MINIREVIEW:
Assisted Protein Folding*

Raymond W. Ruddon Dagger § and Elliott Bedows Dagger §

From the Dagger  Eppley Institute for Research in Cancer and Allied Diseases, the § Department of Pharmacology, and the  Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska 68198-6805

Historical Perspectives
Protein Folding in Vitro Versus in Vivo
Role of Disulfide Bond Formation in Protein Folding and Assembly
Role of Glycosylation in Protein Folding and Assembly
Molecular Chaperones
What Happens to Misfolded Proteins?
Mechanisms of Chaperone Action
FOOTNOTES
REFERENCES


Historical Perspectives

The pioneering work of the late Christian Anfinsen and his colleagues (1) on the reoxidation of bovine pancreatic ribonuclease (RNase) to a native, biologically active enzyme in vitro after reduction of disulfide bridges and disruption of tertiary structure demonstrated that regeneration of native conformation of a purified protein can occur spontaneously in a test tube without the addition of any other co-factors or helper enzymes. This led to the still valid conclusion that "no special genetic information, beyond that contained in the amino acid sequence, is required for the proper folding of the molecule and for the formation of `correct' disulfide bonds" (2).

Of course, the story of protein folding goes back much further (reviewed in Ref. 3). A number of milestones can be noted. In 1911, Chick and Martin found that proteins could be denatured in vitro, and they distinguished that process from aggregation of the protein. In 1929, Wu postulated that protein denaturation was an unfolding process and that native protein structures involved regular, repeated patterns of folding into a three-dimensional network. Anson and Mirsky in 1931 and Anson (1945) showed that hemoglobin folding is reversible and that hemoglobin could be renatured in vitro to a form that had a native-like absorption spectrum, oxygen binding, and tryptic digestion pattern. Studies in the 1950s by Eisenberg and Schwert and by Schellman demonstrated that denaturation and renaturation are thermodynamic processes, involving a change in free energy and large changes in conformation between the denatured and native states.

Even the early investigators realized that the protein folding processes that occurred in test tubes, although they could reconstitute native structure, were too slow to work inside cells. For example, even under optimized conditions of protein dilution, pH, and temperature, renaturation of RNase takes about 20 min (2), and RNase is a relatively simple monomeric protein. Renaturation of some multidomain proteins may take several hours in vitro, yet it is clear that all possible conformations could not be sampled on the way to native structure. Levinthal (4) summed this up succinctly in the "Levinthal paradox" that can be stated as follows: if a given amino acid can assume approximately 10 different conformations, the total number of possible conformations in a polypeptide chain of 100 residues would be 10100. The time that this could take would be well beyond the life span of an organism if not of the universe, depending on how many conformations could be sampled before a protein reaches native state. Thus, it was realized early on that cells must have special ways to make the process more efficient.

Experiments to examine the role of the intracellular environment in protein folding involved the renaturation of proteins such as RNase (2), bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor (BPTI)1 (5), or influenza hemagglutinin (6) in isolated microsomal fractions. The results indicated that protein folding can be facilitated by proteins contained in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) of eukaryotic cells. In the case of disulfide bond-containing proteins such as BPTI (5) or the human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)-beta subunit (7), the key ER protein involved appears to be protein disulfide isomerase (see below).

It was soon realized that many polypeptides can reform native structure easily by themselves in vitro (usually small single domain proteins) while others (more complex, multidomain, or oligomeric proteins) fold and assemble efficiently only in the presence of additional proteins that are not constituents of the final native protein itself. These additional proteins have been called "molecular chaperones."

The term molecular chaperone was first used by Laskey et al. (8) to describe the role of nucleoplasmin in the assembly of DNA and histones into nucleosomes. The name seemed appropriate because nucleoplasmin promotes histone-histone interactions to form the correct oligomeric form while preventing aggregation. It does so without itself forming part of the nucleosome and without specifying nucleosome structure. Hence nucleoplasmin assumes the role of a chaperone.

The term molecular chaperone has been applied by Ellis and Hemmingsen (9) to the expanding families of proteins of bacterial and eukaryotic compartments involved in protein folding, assembly, and translocation. The term has stuck, and it is now used to define a wide variety of factors that facilitate generation of native protein and nucleic acid structures.


