Search

Small heat shock proteins (sHSPs) are essential ATP-independent chaperones that protect the cellular proteome. These proteins assemble into polydisperse oligomeric structures, the composition of which dramatically affects their chaperone activity. The biomolecular consequences of variations in sHSP ratios, especially inside living cells, remain elusive. Here, we study the consequences of altering the relative expression levels of HspB2 and HspB3 in HEK293T cells. These chaperones are partners in a hetero-oligomeric complex, and genetic mutations that abolish their mutual interaction are associated with myopathic disorders. HspB2 displays three distinct phenotypes when co-expressed with HspB3 at varying ratios. Expression of HspB2 alone leads to formation of liquid nuclear condensates, while shifting the stoichiometry towards HspB3 resulted in the formation of large solid-like aggregates. Only cells co-expressing HspB2 with a limited amount of HspB3 formed fully soluble complexes that were distributed homogeneously throughout the nucleus. Strikingly, both condensates and aggregates were reversible, as shifting the HspB2:HspB3 balance in situ resulted in dissolution of these structures. To uncover the molecular composition of HspB2 condensates and aggregates, we used APEX-mediated proximity labelling. Most proteins interact transiently with the condensates and were neither enriched nor depleted in these cells. In contrast, we found that HspB2:HspB3 aggregates sequestered several disordered proteins and autophagy factors, suggesting that the cell is actively attempting to clear these aggregates. This study presents a striking example of how changes in the relative expression levels of interacting proteins affects their phase behavior. Our approach could be applied to study the role of protein stoichiometry and the influence of client binding on phase behavior in other biomolecular condensates and aggregates., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Small heat shock proteins (sHsps) are oligomers that perform a protective function by binding denatured proteins. Although ubiquitous, they are of variable sequence except for a C-terminal approximately 90-residue "alpha-crystallin domain". Unlike larger stress response chaperones, sHsps are ATP-independent and generally form polydisperse assemblies. One proposed mechanism of action involves these assemblies breaking into smaller subunits in response to stress, before binding unfolding substrate and reforming into larger complexes. Two previously solved non-metazoan sHsp multimers are built from dimers formed by domain swapping between the alpha-crystallin domains, adding to evidence that the smaller subunits are dimers. Here, the 2.5A resolution structure of an sHsp from the parasitic flatworm Taenia saginata Tsp36, the first metazoan crystal structure, shows a new mode of dimerization involving N-terminal regions, which differs from that seen for non-metazoan sHsps. Sequence differences in the alpha-crystallin domains between metazoans and non-metazoans are critical to the different mechanism of dimerization, suggesting that some structural features seen for Tsp36 may be generalized to other metazoan sHsps. The structure also indicates scope for flexible assembly of subunits, supporting the proposed process of oligomer breakdown, substrate binding and reassembly as the chaperone mechanism. It further shows how sHsps can bind coil and secondary structural elements by wrapping them around the alpha-crystallin domain. The structure also illustrates possible roles for conserved residues associated with disease, and suggests a mechanism for the sHsp-related pathogenicity of some flatworm infections. Tsp36, like other flatworm sHsps, possesses two divergent sHsp repeats per monomer. Together with the two previously solved structures, a total of four alpha-crystallin domain structures are now available, giving a better definition of domain boundaries for sHsps.

The eukaryotic 20 S proteasome is a barrel-shaped protease complex, made up of four seven-membered rings. The outer and inner rings contain seven different alpha and beta-type subunits, respectively, each subunit located at a defined position. Recently, we have reported that the recombinant human alpha-type subunit C8 (HsC8) assembles into a heptameric ring-like structure by itself. In the present study we show that the two naturally neighboring alpha-type subunits of HsC8, HsPROS30 and HsPROS27, do not form ring-like complexes by themselves, but only dimers. This indicates that the propensity to form homo-oligomeric rings is not a general feature among human alpha-type subunits. However, coexpression of HsC8 and either of these neighbor alpha-type subunits results in the formation of hetero-oligomeric ring complexes, resembling the HsC8 ring-like structure. The ratio between the two types of subunits in the mixed complexes is surprisingly heterogeneous, varying from very high to very low HsC8 content. The three tested alpha-type subunits thus apparently lack binding sites that selectively interact with a specific neighboring subunit. This suggests that the correct positioning of the different alpha-type subunits in the eukaryotic 20 S proteasome is not dictated by the alpha-type subunits themselves, but rather by the interaction with specific beta-type subunits.

By the use of hybrids between a U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein (snRNP: U1A) and a U2 snRNP (U2B") we have identified regions containing 29 U1A-specific amino acid residues scattered throughout the 117 N-terminal residues of the protein, which are involved in binding to U1 RNA. The U1A-specific amino acid residues have been arbitrarily divided into seven contiguous groups. None of these groups is sufficient for U1 binding when transferred singly into the U2B" context, and none of the groups is essential for U1 binding in U1A. Several different combinations of two or more groups can, however, confer the ability to bind U1 RNA to U2B", suggesting that most or all of the U1A-specific amino acid residues contribute incrementally to the strength of the specific binding interaction. Further evidence for the importance of the U1A-specific amino acid residues, some of which lie outside the region previously shown to be sufficient for U1 RNA binding, is obtained by comparison of the sequence of human and Xenopus laevis U1A cDNAs. These are extremely similar (94.4% identical) between amino acid residues 7 and 114 but much less conserved immediately upstream and downstream from this region.