Chaperonin complex with a newly folded protein encapsulated in the folding chamber

A subset of essential cellular proteins requires the assistance of chaperonins (in Escherichia coli, GroEL and GroES), double-ring complexes in which the two rings act alternately to bind, encapsulate and fold a wide range of nascent or stress-denatured proteins1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This process starts by the trapping of a substrate protein on hydrophobic surfaces in the central cavity of a GroEL ring6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Then, binding of ATP and co-chaperonin GroES to that ring ejects the non-native protein from its binding sites, through forced unfolding or other major conformational changes, and encloses it in a hydrophilic chamber for folding11, 12, 13, 14, 15. ATP hydrolysis and subsequent ATP binding to the opposite ring trigger dissociation of the chamber and release of the substrate protein3. The bacteriophage T4 requires its own version of GroES, gp31, which forms a taller folding chamber, to fold the major viral capsid protein gp23 (refs 16–20). Polypeptides are known to fold inside the chaperonin complex, but the conformation of an encapsulated protein has not previously been visualized. Here we present structures of gp23–chaperonin complexes, showing both the initial captured state and the final, close-to-native state with gp23 encapsulated in the folding chamber. Although the chamber is expanded, it is still barely large enough to contain the elongated gp23 monomer, explaining why the GroEL–GroES complex is not able to fold gp23 and showing how the chaperonin structure distorts to enclose a large, physiological substrate protein

Vectors, molecular epidemiology and phylogeny of TBEV in Kazakhstan and central Asia

BACKGROUND: In the South of Kazakhstan, Almaty Oblastʼ (region) is endemic for tick-borne encephalitis, with 0.16–0.32 cases/100,000 population between 2016–2018. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and circulating subtypes of tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) in Almaty Oblastʼ and Kyzylorda Oblastʼ. METHODS: In 2015 we investigated 2341 ticks from 7 sampling sites for the presence of TBEV. Ticks were pooled in 501 pools and isolated RNA was tested for the presence of TBEV by RT-qPCR. For the positive samples, the E gene was amplified, sequenced and a phylogenetic analysis was carried out. RESULTS: A total of 48 pools were TBEV-positive by the RT-qPCR. TBEV-positive ticks were only detected in three districts of Almaty Oblastʼ and not in Kyzylorda Oblastʼ. The positive TBEV pools were found within Ixodes persulcatus, Haemaphysalis punctata and Dermacentor marginatus. These tick species prevailed only in Almaty Oblastʼ whereas in Kyzylorda Oblastʼ Hyalomma asiaticum and D. marginatus are endemic. The minimum infection rates (MIR) in the sampling sites were 4.4% in Talgar, 2.8% in Tekeli and 1.1% in Yenbekshikazakh, respectively. The phylogenetic analysis of the generated sequences indicates that TBEV strains found in Almaty Oblastʼ clusters in the Siberian subtype within two different clades. CONCLUSIONS: We provided new data about the TBEV MIR in ticks in Almaty Oblastʼ and showed that TBEV clusters in the Siberian Subtype in two different clusters at the nucleotide level. These results indicate that there are different influences on the circulating TBEV strains in south-eastern Kazakhstan. These influences might be caused by different routes of the virus spread in ticks which might bring different genetic TBEV lineages to Kazakhstan. The new data about the virus distribution and vectors provided here will contribute to an improvement of monitoring of tick-borne infections and timely anti-epidemic measures in Kazakhstan