Protein Folding in Vitro Versus in Vivo

There are some similarities as well as differences between intracellular protein folding and protein folding in test tubes. For instance, for the tailspike protein of Salmonella typhimurium phage P22 (10, 11) and hCG-beta subunit (7) intermediates in the folding pathway of the proteins appear to be the same in vivo and in vitro, but the rate and efficiency with which proteins achieve final native state in vivo is higher than that in vitro. It must also be kept in mind that, both in vivo and in vitro, correct folding is in competition with misfolding and aggregation. This depends on the protein concentration used for in vitro folding reactions, and in general, very dilute protein concentrations (0.01-0.02 mg/ml) (2, 12) are needed to prevent aggregation. This has presented a huge problem to the biotechnology industry in attempts to produce useful amounts of recombinant proteins. The efficiency of folding in vitro can frequently be facilitated by appropriate adjustment of the redox potential (13-15) or the addition of factors such as protein disulfide isomerase (PDI) for eukaryotic disulfide-bonded proteins (15-17) or DnaK/DnaJ chaperones for bacterial proteins (reviewed in Refs. 18 and 19). In contrast to what happens in vitro, cells minimize or circumvent the off-pathway events by utilizing molecular chaperones that facilitate the folding process by preventing aggregation and other unfavorable interactions.

There is growing interest in what regulates the folding of mammalian proteins in vivo because of the number of human diseases now known to be related to protein folding defects (reviewed in Refs. 20 and 21). This includes cystic fibrosis, alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency, Alzheimer's disease, Creutzfeld-Jacob disease, neurodegenerative diseases such as Huntington's chorea, and cancer.

The intracellular folding pathway of only a few proteins has been studied in detail. These include the S. typhimurium phage P22 tailspike protein (11), hCG-beta subunit (22-25), luciferase (26), influenza hemagglutinin (27, 28), and the HIV type 1 envelope glycoprotein (29). Where the pathways have been determined both in vitro and in vivo, for example for the phage P22 tailspike protein (10, 11) and the hCG-beta subunit (7, 22-25), the in vitro and in vivo folding pathways proceed through the same respective folding intermediates. A diagram of the folding pathway of the hCG-beta subunit is shown in Fig. 1.


Fig. 1. Model of the hCG-beta kinetic folding pathway. Intracellular kinetic studies have indicated that newly synthesized intracellular hCG-beta (pbeta 1-early) is converted into a folding intermediate that has both the 34-88 and 38-57 disulfide bonds formed, pbeta 1-late (t1/2 = 2-3 min). Along with the sequential formation of the 9-90 and 23-72 disulfide bonds, pbeta 1-late undergoes a major conformational shift into pbeta 2-free (t1/2 = 4-5 min). When the 93-100 disulfide bridge forms, pbeta 2-free is converted into an assembly-competent intermediate (t1/2 = 8-10 min) that, following association with the alpha  subunit, is recognized as early pbeta 2-combined. After heterodimer assembly occurs, the 26-110 bond forms a "seat belt" around the alpha  subunit. The crystallographic data (38, 39) indicate that the disulfide bonds 38-90 and 9-57 are present in the mature hCG alpha beta heterodimer, suggesting that there is a disulfide rearrangement in the beta  subunit folding pathway (reprinted with permission from Bedows et al. (36)).
[View Larger Version of this Image (19K GIF file)]


Many of the eukaryotic proteins whose folding and assembly have been studied in vivo are membrane or secreted proteins. They follow a similar route to the cell surface. (i) Synthesis is carried out in the rough ER. (ii) Nascent proteins are translocated into the cisternal space of the ER where the signal peptide is cleaved; initial co-translational folding involving secondary structure and some native tertiary structure occurs; addition of high mannose N-linked oligosaccharides and initial processing of N-linked oligosaccharide chains (for glycoproteins) takes place; formation of disulfide bonds occurs, and for multimeric proteins, oligomerization or subunit assembly is attained along with achievement of native structure. (iii) The proteins destined for the cell surface or secretion are translocated to the Golgi apparatus, further processed, and then either translocated to the cell surface or packaged into secretory vesicles for secretion.


