Non‐housekeeping, non‐essential GroEL (chaperonin) has acquired novel structure and function beneficial under stress in cyanobacteria

GroELs which are prokaryotic members of the chaperonin (Cpn)/Hsp60 family are molecular chaperones of which Escherichia coli GroEL is a model for subsequent research. The majority of bacterial species including E. coli and Bacillus subtilis have only one essential groEL gene that forms an operon with the co‐chaperone groES gene. In contrast to these model bacteria, two or three groEL genes exist in cyanobacterial genomes. One of them, groEL2 , does not form an operon with the groES gene, whereas the other(s) does. In the case of cyanobacteria containing two GroEL homologs, one of the GroELs , GroEL1 , substitutes for the native GroEL in an E. coli cell, but GroEL2 does not. Unlike the E. coli GroEL , GroEL2 is not essential, but it plays an important role which is not substitutable by GroEL1 under stress. Regulation of expression and biochemical properties of GroEL2 are different/diversified from GroEL1 and E. coli GroEL in many aspects. We postulate that the groEL2 gene has acquired a novel, beneficial function especially under stresses and become preserved by natural selection, with the groEL1 gene retaining the original, house‐keeping function. In this review, we will focus on difference between the two GroELs in cyanobacteria, and divergence of GroEL2 from the E. coli GroEL . We will also compare cyanobacterial GroELs with the chloroplast Cpns (60α and 60β) which are thought to be evolved from the cyanobacterial GroEL1 . Chloroplast Cpns appear to follow the different path from cyanobacterial GroELs in the evolution after gene duplication of the corresponding ancestral groEL gene.