Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Functionally Accepted Insertions of Proteins within Protein Domains

2000; Elsevier BV; Volume: 275; Issue: 23 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1074/jbc.m000666200

1083-351X

Bruno Collinet, Mireille Hervé, Frédéric Pecorari, Philippe Minard, Olivier Eder, Michel Desmadril,

RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms

Experiments were designed to explore the tolerance of protein structure and folding to very large insertions of folded protein within a structural domain. Dihydrofolate reductase and β-lactamase have been inserted in four different positions of phosphoglycerate kinase. The resultant chimeric proteins are all overexpressed, and the host as well as the inserted partners are functional. Although not explicitly designed, functional coupling between the two fused partners was observed in some of the chimeras. These results show that the tolerance of protein structures to very large structured insertions is more general than previously expected and supports the idea that the natural sequence continuity of a structural domain is not required for the folding process. These results directly suggest a new experimental approach to screen, for example, for folded protein in randomized polypeptide sequences. Experiments were designed to explore the tolerance of protein structure and folding to very large insertions of folded protein within a structural domain. Dihydrofolate reductase and β-lactamase have been inserted in four different positions of phosphoglycerate kinase. The resultant chimeric proteins are all overexpressed, and the host as well as the inserted partners are functional. Although not explicitly designed, functional coupling between the two fused partners was observed in some of the chimeras. These results show that the tolerance of protein structures to very large structured insertions is more general than previously expected and supports the idea that the natural sequence continuity of a structural domain is not required for the folding process. These results directly suggest a new experimental approach to screen, for example, for folded protein in randomized polypeptide sequences. dihydrofolate reductase from E. coli β-lactamase from E. coli dithiothreitol guanidinium chloride phosphoglycerate kinase from yeast polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis wild-type Proteins larger than a few hundred amino acids are almost invariably constituted of several domains. This modularity of protein structure is believed to be the result of an evolutionary process where two or more ancestral genes coding for single domains proteins were at some stage fused together and gave rise to proteins with new biological properties. This model assumes that the putative ancestral proteins were able to fold into stable native structures before the fusion event took place and suggests that the corresponding domains may still be independent folding units in the resultant fused protein. It has indeed been observed in several cases that isolated domains of multidomain proteins can fold independently (1.Minard P. Hall L. Betton J.M. Missiakas D. Yon J.M. Protein Eng. 1989; 3: 55-60Crossref PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar, 2.Markovic-Housley Z. Cooper A. Lustig A. Flukiger K. Stolz B. Erni B. Biochemistry. 1994; 33: 10977-10984Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar, 3.Nock S. Grillenbeck N. Ahmadian M.R. Ribeiro S. Kreutzer R. Sprinzl M. Eur. J. Biochem. 1995; 234: 132-139Crossref PubMed Scopus (30) Google Scholar, 4.Mayr E.M. Jaenicke R. Glockshuber R. J. Mol. Biol. 1997; 269: 260-269Crossref PubMed Scopus (63) Google Scholar, 5.Gegg C.V. Bowers K.E. Matthews C.R. Protein Sci. 1997; 6: 1885-1892Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar, 6.Hosszu L.L. Craven C.J. Parker M.J. Lorch M. Spencer J. Clarke A.R. Waltho J.P. Nature Struct. Biol. 1997; 4: 801-804Crossref PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar). Partially based on these arguments, the folding process of large proteins is often described as a sequential and hierarchical process in which interactions between elements close in sequence position are likely to be formed during early steps, before the interactions involving sequentially distant elements. Consequently, it is often stated that, during the folding process of a multidomain protein, the domains fold first and then interact with each other (7.Jaenicke R. Biol. Chem. 1998; 379: 237-243PubMed Google Scholar). This conception implicitly associates the continuity of a polypeptide sequence coding for a domain and its folding ability. As first pointed out by Russell (8.Russell R.B. Protein Eng. 1994; 7: 1407-1410Crossref PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar), this view of the folding process of multidomain proteins is simple and rather satisfying for proteins made by continuous domains but becomes more puzzling for the subset of proteins made of discontinuous domains. Proteins with discontinuous domains can be viewed as proteins in which there is at least one domain, or a fraction of a domain, inserted within another domain. Well known examples of such proteins are dsbA (9.Martin J.L. Bardwell J.C. Kuriyan Nature. 