Role of Disulfide Bond Formation in Protein Folding and Assembly

It has been clear for a long time that the in vitro folding of proteins targeted for secretion is facilitated by folding in the presence of microsomal extracts (2). It is now known that microsomes contain many chaperones that foster protein folding (30) as well as the systems to create a favorable redox potential for the formation of disulfide bonds (13, 31). For many secreted proteins, disulfide bonds are important for stabilization of tertiary structure and for their assembly into multimeric structures (32). PDI is a key factor facilitating disulfide bond-dependent folding. For example, the rate of stimulation of BPTI folding by microsomal extracts is enhanced to the extent expected by the PDI activity of these extracts (5). Moreover, PDI stimulates the rate of folding of kinetically trapped BPTI molecules in vitro by several thousand-fold but has little effect on disulfide bond formation of BPTI molecules possessing disulfide bonds that form efficiently in the absence of PDI (17).

The pioneering work of Creighton and his colleagues (reviewed in Ref. 34) employed the formation of intramolecular disulfide bonds as a biochemical probe to study the folding pathway of BPTI. This 58-amino acid protein has three intramolecular disulfide bonds, and when reduced and denatured, its folding pathway can be followed in vitro by the reformation of the disulfide bonds. Using alkylation with iodoacetic acid to trap free thiols, Creighton et al. (34) defined a folding pathway involving intermediates that varied in their amount and type of disulfide bonds. They also observed the existence of a significant, albeit mostly transient, population of intermediates containing disulfide bonds not present in the native protein, the formation of which is the result of disulfide bond rearrangements.

There is also evidence that disulfide bond rearrangement occurs during protein folding in intact cells. For example, in the intracellular folding pathway of the hCG-beta subunit determined by pulse-chase kinetics (35) and by site-directed mutagenesis of cysteines involved in disulfide bonds (36, 37), two of the six disulfide bonds formed during the kinetic folding pathway of hCG-beta are different from those seen in the crystal structure of the native protein (38, 39).

Another protein whose in vivo folding has been studied is influenza hemagglutinin (HA) (28). The folding of HA in the ER has also been followed by the formation of intrachain disulfide bonds. Folding of HA starts cotranslationally with some disulfide bonds beginning to form soon after both cysteines that are involved in a disulfide pair enter the ER lumen. However, most disulfide bond formation in HA occurs after nascent polypeptide bond termination. This has also been observed during the in vivo folding of hCG-beta (35).


Role of Glycosylation in Protein Folding and Assembly

Since many membrane and secretory proteins are glycoproteins, it is important to consider the role of carbohydrates in protein folding, assembly, and secretion. N-Linked oligosaccharides of the high mannose composition are added cotranslationally to the Asn-X-Ser(Thr) consensus sequence of proteins in the ER. One function of N-linked glycans is to facilitate protein folding and conformational maturation. When N-linked chains are eliminated by site-directed mutagenesis of Asn residues in glycosylation consensus sequences or by treatment of cells with agents that block addition of N-linked glycans or their processing, many ER-synthesized glycoproteins misfold, aggregate, and get degraded within the ER (reviewed in Ref. 40). Some glycoproteins seem to fold and be translocated efficiently without their N-linked glycans. The only rule that seems to emerge here is that larger, more complex glycoproteins have more trouble folding if their N-linked glycans are missing.

The role of N-linked oligosaccharide chains in intracellular folding of the hCG-beta subunit has been determined by examining the kinetics of folding in Chinese hamster ovary cells transfected with wild-type or mutant hCG-beta genes lacking one or both of the asparagine glycosylation sites (41). Folding of hCG-beta lacking both N-linked glycans was inefficient and correlated with the slow formation of the last three disulfide bonds (i.e. disulfides 23-72, 93-100, and 26-110) to form in the hCG-beta folding pathway. Unglycosylated hCG-beta was slowly secreted from Chinese hamster ovary cells, and beta  subunit folding intermediates retained in cells for more than 5 h were degraded into a smaller hCG-beta fragment. However, coexpression of hCG-alpha , which is required for formation of the biologically active alpha beta heterodimer, enhanced folding and formation of disulfide bonds 23-72, 93-100, and 26-110 of hCG-beta lacking N-linked glycans, suggesting that the presence of its heterodimeric companion subunit fosters beta  subunit folding and assembly, perhaps because the alpha  subunit can act like a chaperone for beta  subunit folding. In addition, the molecular chaperones BiP, ERp72, and ERp94, were found in a stable complex with unglycosylated, unfolded hCG-beta and may be involved in the folding of this beta  form (41). These data indicate that N-linked oligosaccharides assist hCG-beta subunit folding by facilitating disulfide bond formation, perhaps by increasing the stability and solubility of the native structure that fosters disulfide formation.


