GroES mobile loop
目录号 : GC34221
GroESmobileloop是GroES的高度灵活的区域，GroES可以通过该区域末端的氨基酸残基与GroEL结合。
Sample solution is provided at 25 µL, 10mM.
;)
,-1-7$$$37316672.jpg');)
;)
;)
$$$36806353.jpg');)
;33(7)%EF%BC%9A546-561$$$37156877.jpg');)
;)
;)
;)
%201124-1138.$$$35908550.jpg');)
%20766-780.$$$37100057.jpg');)
%20418-432.$$$36893736.jpg');)
%EF%BC%9A-240-255.$$$35108512.jpg');)
533-545$$$36543525.jpg');)
%201-13.$$$36600053.jpg');)
;)
Quality Control & SDS
- View current batch:
- Purity: >98.00%
- COA (Certificate Of Analysis)
- SDS (Safety Data Sheet)
- Datasheet
GroES mobile loop is a highly flexible region of free GroES, which binds to GroEL through the residues at the tip of the loop.
GroES mobile loop is a highly flexible region of free GroES, which binds to GroEL through the residues at the tip of the loop.
[1]. Nojima T, et al. Flexibility of GroES mobile loop is required for efficient chaperonin function. J Mol Biol. 2012 Sep 14;422(2):291-9.
| Cas No. | SDF | ||
| Canonical SMILES | Glu-Thr-Lys-Ser-Ala-Gly-Gly-Ile-Val-Leu-Thr-Gly-Ser | ||
| 分子式 | C51H90N14O20 | 分子量 | 1219.4 |
| 溶解度 | Soluble in Water | 储存条件 | Store at -20°C |
| General tips | 请根据产品在不同溶剂中的溶解度选择合适的溶剂配制储备液；一旦配成溶液，请分装保存，避免反复冻融造成的产品失效。 储备液的保存方式和期限：-80°C 储存时，请在 6 个月内使用，-20°C 储存时，请在 1 个月内使用。 为了提高溶解度，请将管子加热至37℃，然后在超声波浴中震荡一段时间。 |
||
| Shipping Condition | 评估样品解决方案：配备蓝冰进行发货。所有其他可用尺寸：配备RT，或根据请求配备蓝冰。 | ||
| 制备储备液 | |||
 |
1 mg | 5 mg | 10 mg |
| 1 mM | 0.8201 mL | 4.1004 mL | 8.2008 mL |
| 5 mM | 0.164 mL | 0.8201 mL | 1.6402 mL |
| 10 mM | 0.082 mL | 0.41 mL | 0.8201 mL |
| 第一步：请输入基本实验信息（考虑到实验过程中的损耗，建议多配一只动物的药量） | ||||||||||
| 给药剂量 | mg/kg |  |
动物平均体重 | g | |
每只动物给药体积 | ul | |
动物数量 | 只 |
| 第二步：请输入动物体内配方组成（配方适用于不溶于水的药物；不同批次药物配方比例不同，请联系GLPBIO为您提供正确的澄清溶液配方） | ||||||||||
| % DMSO % % Tween 80 % saline | ||||||||||
| 计算重置 | ||||||||||
计算结果:
工作液浓度： mg/ml；
DMSO母液配制方法： mg 药物溶于 μL DMSO溶液（母液浓度 mg/mL，
体内配方配制方法：取 μL DMSO母液，加入 μL PEG300，混匀澄清后加入μL Tween 80，混匀澄清后加入 μL saline，混匀澄清。
1. 首先保证母液是澄清的；
2.
一定要按照顺序依次将溶剂加入，进行下一步操作之前必须保证上一步操作得到的是澄清的溶液，可采用涡旋、超声或水浴加热等物理方法助溶。
3. 以上所有助溶剂都可在 GlpBio 网站选购。
Flexibility of GroES mobile loop is required for efficient chaperonin function
J Mol Biol 2012 Sep 14;422(2):291-9.PMID:22634549DOI:10.1016/j.jmb.2012.05.026.
Chaperonin GroEL and its partner GroES assist the folding of nascent and stress-damaged proteins in an ATP-dependent manner. Free GroES has a flexible "mobile loop" and binds to GroEL through the residues at the tip of the loop, capping the central cavity of GroEL to provide the substrate polypeptide a cage for secure in-cage folding. Here, we show that restriction of the flexibility of the loop by a disulfide cross-linking between cysteines within the loop results in the inefficient formation of a stable GroEL-polypeptide-GroES ternary complex and inefficient folding. Then, we generated substrate proteins with enhanced binding affinity to GroEL by fusion of one or two SBP (strongly binding peptide for GroEL) sequences and examined the effect of disulfide cross-linking on the assisted folding. The results indicate that the higher the binding affinity of the substrate polypeptide to GroEL, the greater the contribution of the mobile loop flexibility to efficient in-cage folding. It is likely that the flexibility helps GroES capture GroEL's binding sites that are already occupied by the substrate polypeptide with various binding modes.
The disordered mobile loop of GroES folds into a defined beta-hairpin upon binding GroEL
J Biol Chem 2001 Aug 17;276(33):31257-64.PMID:11395498DOI:10.1074/jbc.M102765200.
The GroES mobile loop is a stretch of approximately 16 amino acids that exhibits a high degree of flexible disorder in the free protein. This loop is responsible for the interaction between GroES and GroEL, and it undergoes a folding transition upon binding to GroEL. Results derived from a combination of transferred nuclear Overhauser effect NMR experiments and molecular dynamics simulations indicate that the mobile loop adopts a beta-hairpin structure with a Type I, G1 Bulge turn. This structure is distinct from the conformation of the loop in the co-crystal of GroES with GroEL-ADP but identical to the conformation of the bacteriophage-panned "strongly binding peptide" in the co-crystal with GroEL. Analysis of sequence conservation suggests that sequences of the mobile loop and strongly binding peptide were selected for the ability to adopt this hairpin conformation.