1993; 365: 464-468Crossref PubMed Scopus (354) Google Scholar), pyruvate kinase (10.Levine M. Muirhead H. Stammers D.K. Stuart D.I. Nature. 1978; 271: 626-630Crossref PubMed Scopus (51) Google Scholar), and DNA polymerase (11.Delarue M. Poch O. Tordo N. Moras D. Argos P. Protein Eng. 1990; 3: 461-467Crossref PubMed Scopus (578) Google Scholar). Although proteins with continuous domains are more common, discontinuous domains made by two segments of the polypeptide chains are not very rare exceptions (12.Russel R.B. Ponting C.P. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 1998; 8: 364-371Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar). A recent systematic survey of structural domains showed that 28% of structural domains are not continuous (13.Jones S. Stewart M. Michie A. Swindells M.B. Orengo C. Thornton J.M. Protein Sci. 1998; 7: 233-242Crossref PubMed Scopus (139) Google Scholar). This suggests that the continuity of the polypeptide sequence within a structural unit, although the most common situation, is not mandatory for a productive folding process. Two other lines of experimental evidence tend to support this somewhat counterintuitive view. First, functional proteins can be reconstituted by the reassociation of two or more polypeptide fragments. It is now clear that this process can occur with pairs of fragments found in many different proteins (14.de Prat-Gay G. Protein Eng. 1996; 9: 843-847Crossref PubMed Google Scholar) and that the two complementary fragments need not be able to fold autonomously or correspond to structural domains to reassociate functionally (15.Pecorari F. Guilbert C. Minard P. Desmadril M. Yon J.M. Biochemistry. 1996; 35: 3465-3476Crossref PubMed Scopus (25) Google Scholar). Second, it has been shown that natural proteins made by two continuous domains are still able to fold when one or the other domain is made discontinuous by a circular permutation of the polypeptide sequence (16.Ritco-Vonsovici M. Minard P. Desmadril M. Yon J.M. Biochemistry. 1995; 34: 16543-16551Crossref PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar, 17.Heinemann U. Hahn M. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 1995; 64: 121-143Crossref PubMed Scopus (82) Google Scholar). This experimental evidence clearly suggests that the efficiency of the folding process of a continuous structural domain does not strictly depend upon the natural connectivity existing in the native structure. A further consequence of this proposal is that a discontinuity introduced by the artificial insertion of a large sequence, possibly large enough to fold autonomously, could be accepted within a naturally continuous protein domain. This could naturally occur as a consequence of a genetic rearrangement leading to the insertion of a coding sequence within another unrelated coding sequence. Such rearrangement has been observed in natural proteins where domains are inserted or permuted (12.Russel R.B. Ponting C.P. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 1998; 8: 364-371Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar). Insertion of a large sequence is generally considered to be incompatible with proper folding of the host protein in which the insertion event took place. However, the observation of accepted natural or engineered discontinuities in structural domains suggests that this intuitive view might be misleading. Large insertion of structural domains could be tolerated as long as the inserted protein is introduced in positions where no steric hindrance occurs. In other words, these types of rearrangement would be more constrained by the stability of the resultant protein than by the folding process of the host protein. We have experimentally tested this assumption and constructed a set of chimeric proteins. In these engineered proteins two different and unrelated proteins of more than 100 amino acids have been inserted in several positions of a host protein. The design, expression, and properties of these chimeric proteins are described. Possible functional couplings between inserted and host proteins were investigated. The genes coding forEscherichia coli dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR)1 and β-lactamase (BLA) were amplified by polymerase chain reaction using 100 ng of genomic DNA from E. coli strain XL1-blue MRF′ and 10 ng of plasmid pBR322, respectively. An NgoM1 restriction site was added at the end of the amplified sequences. These fragments were inserted into the phosphoglycerate kinase (PGK) gene carried by the expression vector pYE-PGK (18.Minard P. Bowen D.J. Hall L. Littlechild J.A. Watson H.C. Protein Eng. 1990; 3: 515-521Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar) in which a unique BspE1 restriction site has been previously introduced by site-directed mutagenesis at the selected positions. The coding sequences of all the chimeras were completely sequenced to check for the absence of unwanted mutations. Wild type (WT) PGK and chimeric proteins were expressed in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae PGK-deficient strain BC3 (19.Piper P.W. Curran B.P.G. Curr. Genet. 