Molecular Chaperones

The role of molecular chaperones in protein folding, assembly, and intracellular translocation has been the subject of a number of recent reviews (19, 42-45). ER chaperones play a key role in protein folding and quality control. Cytosol chaperones play a key role in folding, transport, and biological activity of a number of proteins targeted for transport to specific organelles such as the nucleus and mitochondria. Examples of some eukaryotic molecular chaperones are shown in Table I.

Table I.

Intracellular roles of eukaryotic protein chaperones (modified from Gething and Sambrook (30))


Organelle Target polypeptide Chaperone Role

Mitochondria Mitochondrial   precursors Hsp70 Completion of translocation Stabilization of prefolded structures in matrix
Precursors in matrix Hsp60 Stabilization of prefolded structures and folding
Re-export of precursors to intermembrane space
Endoplasmic reticulum Nascent secretory   proteins BiP (GRP78) Completion of folding and translocation Stabilization of prefolded structures in lumen
Unfolded proteins GRP72 Completion of folding
Unfolded proteins GRP94 Completion of folding
Unfolded proteins Calreticulin Completion of folding (ER lumen)
Unfolded proteins Calnexin (p88, IP90) Completion of folding (ER membrane bound)
Mutant or foreign   proteins BiP Stabilization of unfolded structures; target for degradation
Subunits of T cell   receptor TRAP or p28 Receptor assembly
MHC Class 1 heavy   chains p88 Stabilization of newly synthesized heavy chains
Proline-containing   proteins cis/trans-Prolyl isomerase Catalysis of slow protein folding reactions
Disulfide bond-  containing proteins Protein disulfide isomerase Formation and rearrangement of disulfide bonds
Cytosol Nascent polypeptides Hsc70 Stabilization of prefolded structures
Mitochondrial and   secretory precursors Hsc70 Antifolding before translocation
Unfolded proteins Hsp40 Functions in cooperation with Hsc70 to stabilize non-  native protein conformations
Clathrin-coated vesicles Hsc70 (clathrin uncoating ATPase) Binds exposed loop of clathrin light chain to promote   uncoating
Aged proteins Hsc70 (Prp73) Targeting to lysosomes for degradation
Steroid receptors Hsp90 Stabilizes inactive form of receptor
Hsp70 Stabilizes inactive receptor
Immunophilins (e.g. FKBP52 and -54; cyclophilin-40) Stabilizes inactive receptor
p23 Stabilizes inactive receptor
Retroviral   transforming proteins Hsp90 Stabilizes inactive form of protein during transit to plasma   membrane
Unfolded/misfolded   proteins TRiC Binds protein folding intermediates and promotes folding
Nucleus Preribosomes Hsp70/Hsc70 Protection of heat denatured proteins
Histones Nucleoplasmin Nucleosome assembly

Important members of the ER family of chaperones include BiP, originally characterized as an immunoglobulin binding protein (hence the name (46)), GRp (or ERp) 72 (47), GRp (or ERp) 94 (48), calnexin (49), and calreticulin (50). Additional chaperones continue to be discovered and characterized. The enzyme-like cofactors protein disulfide isomerase (51) and peptidyl prolyl cis/trans-isomerase (52), which catalyzes the isomerization of trans- to cis-proline, are usually considered as ER chaperones as well.

Chaperones appear to act sequentially in protein folding pathways by binding to folding intermediates that are in various stages of folding and then passing them on to the next chaperone or chaperone complex in the cascade, eventually releasing a competent native protein (53-55). Binding usually involves interaction of chaperones with hydrophobic residues on the surface of unfolded proteins, and release often involves ATP hydrolysis. Binding of chaperones does not involve specific amino acid consensus sequences in the substrate protein but rather is determined by the arrangement of hydrophobic residues. Binding of BiP by folding intermediates, as an example, is favored by 7-8-residue amino acid sequences with aliphatic and aromatic amino acid residues in alternating positions (56). These are the sort of sequences that would normally be on the inside of native proteins, providing a way for chaperones to discriminate between folded and unfolded proteins.


What Happens to Misfolded Proteins?

It is generally thought that misfolded proteins remain in the ER and are sequestered and degraded there without being secreted. We now know that there are some exceptions to this, e.g. certain mis(un)folded forms of the hCG-beta subunit. Some mutant forms of hCG-beta that do not fold properly are degraded intracellularly while other mutant forms that remain incompletely folded are secreted (37). Nevertheless, there are a number of examples where protein misfolding leads to protein accumulation in the ER and degradation. Some molecular chaperones appear to be involved in targeting irreversibly misfolded proteins for degradation in the ER. BiP is one of these. For example, immunoglobulin light chains that are slowly folding and retained in the ER of cultured mouse cells are quantitatively bound to BiP as partially disulfide-bonded forms and then degraded, whereas light chains that are more rapidly folded and secreted only transiently interact with BiP (57).


Mechanisms of Chaperone Action

The observation that chaperones are needed to assist protein folding in living cells does not negate the findings of Anfinsen and others that proteins can fold spontaneously in solution based only on information contained in their primary amino acid sequence. Indeed, the data comparing the in vitro versus in vivo folding pathways for proteins that have been studied in this regard, for example the S. typhimurium phage P22 tailspike protein (10, 11) and the hCG-beta subunit (7), indicate that proteins go through the same folding steps in vitro and intracellularly. What then do chaperones do and why do cells need them?

The best evidence for the mechanisms by which chaperones assist protein folding comes from Escherichia coli in which the chaperones DnaJ/DnaK and the chaperonins2 GroEL/GroES act in concert to facilitate folding of proteins. Recent biochemical evidence (reviewed in Refs. 19 and 45) and crystallographic data (58, 59) provide a fairly clear and fascinating story on this subject, although there is still some controversy on some key points. GroEL is made up of 14 identical 60-kDa subunits that form two heptameric ring structures with a pocket in the middle that can accommodate proteins up to about 60 kDa. GroES is a single heptameric ring structure of 10-kDa subunits that can form a cap over the GroEL structure and is involved in holding a folding intermediate within the GroEL pocket. Folding occurs in the GroEL pocket and involves binding and hydrolysis of ATP and release and rebinding of incompletely folded protein within the GroEL pocket until most of the protein is folded to native state (19).

The data indicate that members of Hsp70 and Hsp40 families of chaperones in E. coli, namely DnaK and DnaJ, respectively, are involved in the initial binding of nascent polypeptides as they proceed off the ribosome. These chaperones assist in the early steps of protein folding and can facilitate, in cooperation with the nucleotide exchange factor GrpE, complete folding to a native state of some proteins. Other proteins require the additional actions of the GroEL/GroES system to complete folding (Fig. 2) (18).


Fig. 2. Role of the Hsp70 machinery (DnaK, DnaJ, and GrpE) and Hsp60 machinery (GroEL and GroES) in protein folding. DnaK and DnaJ recognize and bind hydrophobic regions in short peptides, thus preventing premature folding or aggregation during translation and translocation. The ATP-dependent binding and release of peptides use GrpE for stimulating nucleotide exchange. Partially folded polypeptides may then be passed from the DnaK/DnaJ/GrpE machinery to the GroEL/ES·Hsp60 complex of E. coli. This large oligomeric complex allows completion of folding of some polypeptides that require additional assistance to fold to native structure (reprinted with permission from Wall and Plückthun (18)).
[View Larger Version of this Image (31K GIF file)]


Analogous systems exist in eukaryotic cells and most likely act through mechanisms similar to the E. coli folding systems. The cytosolic Hsc70 family and the Hsp70 ER analogue BiP appear to act like the DnaK/DnaJ chaperones in E. coli. The TCP-1 family of eukaryotic cystosolic chaperonins, of which the chaperonin TRiC is the analogue of GroEL, appears to function like the GroEL/ES system. It should be noted that not all proteins need to proceed through the above noted Hsc70/Hsp70/Hsp40 and GroEL/GroES/TRiC systems to fold to native structure. Genetic data using temperature-sensitive mutants to shut off production of GroEL, for example, indicate that a maximum of about 30% of E. coli proteins need GroEL to fold correctly (45). Furthermore, four cellular folding compartments (the ER, mitochondrial intermembrane space, and the chloroplast lumen of eukaryotic cells as well as the periplasmic space of bacteria) do not contain GroEL-type chaperonins. However, each of these compartments contains a complement of chaperones that assist protein folding (Table I).