The importance of a mobile loop in regulating chaperonin/ co-chaperonin interaction: humans versus Escherichia coli
J Biol Chem 2001 Feb 16;276(7):4981-7.PMID:11050098DOI:10.1074/jbc.M008628200.
Chaperonins are universally conserved proteins that nonspecifically facilitate the folding of a wide spectrum of proteins. While bacterial GroEL is functionally promiscuous with various co-chaperonin partners, its human homologue, Hsp60 functions specifically with its co-chaperonin partner, Hsp10, and not with other co-chaperonins, such as the bacterial GroES or bacteriophage T4-encoded Gp31. Co-chaperonin interaction with chaperonin is mediated by the co-chaperonin mobile loop that folds into a beta-hairpin conformation upon binding to the chaperonin. A delicate balance of flexibility and conformational preferences of the mobile loop determines co-chaperonin affinity for chaperonin. Here, we show that the ability of Hsp10, but not GroES, to interact specifically with Hsp60 lies within the mobile loop sequence. Using mutational analysis, we show that three substitutions in the GroES mobile loop are necessary and sufficient to acquire Hsp10-like specificity. Two of these substitutions are predicted to preorganize the beta-hairpin turn and one to increase the hydrophobicity of the GroEL-binding site. Together, they result in a GroES that binds chaperonins with higher affinity. It seems likely that the single ring mitochondrial Hsp60 exhibits intrinsically lower affinity for the co-chaperonin that can be compensated for by a higher affinity mobile loop.
Factors governing the substrate recognition by GroEL chaperone: a sequence correlation approach
Cell Stress Chaperones 2005 Spring;10(1):24-36.PMID:15832945DOI:10.1379/csc-64r1.1.
The chaperonin GroEL binds to a large number of polypeptides, prevents their self-association, and mediates appropriate folding in a GroES and adenosine triphosphate-dependent manner. But how the GroEL molecule actually recognizes the polypeptide and what are the exact GroEL recognition sites in the substrates are still poorly understood. We have examined more than 50 in vivo substrates as well as well-characterized in vitro substrates, for their binding characteristics with GroEL. While addressing the issue, we have been driven by the basic concept that GroES, being the cochaperonin of GroEL, is the best-suited substrate for GroEL, as well as by the fact that polypeptide substrate and GroES occupy the same binding sites on the GroEL apical domain. GroES interacts with GroEL through selective hydrophobic residues present on its mobile loop region, and we have considered the group of residues on the GroES mobile loop as the key element in choosing a substrate for GroEL. Considering the hydrophobic region on the GroES mobile loop as the standard, we have attempted to identify the homologous region on the peptide sequences in the proteins of our interest. Polypeptides have been judged as potential GroEL substrates on the basis of the presence of the GroES mobile loop-like hydrophobic segments in their amino acid sequences. We have observed 1 or more GroES mobile loop-like hydrophobic patches in the peptide sequence of some of the proteins of our interest, and the hydropathy index of most of these patches also seems to be approximately close to that of the standard. It has been proposed that the presence of hydrophobic patches having substantial degree of hydropathy index as compared with the standard segment is a necessary condition for a peptide sequence to be recognized by GroEL molecules. We also observed that the overall hydrophobicity is also close to 30% in these substrates, although this is not the sufficient criterion for a polypeptide to be assigned as a substrate for GroEL. We found that the binding of aconitase, alpha-lactalbumin, and murine dihydrofolate reductase to GroEL falls in line with our present model and have also predicted the exact regions of their binding to GroEL. On the basis of our GroEL substrate prediction, we have presented a model for the binding of apo form of some proteins to GroEL and the eventual formation of the holo form. Our observation also reveals that in most of the cases, the GroES mobile loop-like hydrophobic patch is present in the unstructured region of the protein molecule, specifically in the loop or beta-sheeted region. The outcome of our study would be an essential feature in identifying a potential substrate for GroEL on the basis of the presence of 1 or more GroES mobile loop-like hydrophobic segments in the amino acid sequence of those polypeptides and their location in three-dimensional space.
In silico engineering of aggregation-prone recombinant proteins for substrate recognition by the chaperonin GroEL
BMC Genomics 2012;13 Suppl 7(Suppl 7):S22.PMID:23281895DOI:10.1186/1471-2164-13-S7-S22.
Background: Molecular chaperones appear to have been evolved to facilitate protein folding in the cell through entrapment of folding intermediates on the interior of a large cavity formed between GroEL and its co-chaperonin GroES. They bind newly synthesized or non-native polypeptides through hydrophobic interactions and prevent their aggregation. Some proteins do not interact with GroEL, hence even though they are aggregation prone, cannot be assisted by GroEL for their folding. Results: In this study, we have attempted to engineer these non-substrate proteins to convert them as the substrate for GroEL, without compromising on their function. We have used a computational biology approach to generate mutants of the selected proteins by selectively mutating residues in the hydrophobic patch, similar to GroES mobile loop region that are responsible for interaction with GroEL, and compared with the wild counterparts for calculation of their instability and aggregation propensities. The energies of the newly designed mutants were computed through molecular dynamics simulations. We observed increased aggregation propensity of some of the mutants formed after replacing charged amino acid residues with hydrophobic ones in the well defined hydrophobic patch, raising the possibility of their binding ability to GroEL. Conclusions: The newly generated mutants may provide potential substrates for Chaperonin GroEL, which can be experimentally generated and tested for their tendency of aggregation, interactions with GroEL and the possibility of chaperone-assisted folding to produce functional proteins.