1990; 17: 119-123Crossref PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar). Crude extracts used for expression efficiency testing were prepared as described (1.Minard P. Hall L. Betton J.M. Missiakas D. Yon J.M. Protein Eng. 1989; 3: 55-60Crossref PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar) and submitted to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) (see Fig. 2). Expected molecular masses for PGK/DHFR chimeric proteins, PGK/BLA chimeric proteins, and 89DHFR/290BLA were 62.2, 73.4, and 91.1 kDa, respectively. Crude extracts were precipitated by saturated ammonium sulfate and desalted by chromatography on a Sephadex G-25 column. Protein-containing fractions were purified by HPLC ion exchange on a TSK-DEAE column equilibrated in Tris (20 mm; pH 8) and eluted by a linearly increasing gradient of sodium chloride concentration. The gradient was optimized for each particular protein. Fractions containing enzyme activities were pooled and finally purified by gel filtration as described for WT PGK (1.Minard P. Hall L. Betton J.M. Missiakas D. Yon J.M. Protein Eng. 1989; 3: 55-60Crossref PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar). Purified protein used for further characterization appeared as a single band on SDS-PAGE analysis. Protein concentrations were determined spectroscopically using the following molar extinction coefficients (20.Pace N.C. Vajdos F. Fee L. Grimsley G. Gray T. Protein. Sci. 1995; 4: 2411-2423Crossref PubMed Scopus (3449) Google Scholar): ε280 = 51205m−1.cm−1 for PGK/BLA and ε280 = 55,375 for PGK/DHFR constructs. Wild type β-lactamase was produced as described previously (21.Betton J.M. Jacob J.P. Hofnung M. Broome-Smith J. Nature Biotech. 1997; 15: 1276-1279Crossref PubMed Scopus (51) Google Scholar). PGK and DHFR activities were measured at 22 °C as described by Betton et al. (1997) and Iwakura and Matthews (22.Iwakura M. Matthews C.R. Protein Eng. 1992; 5: 791-796Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar), respectively. BLA activity was measured at 22 °C using nitrocefin as substrate (23.Laminet A.A. Plückthun A. EMBO J. 1989; 8: 1469-1477Crossref PubMed Scopus (88) Google Scholar). Activity measurements were also systematically been carried out, by using the double concentration of substrates mentioned in the references above, to ensure that insertions did not provoke any dramatic increase in theK m constant of each moiety. Hence, substrate-saturating conditions were always respected. Proteins (2 μm, final concentration) were incubated at 22 °C for 12 h in a 50 mm phosphate buffer, pH 7, containing 10 mm DTT (for PGK/BLA chimeras and WT BLA) or 10 mm 2-mercaptoethanol (for PGK/DHFR chimera, WT PGK, and WT DHFR) at various guanidinium chloride (GdmCl) concentrations. Enzymatic activities were then assayed for each denaturant concentration. The activities were determined following appropriate dilution in activity buffer without denaturant. The residual concentration of guanidine hydrochloride was, therefore, very low in the activity test. Control experiments have shown that this residual denaturant concentration does not affect the activity test and that the renaturation kinetics of the unfolded fraction is negligible during the time required for dilution and activity determination. Unfolding transitions were fitted as described previously (24.Garcia P. Desmadril M. Minard P. Yon J.M. Biochemistry. 1995; 34: 397-404Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar). Proteins (70 μm) were incubated at 22 °C for at least 3 h in 50 mmphosphate buffer, pH 7, containing 10 mm DTT (for PGK/BLA chimeras and WT BLA) or 10 mm 2-mercaptoethanol (for PGK/DHFR chimeras, WT PGK, and WT DHFR) at a final GdmCl concentration of 3.5 m. Refolding was triggered by a 35-fold dilution in the same buffer without GdmCl. Recovery of activity was fitted using a monoexponential term according to the Marquardt algorithm (25.Press W.H. Flannery B.P. Tenkolsky S.A. Vetterling W.T. Numerical Recipes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK1986: 523-528Google Scholar). The protein used as the host was phosphoglycerate kinase. This protein has been chosen previously by several independent groups (24.Garcia P. Desmadril M. Minard P. Yon J.M. Biochemistry. 1995; 34: 397-404Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar, 26.Garcia P. Mérola F. Receveur V. Blandin P. Minard P. Desmadril M. Biochemistry. 1998; 37: 7444-7455Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar, 27.Grattinger M. Dankesreiter A. Schurig H. Jaenicke R. J. Mol. Biol. 1998; 280: 525-533Crossref PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar, 28.Hosszu L.L. Craven C.J. Spencer J. Parker M.J. Clarke A.R. Kelly M. Waltho J.P. Biochemistry. 1997; 36: 333-340Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar, 29.Adams B. Fowler R. Hudson M. Pain R.H. FEBS Lett. 1996; 385: 101-104Crossref PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar, 30.Lillo M.P. Szpikowska B.K. Mas M.T. Sutin J.D. Beechem J.M. Biochemistry. 1997; 36: 11273-11281Crossref PubMed Scopus (64) Google Scholar, 31.Damaschun G. Damaschun H. Gast K. Misselwitz R. Muller J.J. Pfeil W. Zirwer D. Biochemistry. 1993; 32: 7739-7746Crossref PubMed Scopus (73) Google Scholar) as a working model for multidomain protein folding. It is a monomeric protein of 415 amino acids made by two essentially continuous domains (Fig.1 A). Although insertion within elements of secondary structure may also be well tolerated in some cases (32.Betton J.M. Martineau P. Saurin W. Hofnung M. Location of tolerated insertions/deletion in the structure of the maltose binding protein..FEBS Lett. 1993; 325: 34-38Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar), sterical clashes between the host and the inserted proteins are more easily eliminated by selecting surface loops or turns connecting elements of secondary structure as insertion points. To preserve the functionality of both the inserted proteins and the host, insertions were performed in various loops not directly involved in the catalytic site. The inserted proteins: dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR, Protein Data Bank code 1RF7) and β-lactamase (BLA, Protein Data Bank code 1AXB) are monomeric proteins with extremities of the polypeptide chain relatively close in proximity. Finally, these two proteins can be reversibly refolded and their folding properties are well documented (33.Jennings P.A. Finn B.E. Jones B.E. Matthews C.R. Biochemistry. 1993; 32: 3783-3789Crossref PubMed Scopus (113) Google Scholar, 34.Vanhove M. Raquet X. Palzkill T. Pain R.H. Frere J.M. Proteins. 1996; 25: 104-111Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). The resulting constructions are summarized in TableI. The structure of the inserted and host proteins and a possible structure of one of the chimeric proteins are shown in Fig. 1. The illustrative scheme of the chimeric protein (Fig.1 B) is not a crystallographic structure and is based on the assumption that there are no conformational changes of the two proteins caused by their fusion.Table ISequences of the constructed chimeric proteinsChimeric proteinsDenominationSequencePGK/BLA71BLA··N71 SGG H1P2...H282W 283 GAG E72··89BLA··L89 SGG H1P2...H282W283 GAG D90··129BLA··S129 GG H1P2...H282W283 GAG R130··290BLA··S290 GG H1P2...H262W263 GAG A291··PGK/DHFR71DHFR··N71 SGG M1I2...R158R159 GAG E72··89DHFR··L89 SGG M1I2...R158R159 GAG D90··290DHFR··S290 GG M1I2...R158R159 GAG A291··PGK/(DHFR + BLA)89DHFR/290BLA··L89 SGG M1I2...R158R159 GAG D90...S290 GG H1P2...H262W263 GAG A291··Numbers are related to the sequences of wild type proteins. Underlined represents sequence of yeast phosphoglycerate kinase (415 residues). Italic font represents linker residues. Bold font represents sequence of the inserted β-lactamase (263 residues) and dihydrofolate reductase (159 residues). Open table in a new tab Numbers are related to the sequences of wild type proteins. Underlined represents sequence of yeast phosphoglycerate kinase (415 residues). Italic font represents linker residues. Bold font represents sequence of the inserted β-lactamase (263 residues) and dihydrofolate reductase (159 residues). Analysis of crude extracts (Fig.2) shows that all the chimeric proteins are overexpressed in S. cerevisiae to a level very similar to that of wild type PGK in the same expression system. This is a strong indication that the proteins are able to fold in vivoand are at least moderately stable. Indeed, highly unstable or improperly folded proteins expressed in yeast tend to be rapidly degraded and are not observed to be present to such a high steady-state level. The presence of inclusion bodies, a common problem in bacterial expression systems, could also explain the observed high expression level. However, inclusion bodies are much less frequently observed in yeast expression systems (35.de Bernadez-Clark E. Georgiou G. Georgiou G. Protein Refolding. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC1991: 1-20Google Scholar). Furthermore, the yeast strain used for expression has a disrupted chromosomal PGK gene and is not able to grow on a glucose-containing growth medium. All the transformed cells expressing the chimeric proteins have recovered the ability to grow on glucose-containing medium. Therefore, the PGK moiety of the chimeric proteins is enzymatically active. A subset of these chimeric proteins has been purified, and the activity of the host as well as of the inserted proteins has been determined. The results reported in TableII reveal that both the inserted (DHFR or BLA) and the host protein (PGK) have a specific activity of the same order of magnitude as that of the wild type proteins. Moreover, the three enzymatic activities are present in the triple chimera (100, 1.2, and 136 s−1 for PGK, DHFR, and BLA activities, respectively). Clearly, both the inserted and host proteins must be able to fold properly in vivo to express this range of biological activities.Table IIEnzymatic activities of the chimeric proteinsProteinHostInsertk cat(s−1)%k cat(s−1)%wt-PGK1480100-wt-BLA758100-wt-DHFR8.6100-71BLA681 464505989BLA326 2246261129BLA296 20 8711290BLA555 384696271DHFR503 343.94589DHFR681 465.462290DHFR370 254.856 Open table in a new tab The ability of these proteins to refold in vitro was examined. Proteins were completely unfolded, and the rate and extent of activity recovery of the host and inserted proteins were monitored. Enzyme activity was used as a folding probe, because it is the only probe that allows nonambiguous discrimination of the folding of the host and insert moiety. Classical structural probes, such as circular dichroism or fluorescence, cannot be clearly attributed to a specific part of the chimera. The results are summarized in TableIII and Fig.3. The wild type proteins (PGK, DHFR, and BLA) refold in vitro with almost complete reversibility, whereas the activity recovered following an in vitrounfolding/refolding cycle of each chimera is between 20 and 80% of the initial activity. This suggests that a significant proportion of the population of the chimera molecules is trapped during the in vitro refolding process. Although the insertion clearly affects the refolding yield, the observed refolding efficiency remains relatively high in comparison to the in vitro folding efficiency of many natural proteins of similar complexity. There is no clear correlation between the effect on the refolding yield and the point of insertion (type of loop, N-terminal or C-terminal domain) nor with the nature of the inserted proteins.Table IIIUnfolding transition and refolding kinetics parameters for chimeric proteinsProteinCmNKinetics refoldingYield of reactivationHostInsertHostInsertHostInsertHostInsertms −1%wt-PGK0.70-19.0*-4.6.10−3-96-wt-BLA1.0-13.0-2.7.10−2-98-wt-DHFR2.3-7.5-0.11-98-71BLA0.30 ± 0.030.31 ± 0.024.2 ± 1.35.2 ± 1.4(5.8 ± 1.0) × 10−4(3.8 ± 0.4) × 10−464 ± 680 ± 489BLA0.36 ± 0.010.39 ± 0.0210.6 ± 1.98.9 ± 1.7(4.0 ± 0.5) × 10−4(4.1 ± 0.5) × 10−453 ± 284 ± 3129BLA0.22 ± 0.020.30 ± 0.033.4 ± 0.74.4 ± 1.4(1.8 ± 0.5) × 10−4(1.0 ± 0.4) × 10−322 ± 228 ± 3290BLA0.36 ± 0.030.37 ± 0.026.9 ± 1.68.1 ± 1.8(8.7 ± 0.8) × 10−4(1.0 ± 0.2) × 10−327 ± 231 ± 271DHFR0.35 ± 0.020.33 ± 0.047.7 ± 2.42.6 ± 0.7(1.0 ± 0.2) × 10−3(2.9 ± 0.5) × 10−351 ± 464 ± 489DHFR0.57 ± 0.040.31 ± 0.027.8 ± 2.52.2 ± 0.4(7.6 ± 0.8) × 10−4(1.4 ± 0.3) × 10−335 ± 251 ± 3290DHFR0.38 ± 0.090.52 ± 0.11 and1.9 ± 1.53.4 ± 1.7 and(3.3 ± 0.4) × 10−4(5.2 ± 0.6) × 10−438 ± 235 ± 31.55 ± 0.1111.5 ± 5.7 Open table in a new tab The reactivation kinetics was followed for the host as well as the inserted proteins. The results reported in Fig. 3 clearly show that the reactivation kinetics of the host protein is slowed down with respect to wild-type PGK. Although their internal connectivity is not modified by their insertion in the host protein, the reactivation rate of the inserted protein (DHFR or BLA) is systematically reduced with respect to the refolding rates of these proteins when isolated. The strong effect on their refolding rates shows that the folding process of the inserted proteins is perturbed, in some way, by the connection of their extremities to the host protein. Although the physical basis for this effect is not clear, this observation suggests strongly that the inserted and host proteins, although constituting autonomous folding units when isolated, are no longer independent folding subunits when connected to each other. At least two hypotheses could account for such an effect. First, the folding process of the inserted polypeptide chain could be affected by transient interactions with other parts of the polypeptide chain outside its own folding unit. Alternatively, during the folding process, the volume statistically occupied by the PGK polypeptide chain fragments linked to each end of the inserted protein could restrict the dynamic possibilities of the inserted polypeptide chain and in this way hinder the folding process of the inserted moiety. The folding process of BLA and DHFR has been described in detail (33.Jennings P.A. Finn B.E. Jones B.E. Matthews C.R. Biochemistry. 