One key question that remains is whether proteins fold to native structure while they are bound to chaperones or whether they have to be released into solution to complete folding. Hartl and his colleagues (53) support the former hypothesis. They have data to show that when proteins are synthesized by a more in vivo-like translational system (reticulocyte lysate), sequential binding of folding intermediates by Hsc70/Hsp40 and then by TRiC occurs and that native state is achieved while a protein substrate remains bound to TRiC. Lorimer and his colleagues (60), on the other hand, believe that a polypeptide dissociates completely from GroEL during the folding process and may rebind several times before it is folded correctly to native state (so called "iterative annealing") but that final folding events occur in solution. Whichever model turns out to be correct, and it may be substrate-dependent, it is clear that proteins folding at the high concentration and in the highly compact state of the intracellular environment require chaperones in order to assist their folding and prevent their spontaneous aggregation.


FOOTNOTES

*   This minireview will be reprinted in the 1996 Minireview Compendium, which will be available in December, 1996. This is the fifth article of five in the "Protein Folding and Assembly Minireview Series." The research described here was supported in part by National Cancer Institute Grant CA32949 (to R. W. R.), American Cancer Society Institutional Research Grant IRG-165G (to E. B.), and Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA36727 to the Eppley Institute.
1    The abbreviations used are: BPTI, bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor; ER, endoplasmic reticulum; hCG, human chorionic gonadotropin; PDI, protein disulfide isomerase; HA, hemagglutinin.
2    The GroEL/GroES/TRiC family of folding factors are called chaperonins. Functionally, they are members of the larger family of chaperones. The chaperonins have in common the ability to promote protein folding in their central cavity.

