Back

The mitochondrial chaperone HSPD1 folds MTHFD2 independently of its co-chaperone HSPE1

Gabbay, S.; Ben-David, H.; Alassam, S. S.; Cohen, L.; Levy, T.; Levin, L.; Tickotsky-Moskovitz, N.; Abramovich, I.; Batushansky, A.; Dror, S.; Elkabets, M.; Alon, N.; Brotman, Y.; Kaluski-Kopatch, S.; Nikelshparg, E.; Sued-Hendrickson, S.; Bershtein, S.; Ben-Zvi, A.; Rotblat, B.

2026-02-17 cell biology
10.64898/2026.02.16.706072 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Acquiring new cellular states entails metabolic reprogramming driven by changes in the expression of cytosolic and mitochondrial metabolic enzymes. Most mitochondrial proteins are synthesized in the cytosol and imported into the mitochondria in a linear form, after which they are folded by a network of mitochondrial chaperones and co-chaperones. Which mitochondrial protein is dependent upon which chaperone for its folding is largely unknown. HSPD1/HSPE1 (HSP60/HSP10) are evolutionarily conserved mammalian homologues of the bacterial proteins GroEL/GroES, forming a chamber-and-lid chaperonin to facilitate the folding of client proteins. We used gene knockdown and SILAC-based proteomics to identify HSPD1 client proteins. We found that HSPD1 supports the expression of Methylenetetrahydrofolate Dehydrogenase 2 (MTHFD2), a key essential protein in the mitochondrial one-carbon (1C) pathway, in cells and tumors, and directly folds MTHFD2, independently of its co-chaperone HSPE1. HSPD1 interacts with MTHFD2 in mitochondria, and MTHFD2 is degraded by LONP1 in HSPD1 knockdown cells. Consequently, we observed reduced nucleotide and S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) levels in HSPD1 knockdown and found minimal overlap in the transcriptional and metabolic cellular responses to HSPD1 vs. HSPE1 depletion. In C. elegans, knockout of HSP60 triggers the mitochondrial stress response in the gut, while HSP10 knockout triggers the mitochondrial stress response in muscle tissue. Our data support that HSPD1 is an MTHFD2 chaperone and that, in addition to working together, HSPD1 and HSPE1 have distinct biological functions.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 1%
11.9%
2
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
11.9%
3
Cell Stress and Chaperones
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
4
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 13%
7.9%
5
Redox Biology
70 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.5%
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 16%
5.5%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Biological Chemistry
690 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.3%
8
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.0%
9
Molecular Biology of the Cell
311 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
10
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 24%
2.1%
11
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 10%
2.1%
12
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.7%
13
Journal of Cell Biology
392 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Life Science Alliance
285 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Cell Death & Disease
126 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
The EMBO Journal
309 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
17
Cell Death & Differentiation
48 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
18
The FASEB Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
19
Protein Science
246 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
20
Molecular Cell
350 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
21
Cell Death Discovery
58 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.1%
22
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
102 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
23
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
96 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
24
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
25
EMBO Reports
263 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
26
ACS Chemical Biology
167 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%