Institute of Physics, School of Basic Sciences, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne-EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Mathieu E Rebeaud (ME)

Department of Plant Molecular Biology, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Satyam Tiwari (S)

Department of Plant Molecular Biology, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Paolo De Los Rios (P)

Institute of Physics, School of Basic Sciences, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne-EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Institute of Bioengineering, School of Life Sciences, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne-EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Pierre Goloubinoff (P)

Department of Plant Molecular Biology, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH