HSP40/DNAJ Chaperones

Abstract

Members of the HSP40/DNAJ family comprise one of the largest groups of molecular chaperones, and are present in all living organisms from bacteria to humans. The hallmark of DNAJs is the presence of a J‐domain, which is crucial for interaction with HSP70. DNAJs can be seen as the workforce that steers HSP70 machines, regulating client input and specificity. The different DNAJs are involved in processes such as (re)folding, intracellular transport across membranes, protein modifications, remodelling of protein complexes and protein degradation. In particular, different DNAJs are able to suppress aggregate formation of several amyloidogenic proteins linked to human diseases. On the other hand, mutations in many DNAJs give rise to a wide range of pathologies, attesting to their fundamental role in cellular homeostasis and general protein quality control.

Key Concepts

  • Chaperome is the interconnected network of chaperones and cochaperones that works cooperatively to maintain protein homeostasis (Brehme and Voisine, 2016).
  • Molecular chaperone is a protein that assists folding, refolding, disaggregation and/or assembly of macromolecular complexes, but is not a permanent component of the final, native, functional structure. Chaperones can act as substrate ‘foldases’ in an ATP‐dependent manner or as ‘holdases’ in an ATP‐independent manner.
  • Folding is the formation of an energetically stable three‐dimensional conformation specific to a given protein sequence, also known as the native, functional conformation. On the other hand, misfolding happens when the protein does not reach its native conformation on a biologically relevant timescale.
  • Amyloidogenic proteins are proteins with a high tendency of folding into energetically favourable aggregates, which catalyse the formation of protein fibrils and plaques, and are associated to cellular toxicity and degeneration.
  • Protein disaggregation is the disentangling of protein aggregates through their resolubilization by chaperones, followed by their refolding or degradation.

Keywords: HSP40/DNAJ; molecular chaperone; heat shock protein; amyloidogenic protein; protein quality control

Figure 1. The interconnected relationship ofDNAJproteins in the context ofHSP70machines. Schematic interaction map of human DNAJs from classes A, B and C (blue circles) with molecular chaperones from the HSP70 family (green circles) and nucleotide exchange factors (NEFs, brown circles). Experimentally validated protein–protein interactions are represented by lines, colour coded according to the classes of the interacting partners (for instance, blue for DNAJ–DNAJ or green for DNAJ–HSP70 interactions). The map was generated using the STRING protein interaction tool version 10.5 (https://string‐db.org/). Actual distances between nodes are not drawn to scale, and nonchaperone interactors were omitted for clarity. DNAJB3, HSPA7 and BAG1L were not found in the STRING database. The DNAJC members 14, 15, 20, 27, 28 and the NEFs BAG6 and BAP did not show any direct DNAJ, HSP70 or NEF interaction, and were thus omitted from the figure.
Figure 2. Structure of J‐domain andDNAJclasses A, B and C (types I,IIandII). (a) Representation of the secondary structure of the J‐domain of human DNAJB1 (PDB code 1HDJ). J‐domains are formed by four α‐helices with the conserved His‐Pro‐Asp (HPD) motif located in the loop between helices II and III. (b) Domain organisation of representative DNAJ proteins from classes I, II and III with typical examples for each group from Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc). The structure of amino acids 110–378 from scYdj1 (reconstruction of protein data bank (PDB) codes 1NLT and 1XAO) and 180–349 from scSis1 (PDB code 1C3G) are shown. Both proteins form homodimers predominantly composed of β‐sheets, and each monomer comprises two adjacent domains referred to as C‐terminal domain I (CTDI) and CTDII. The zinc fingers Zn1 and Zn2 that define the class A (type I) DNAJs like scYdj1 are located represented in orange.
Figure 3. SelectedDNAJproteins display an isoform‐specific expression pattern in different tissues. Isoform‐ and tissue‐specific messenger RNA expression data from human DNAJB2, DNAJB6 and DNAJB12 (ENSEMBL protein codes between parentheses) were obtained from the GTEx portal (https://www.gtexportal.org/home/) and are expressed as blue and green lines. RPKM, reads per kilobase per million.
Figure 4. MessengerRNA(mRNA) expression levels of humanDNAJproteins shows tissue‐specific patterns. mRNA sequencing data for all available DNAJ proteins in different tissues from more than 700 donors was obtained from the GTEx portal (https://www.gtexportal.org/home/) and analysed through the R2 Genomics Analysis and Visualization Platform (http://hgserver1.amc.nl/cgi‐bin/r2/main.cgi) using log2 normalisation. Data on the testis‐specific DNAJB3, DNAJB8, DNAJC5B and DNAJC5G.
close

References

Agarraberes FA and Dice JF (2001) A molecular chaperone complex at the lysosomal membrane is required for protein translocation. Journal of Cell Science 114 (13): 2491–2499.

Anikster Y, Haack TB, Vilboux T, et al. (2017) Biallelic mutations in DNAJC12 cause hyperphenylalaninemia, dystonia, and intellectual disability. American Journal of Human Genetics 100 (2): 257–266.

Aprile FA, Källstig E, Limorenko G, et al. (2017) The molecular chaperones DNAJB6 and Hsp70 cooperate to suppress α‐synuclein aggregation. Scientific Reports 7 (1): 1–11.

Araki K and Nagata K (2012) Protein folding and quality control in the ER. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 4 (8): a015438.

Brehmer D, Rüdiger S, Gässler CS, et al. (2001) Tuning of chaperone activity of Hsp70 proteins by modulation of nucleotide exchange. Nature Structural Biology 8 (5): 427–432.

Brehme M and Voisine C (2016) Model systems of protein‐misfolding diseases reveal chaperone modifiers of proteotoxicity. Disease Models & Mechanisms 9 (8): 823–838. DOI: 10.1242/dmm.024703.

Chapple JP and Cheetham ME (2003) The chaperone environment at the cytoplasmic face of the endoplasmic reticulum can modulate rhodopsin processing and inclusion formation. Journal of Biological Chemistry 278 (21): 19087–19094.

Craig EA and Marszalek J (2017) How do J‐proteins get Hsp70 to do so many different things? Trends in Biochemical Sciences 42 (5): 355–368.

Cummings CJ, Mancini MA, Antalffy B, et al. (1998) Chaperone suppression of aggregation and altered subcellular proteasome localization imply protein misfolding in SCA1. Nature Genetics 19 (2): 148–154.

Davila S, Furu L, Gharavi AG, et al. (2004) Mutations in SEC63 cause autosomal dominant polycystic liver disease. Nature Genetics 36 (6): 575–577.

Dekker SL, Kampinga HH and Bergink S (2015) DNAJs: more than substrate delivery to HSPA. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 2 (35): 1–8.

Dikic I (2017) Proteasomal and autophagic degradation systems. Annual Review of Biochemistry 86 (1): 1–32.

El Khouri E, Thomas L, Jeanson L, et al. (2016) Mutations in DNAJB13, encoding an HSP40 family member, cause primary ciliary dyskinesia and male infertility. American Journal of Human Genetics 99 (2): 489–500.

Gao XC, Zhou CJ, Zhou ZR, et al. (2011) Co‐chaperone HSJ1a dually regulates the proteasomal degradation of ataxin‐3. PLoS One 6 (5): e19763.

Goldberg AL (2003) Protein degradation and protection against misfolded or damaged proteins. Nature 426 (6968): 895–899.

Hageman J and Kampinga HH (2009) Computational analysis of the human HSPH/HSPA/DNAJ family and cloning of a human HSPH/HSPA/DNAJ expression library. Cell Stress & Chaperones 14 (1): 1–21.

Hageman J, Rujano MA, van Waarde MAWH, et al. (2010) A DNAJB chaperone subfamily with HDAC‐dependent activities suppresses toxic protein aggregation. Molecular Cell 37 (3): 355–369.

Hageman J, van Waarde MAWH, Zylicz A, et al. (2011) The diverse members of the mammalian HSP70 machine show distinct chaperone‐like activities. The Biochemical Journal 435 (1): 127–142.