1993; 32: 3783-3789Crossref PubMed Scopus (113) Google Scholar,34.Vanhove M. Raquet X. Palzkill T. Pain R.H. Frere J.M. Proteins. 1996; 25: 104-111Crossref PubMed Google Scholar) and is a complex process involving parallel pathways with relaxation times ranging from the millisecond time scale to tens of seconds. In both isolated proteins the formation of a large part of the secondary structure occurs on a time scale shorter than one second. The recovery of enzyme activity used as a folding probe in this work corresponds to the very last step in the folding process and is controlled by slow isomerization of partially structured conformers. The inserted protein always folds faster or at the same rate as does the host protein. This result could suggest that the way in which proteins accommodate such a large insertion is by folding first the inserted object and then the host protein. However, this sequential model would lead to a lag phase in the recovery of the activity of the host protein corresponding to the refolding of the inserted protein. Such a lag phase is clearly not apparent in our experimental data. The stability of the chimeric proteins was evaluated by monitoring the loss of each activity induced by increasing guanidinium hydrochloride concentrations. The losses of activity are not fully reversible, and therefore, the transition curves cannot be used to derive a true estimate of each protein's thermodynamic stability. However, the transition midpoint and the cooperativity of the transition curves (Table III and Fig. 4) clearly reveal that the chimeric proteins are less resistant to denaturation and presumably less stable than are the wild type proteins. The comparison of the denaturation curves of the chimeras with their parent proteins shows that, in all chimeras but one, the host as well as the inserted proteins are destabilized by the insertion. A clear correlation is observed between the unfolding transition curves and the nature of the inserted protein. In the three BLA-PGK proteins, the host and inserted proteins lose their activity concomitantly as the denaturant concentration increases. This suggests that the stability of the two partners are strongly coupled. This coupling is observed with BLA inserted in PGK at various positions and therefore is not related to particular local interactions between the two partners. In the DHFR-PGK chimeras, host and insert unfolding curves depend on the position of insertion. In particular, for 290DHFR the host and inserted protein are almost independent. A first transition below 0.4m corresponds to the unfolding of PGK as shown by the loss of PGK activity and by a strong decrease in the far UV circular dichroism signal. The unfolding of PGK occurring in this first transition does affect DHFR activity but only to a limited extent, suggesting that the DHFR structure is largely unaffected by the unfolding of associated PGK. A second transition corresponding to the inserted DHFR is observed at a much higher denaturant concentration, in the range expected for isolated DHFR. This type of unfolding process is, surprisingly, the only observed example in this set of chimeric proteins of an independent behavior of the inserted protein. In this case, the host protein is destabilized by the discontinuity created by the insertion, whereas the inserted protein remains largely unaffected. It is generally observed that there is little functional interaction between the two partners in “classical” end-to-end fusion proteins. The presumably stronger structural coupling present in internal-fusion proteins could possibly induce functional interactions between host and inserted proteins (36.Benito A. Feliu J.X. Villaverde A. J. Biol. Chem. 1996; 271: 21251-21256Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar). The activity either of the host or inserted proteins were measured in the presence of the substrates of the other protein. We observed in three different cases that the presence of the substrates of one protein does modulate positively or negatively the activity of the other one (Fig. 5). Control experiments have shown that there are no such effects for the wild type proteins. These results demonstrate that functional coupling between the two partners of an internal fusion protein is not a rare occurrence, although these interactions were not explicitly designed in these chimeric proteins. These experiments reveal that two different unrelated proteins of more than 150 amino acids can be inserted in four different positions of a host protein. The host as well as the inserted protein are able to fold in a functional conformation. The main consequences of the insertions are a loss of stability of the host and inserted proteins and a partial loss of reversibility of the in vitrorefolding process. The loss of stability of the host protein is in part due to the perturbation of the local