REFERENCES

  1. Anfinsen, C. B., and Haber, E. (1961) J. Biol. Chem. 236, 1361-1363 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Goldberger, R. F., Epstein, C. J., and Anfinsen, C. B. (1963) J. Biol. Chem. 238, 628-635 [Free Full Text]
  3. Dill, K. A. (1990) Biochemistry 29, 7133-7155 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Levinthal, C. (1968) J. Chem. Phys. 65, 44-45
  5. Zapun, A., Creighton, T. E., Rowling, P. J. E., and Freedman, R. B. (1992) Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 14, 10-15 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Marquardt, T., Hebert, D. N., and Helenius, A. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 19618-19625 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Huth, J. R., Perini, F., Lockridge, O., Bedows, E., and Ruddon, R. W. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 16472-16482 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Laskey, R. A., Honda, B. M., Mills, A. D., and Finch, J. T. (1978) Nature 275, 416-420 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Ellis, R. J., and Hemmingsen, S. M. (1989) Trends Biochem. Sci. 14, 339-342 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Fuchs, A., Seiderer, C., and Seckler, R. (1991) Biochemistry 30, 6598-6604 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Mitraki, A., Fane, B., Haase-Pettingell, C., Sturtevant, J., and King, J. (1991) Science 253, 54-58 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Huth, J. R., Norton, S. E., Lockridge, O., Shikone, T., Hsueh, A. J. W., and Ruddon, R. W. (1994) Endocrinology 135, 911-918 [Abstract]
  13. Lyles, M. M., and Gilbert, H. F. (1991) Biochemistry 30, 613-619 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Gilbert, H. F. (1990) Adv. Enzymol. Relat. Areas Mol. Biol. 63, 69-172 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  15. Huth, J. R., Feng, W., and Ruddon, R. W. (1994) Biotechnol. Bioeng. 44, 66-72
  16. Creighton, T. E., Hillson, D. A., and Freedman, R. B. (1980) J. Mol. Biol. 142, 43-62 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Weissman, J. S., and Kim, P. S. (1993) Nature 365, 185-188 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Wall, J. G., and Plückthun, A. (1995) Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 6, 507-516 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Hartl, F. U. (1996) Nature 381, 571-580 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Thomas, P. J., Qu, B.-H., and Pedersen, P. L. (1995) Trends Biochem. Sci. 20, 456-459 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Ruddon, R. W., Sherman, S. A., and Bedows, E. (1996) Protein Sci. 5, 1443-1452 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Ruddon, R. W., Krzesicki, R. F., Norton, S. E., Saccuzzo-Beebe, J., Peters, B. P., and Perini, F. (1987) J. Biol. Chem. 262, 12533-12540 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Saccuzzo-Beebe, J., Mountjoy, K., Krzesicki, R. F., Perini, F., and Ruddon, R. W. (1990) J. Biol. Chem. 265, 312-317 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Huth, J. R., Mountjoy, K., Perini, F., and Ruddon, R. W. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 8870-8879 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Bedows, E., Huth, J. R., and Ruddon, R. W. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 8880-8886 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Waddle, J. J., Johnston, T. C., and Baldwin, T. O. (1987) Biochemistry 26, 4917-4921 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Braakman, I., Hoover-Litty, H., Wagner, K. R., and Helenius, A. (1991) J. Cell Biol. 114, 401-411 [Abstract]
  28. Chen, W., Helenius, J., Braakman, I., and Helenius, A. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 6229-6233 [Abstract]
  29. Otteken, A., Earl, P. L., and Moss, B. (1996) J. Virol. 70, 3407-3415 [Abstract]
  30. Gething, M.-J., and Sambrook, J. (1992) Nature 355, 33-45 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Hwang, C., Sinskey, A. J., and Lodish, H. F. (1992) Science 257, 1496-1502 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Seckler, R., and Jaenicke, R. (1992) FASEB J. 6, 2545-2552 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Deleted in proofDeleted in proof
  34. Creighton, T. C., Darby, N. J., and Kemmink, J. (1996) FASEB J. 10, 110-118 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Huth, J. R., Mountjoy, K., Perini, F., Bedows, E., and Ruddon, R. W. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 21396-21403 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Bedows, E., Huth, J. R., Suganuma, N., Bartels, C. F., Boime, I., and Ruddon, R. W. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 11655-11662 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Bedows, E., Norton, S. E., Huth, J. R., Suganuma, N., Boime, I., and Ruddon, R. W. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 10574-10580 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Lapthorn, A. J., Harris, D. C., Littlejohn, A., Lustbader, J. W., Canfield, R. E., Machin, K. J., Morgan, F. J., and Isaacs, N. W. (1994) Nature 369, 455-461 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  39. Wu, H., Lustbader, J. W., Liu, Y., Canfield, R. E., and Hendrickson, W. A. (1994) Structure 2, 545-558 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Helenius, A. (1994) Mol. Biol. Cell 5, 253-265 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Feng, W., Matzuk, M. M., Mountjoy, K., Bedows, E., Ruddon, R. W., and Boime, I. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 11851-11859 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Jakob, U., and Buchner, J. (1994) Trends Biochem. Sci. 19, 205-211 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Landry, S. J., and Gierasch, L. M. (1994) Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 23, 645-669 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Hendrick, J. P., and Hartl, F. U. (1995) FASEB J. 9, 1559-1569 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Ellis, R. J., and Hartl, F. U. (1996) FASEB J. 10, 20-26 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Bole, D. G., Hendershot, L. M., and Kearney, J. F. (1986) J. Cell Biol. 102, 1558-1566 [Abstract]
  47. Nigam, S. K., Goldberg, A. L., Ho, S., Rohde, M. F., Bush, K. T., and Sherman, M. Y. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 1744-1749 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Melnick, J., Aviel, S., and Argon, Y. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 21303-21306 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Ou, W.-J., Cameron, P. H., Thomas, D. Y., and Bergeron, J. J. M. (1993) Nature 364, 771-776 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Nauseef, W. M., McCormick, S. J., and Clark, R. A. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 4741-4747 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Noiva, R., and Lennarz, W. J. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 3553-3556 [Free Full Text]
  52. Schmid, F. X. (1993) Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 22, 123-143 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. Frydman, J., and Hartl, F. U. (1996) Science 272, 1497-1502 [Abstract]
  54. Hammond, C., and Helenius, A. (1994) Science 266, 456-458 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  55. Kim, P. S., and Arvan, P. (1995) J. Cell Biol. 128, 29-38 [Abstract]
  56. Flynn, G. C., Pohl, J., Flocco, M. T., and Rothman, J. E. (1991) Nature 353, 726-730 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  57. Knittler, M. R., Dirks, S., and Haas, I. G. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 1764-1768 [Abstract]
  58. Braig, K., Otwinowski, Z., Hegde, R., Boisvert, D. C., Joachimiak, A., Horwich, A. L., and Sigler, P. B. (1994) Nature 371, 578-586 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  59. Hunt, J. F., Weaver, A. J., Landry, S. J., Gierasch, L., and Deisenhofer, J. (1996) Nature 379, 37-45 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  60. Todd, M. J., Viitanen, P. V., and Lorimer, G. H. (1994) Science 265, 659-666 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

©1997 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.