Hartl FU and Hayer‐Hartl M (2009) Converging concepts of protein folding in vitro and in vivo. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 16 (6): 574–581.

Howarth J, Kelly S, Keasey M, et al. (2007) Hsp40 molecules that target to the ubiquitin‐proteasome system decrease inclusion formation in models of polyglutamine disease. Molecular Therapy 15 (6): 1100–1105.

Jiang J, Maes EG, Taylor AB, et al. (2007) Structural basis of J cochaperone binding and regulation of Hsp70. Molecular Cell 28 (3): 422–433.

Joazeiro CAP (2017) Ribosomal stalling during translation: providing substrates for ribosome‐associated protein quality control. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 33 (1): 343–368.

Kakkar V, Prins LCB and Kampinga HH (2012) DNAJ proteins and protein aggregation diseases. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry 12 (22): 2479–2490.

Kakkar V, Meister‐Broekema M, Minoia M, Carra S and Kampinga HH (2014) Barcoding heat shock proteins to human diseases: looking beyond the heat shock response. Disease Models & Mechanisms 7 (4): 421–434.

Kakkar V, Kuiper EFE, Pandey A, et al. (2016a) Versatile members of the DNAJ family show Hsp70 dependent anti‐aggregation activity on RING1 mutant parkin C289G. Scientific Reports 6 (34830): 1–12.

Kakkar V, Månsson C, de Mattos EP, et al. (2016b) The S/T‐rich motif in the DNAJB6 chaperone delays polyglutamine aggregation and the onset of disease in a mouse model. Molecular Cell 62 (2): 272–283.

Kampinga HH and Craig EA (2010) The HSP70 chaperone machinery: J proteins as drivers of functional specificity. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 11 (8): 579–592.

Kazemi‐Esfarjani P (2000) Genetic suppression of polyglutamine toxicity in Drosophila. Science 287 (5459): 1837–1840.

Labbadia J, Novoselov SS, Bett JS, et al. (2012) Suppression of protein aggregation by chaperone modification of high molecular weight complexes. Brain 135 (Pt 4): 1180–1196.

Lupo V, Aguado C, Knecht E and Espinós C (2016) Chaperonopathies: spotlight on hereditary motor neuropathies. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 3: 81. DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2016.00081.

Månsson C, Kakkar V, Monsellier E, et al. (2014) DNAJB6 is a peptide‐binding chaperone which can suppress amyloid fibrillation of polyglutamine peptides at substoichiometric molar ratios. Cell Stress & Chaperones 19 (2): 227–239.

Minoia M, Grit C and Kampinga HH (2014) HSPA1A‐independent suppression of PARK2 C289G protein aggregation by human small heat shock proteins. Molecular and Cellular Biology 34 (19): 3570–3578.

Nillegoda NB, Kirstein J, Szlachcic A, et al. (2015) Crucial HSP70 co‐chaperone complex unlocks metazoan protein disaggregation. Nature 524: 247–251.

Novoselov SS, Mustill WJ, Gray A, et al. (2013) Molecular chaperone mediated late-stage neuroprotection in the SOD1(G93A) mouse model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. PLoS One 8 (8): e73944.

Parfitt DA, Michael GJ, Vermeulen EGM, et al. (2009) The ataxia protein sacsin is a functional co‐chaperone that protects against polyglutamine‐expanded ataxin‐1. Human Molecular Genetics 18 (9): 1556–1565.

Powers ET and Balch WE (2013) Diversity in the origins of proteostasis networks – a driver for protein function in evolution. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 14 (4): 237–248.

Quan S and Bardwell JC (2012) Chaperone discovery. Bioessays 34: 973–981. DOI: 10.1002/bies.201200059.

Richly H, Rocha‐Viegas L, Ribeiro JD, et al. (2010) Transcriptional activation of polycomb‐repressed genes by ZRF1. Nature 468 (7327): 1124–1128.

Rose JM, Novoselov SS, Robinson PA and Cheetham ME (2011) Molecular chaperone-mediated rescue of mitophagy by a Parkin RING1 domain mutant. Human Molecular Genetics 20 (1): 16–27.

Rothenberg C, Srinivasan D, Mah L, et al. (2010) Ubiquilin functions in autophagy and is degraded by chaperone‐mediated autophagy. Human Molecular Genetics 19 (16): 3219–3232.

Ruggieri A, Saredi S, Zanotti S, et al. (2016) DNAJB6 myopathies: focused review on an emerging and expanding group of myopathies. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 3 (63): 1–11.

Sahi C, Lee T, Inada M, et al. (2010) Cwc23, an essential J protein critical for pre‐mRNA splicing with a dispensable J domain. Molecular and Cellular Biology 30 (1): 33–42.

Shimizu Y, Okuda‐Shimizu Y and Hendershot LM (2010) Ubiquitylation of an ERAD substrate occurs on multiple types of amino acids. Molecular Cell 40 (6): 917–992.

Sriram SM, Kim BY and Kwon YT (2011) The N‐end rule pathway: emerging functions and molecular principles of substrate recognition. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 12 (11): 735–747.

Stenoien DL, Cummings CJ, Adams HP, et al. (1999) Polyglutamine‐expanded androgen receptors form aggregates that sequester heat shock proteins, proteasome components and SRC‐1, and are suppressed by the HDJ‐2 chaperone. Human Molecular Genetics 8 (5): 731–741.

Synofzik M, Haack TB, Kopajtich R, et al. (2014) Absence of BiP co‐chaperone DNAJC3 causes diabetes mellitus and multisystemic neurodegeneration. American Journal of Human Genetics 95 (6): 689–697.

Taguwa S, Maringer K, Li X, et al. (2015) Defining Hsp70 subnetworks in dengue virus replication reveals key vulnerability in flavivirus infection. Cell 163 (5): 1108–1123.

Tsai J and Douglas MG (1996) A conserved HPD sequence of the J‐domain is necessary for YDJ1 stimulation of Hsp70 ATPase activity at a site distinct from substrate binding. Journal of Biological Chemistry 271 (16): 9347–9354.

Tummala H, Walne AJ, Williams M, et al. (2016) DNAJC21 mutations link a cancer‐prone bone marrow failure syndrome to corruption in 60S ribosome subunit maturation. American Journal of Human Genetics 99 (1): 115–124.

Tyedmers J, Mogk A and Bukau B (2010) Cellular strategies for controlling protein aggregation. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 11 (11): 777–788.

Vos MJ, Hageman J, Carra S and Kampinga HH (2008) Structural and functional diversities between members of the human. HSPB, HSPH, HSPA, and DNAJ chaperone families. Biochemistry 47: 7001–7011.

Yan W, Schilke B, Pfund C, et al. (1998) Zuotin, a ribosome‐associated DnaJ molecular chaperone. EMBO Journal 17 (16): 4809–4817.

Further Reading

Bukau B, Weissman J and Horwich A (2006) Molecular chaperones and protein quality control. Cell 125 (3): 443–451.

Chiti F and Dobson CM (2017) Protein misfolding, amyloid formation, and human disease: a summary of progress over the last decade. Annual Review of Biochemistry 86 (1): 27–68.

Ciechanover A (2015) The unravelling of the ubiquitin system. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 16 (5): 322–324.

Kampinga HH, Hageman J, Vos MJ, et al. (2009) Guidelines for the nomenclature of the human heat shock proteins. Cell Stress & Chaperones 14 (1): 105–111.

Macario AJL, Lafer EM, Lupo V, et al. (2016) Chaperonopathies: spotlight on hereditary motor neuropathies. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 3 (81): 1–7.

Reis SD, Pinho BR and Oliveira JMA (2016) Modulation of molecular chaperones in Huntington's disease and other polyglutamine disorders. Molecular Neurobiology 54 (8): 5829–5854.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Musskopf, Maiara K, de Mattos, Eduardo P, Bergink, Steven, and Kampinga, Harm H(May 2018) HSP40/DNAJ Chaperones. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0027633]