sequence in which the insertion took place, and it seems plausible that the large discontinuity created by the insertion is responsible for the destabilizing effect on the host protein. It is somehow more surprising that in all but one chimeric proteins analyzed (290DHFR), the inserted protein is also strongly destabilized. The loss of reversibility, although clearly significant, remains relatively moderate in view of the perturbation introduced. No attempts were made to improve the folding reversibility by manipulating the refolding conditions or the temperature refolding protein concentration, which are often necessary to improve the refolding yield of many natural proteins of a similar complexity. This clearly supports the view that, at least with yeast PGK, the sequence continuity of a structural domain is not an essential requirement for a productive folding process. The positions of the insertion points were selected on a very general criterion: They are located on surface loops not directly involved in the catalytic site. These positions were not selected on the basis of a possible folding mechanism or as the result of a genetic screening. An elegant series of genetic experiments on maltose binding protein has shown that several regions of this protein, including secondary structure elements, are permissive regions relative to insertion. These regions have recently been used as insertion sites for β-lactamase, and the two chimeric proteins were shown to be active (21.Betton J.M. Jacob J.P. Hofnung M. Broome-Smith J. Nature Biotech. 1997; 15: 1276-1279Crossref PubMed Scopus (51) Google Scholar). A chimeric protein made by the insertion of a xylanase domain in a permuted glucanase domain has been recently described (37.Ay J. Gotz F. Borriss R. Heinemann U. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1998; 95: 6613-6618Crossref PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar), showing that the structures of the inserted and host partners are preserved in the fused protein. This result demonstrates that the Jellyroll fold is dominated by long range intramolecular contacts. The present results further support the idea that large structured insertions can be artificially introduced within a protein. All the designed chimeric proteins, those with two different proteins in four various positions as well as the triple chimera, are biologically active. It should be emphasized that loops involved in the substrate binding sites were not retained as insertion points for practical reasons rather than for folding or structural principles. The idea was simply to preserve the host activity as a convenient way to monitor the proper folding of the host protein. The tolerance observed in this work suggests that insertions in the loops involved in substrate binding would be structurally tolerated. Moreover, as reported by others with maltose binding protein (21.Betton J.M. Jacob J.P. Hofnung M. Broome-Smith J. Nature Biotech. 1997; 15: 1276-1279Crossref PubMed Scopus (51) Google Scholar), “permissive” regions selected by a genetic screen were shown to occur within secondary structures, showing that the location of an insertion point in a loop is not a mandatory criterion. Therefore, it seems that tolerance to a large insertion is not restricted to a very limited region of the polypeptide chain (21.Betton J.M. Jacob J.P. Hofnung M. Broome-Smith J. Nature Biotech. 1997; 15: 1276-1279Crossref PubMed Scopus (51) Google Scholar) nor to a specific topology (37.Ay J. Gotz F. Borriss R. Heinemann U. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1998; 95: 6613-6618Crossref PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar). These results, together with tolerance to circular permutation, clearly support the idea that protein folding does not involve an obligatory step-by-step sequence of structure-building events that cannot tolerate perturbation. It is more suggestive of a process that can lead to the same final structure through different possible sequences of events as originally suggested by Harrison and Durbin (38.Harrison S.C. Durbin R. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1985; 82: 4028-4030Crossref PubMed Scopus (177) Google Scholar). To evaluate the possible evolutionary implications of these results, it must be stressed that the rather general criterion used in this study to select the insertion points does induce restrictions relative to the probability of a random protein insertion event occurring during natural evolution. First, the inserted protein is a folded protein and its extremities are close to one another. Furthermore, if the activity of the two fused partners is under a selective pressure, the insertion points must be compatible with the functional integrity of the two fused partners. Finally, these criteria might be restrictive enough to explain why large insertion and discontinuous domains are not the most common situation observed during protein evolution. New activating or inhibitory effects transmitted between the two fused partners were observed, although this was not intentionally designed. These occurred in three cases in the subset of proteins examined and suggest that insertion of a binding domain within a different protein is a possible evolutionary solution toward new regulatory properties of originally simpler proteins. Further studies will be necessary to know whether or not the specific properties of the host and inserted proteins used in the present study are responsible for this surprising tolerance. Comparison of natural PGK sequences shows that PGK genes found in Trypanosoma brucei or the related organism Chrytidia fasciculatahave insertions in one of the regions selected in this study (position 73). In one of the genes, the insertion is relatively short: 16 amino acids (39.Bernstein B.E. Michels P.A. Hol W.G.J. Nature. 1997; 385: 275-278Crossref PubMed Scopus (182) Google Scholar). The structure of this protein has been determined and shows that it is folded as a protruding helical region. In another gene of the same organisms and in the same position, there is a much larger insertion of about 100 amino acids. The function and cellular localization of this gene product, which was originally qualified as a PGK-related protein, is not known. Together with the conservation of all the catalytic residues, our results suggest that this protein is a functional PGK. The other positions that were used as insertion sites in the present study do not correspond to positions where natural insertions are observed in other PGK genes. Relative to many small single domain proteins currently used as folding models, PGK is a relatively large and slow-folding protein (15.Pecorari F. Guilbert C. Minard P. Desmadril M. Yon J.M. Biochemistry. 1996; 35: 3465-3476Crossref PubMed Scopus (25) Google Scholar). Therefore, it could be suggested that the time required for PGK folding would be largely sufficient for the inserted protein to fold first. In other words, the slow folding rate of PGK could be directly responsible for this a priori unusual tolerance to insertions. However, the results show that the folding time range of PGK as well as of DHFR and BLA is considerably slowed down when fused together, suggesting that the folding rates of the proteins taken separately are no longer preserved in the chimera. The folding rates of isolated proteins might therefore not constitute a relevant criterion to design new properly folded chimeric proteins. The constraint on the relative time range of the inserted and host protein could only be revealed by further experiments on other chimeric proteins. Because the inserted proteins are devoid of any discontinuity in the chimeras, their significant destabilization and slowing down of the refolding process were not predicted by the strictly modular view of the multidomain protein-folding process. Instead, the present results suggest that in terms of folding rate and stability, autonomous folding units do not remain autonomous once their polypeptide chains are connected. These data also show that the folding process of such complex proteins remains relatively efficient in vivo as well as in vitro despite the major changes in the molecular organization and in the folding kinetics of the individual partners. This supports the idea that, if the folded state is stable, the folding process is not highly constrained and does not need to be strictly organized or coordinated. Remarkably, the extremely efficient yeast PGK expression system used in this work remained so far relatively inefficient to express proteins other than PGK at a very high level. However, the inserted proteins are, in the context of the chimeric proteins expressed, at a very high level and are correctly folded in vivo. It would be useful to verify whether this very high functional expression efficiency is preserved with other inserted proteins. Then, the yeast expression system could be used to produce large amounts of proteins that are difficult to express or to refold in bacterial systems. This study raises new questions and opens experimental routes to more systematic studies on the spectrum and properties of the allowed sequences inserted in different sites of a protein. For example, it seems intuitive that a long inserted sequence must necessarily be folded in order to be functionally accepted by the host protein. This property could constitute the basis of a possible and interesting new screening method to select for the folding ability of random amino acid sequences. The fraction of the sequence space giving rise to a folded sequence is indeed an important but still open question. We are very grateful to John O'Neill from C. R. Matthews' laboratory (Pennsylvania State University) for providing purified WT DHFR for the control experiments.