Literature DB >> 11792804

Kinetochore localisation and phosphorylation of the mitotic checkpoint components Bub1 and BubR1 are differentially regulated by spindle events in human cells.

S S Taylor1, D Hussein, Y Wang, S Elderkin, C J Morrow.   

Abstract

BUB1 is a budding yeast gene required to ensure that progression through mitosis is coupled to correct spindle assembly. Two related human protein kinases, Bub1 and BubR1, both localise to kinetochores during mitosis, suggesting that they play a role in delaying anaphase until all chromosomes achieve correct, bipolar attachment to the spindle. However, how the activities of Bub1 and BubR1 are regulated by spindle events and how their activities regulate downstream cell cycle events is not known. To investigate how spindle events regulate Bub1 and BubR1, we characterised their relative localisations during mitosis in the presence and absence of microtubule toxins. In prometaphase cells, both kinases colocalise to the same domain of the kinetochore. However, whereas the localisation of BubR1 at sister kinetochores is symmetrical, localisation of Bub1 is often asymmetrical. This asymmetry is dependent on microtubule attachment, and the kinetochore exhibiting weaker Bub1 staining is typically closer to the nearest spindle pole. In addition, a 30 minute nocodazole treatment dramatically increases the amount of Bub1 localising to kinetochores but has little effect on BubR1. Furthermore, Bub1 levels increase at metaphase kinetochores following loss of tension caused by taxol treatment. Thus, these observations suggest that Bub1 localisation is sensitive to changes in both tension and microtubule attachment. Consistent with this, we also show that Bub1 is rapidly phosphorylated following brief treatments with nocodazole or taxol. In contrast, BubR1 is phosphorylated in the absence of microtubule toxins, and spindle damage has little additional effect. Although these observations indicate that Bub1 and BubR1 respond differently to spindle dynamics, they are part of a common complex during mitosis. We suggest therefore that Bub1 and BubR1 may integrate different 'spindle assembly signals' into a single signal which can then be interpreted by downstream cell cycle regulators.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11792804     DOI: 10.1242/jcs.114.24.4385

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cell Sci        ISSN: 0021-9533            Impact factor:   5.285


  99 in total

1.  Function of Cdc2p-dependent Bub1p phosphorylation and Bub1p kinase activity in the mitotic and meiotic spindle checkpoint.

Authors:  Satoko Yamaguchi; Anabelle Decottignies; Paul Nurse
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  2003-03-03       Impact factor: 11.598

2.  Mad2 and BubR1 function in a single checkpoint pathway that responds to a loss of tension.

Authors:  Katie B Shannon; Julie C Canman; E D Salmon
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.138

3.  Laterally attached kinetochores recruit the checkpoint protein Bub1, but satisfy the spindle checkpoint.

Authors:  Michelle M Shimogawa; Megan M Wargacki; Eric G Muller; Trisha N Davis
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 4.534

Review 4.  The spindle checkpoint: a quality control mechanism which ensures accurate chromosome segregation.

Authors:  Stephen S Taylor; Maria I F Scott; Andrew J Holland
Journal:  Chromosome Res       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 5.239

5.  Kinetochore localization of spindle checkpoint proteins: who controls whom?

Authors:  Suzanne Vigneron; Susana Prieto; Cyril Bernis; Jean-Claude Labbé; Anna Castro; Thierry Lorca
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2004-07-21       Impact factor: 4.138

Review 6.  Connecting up and clearing out: how kinetochore attachment silences the spindle assembly checkpoint.

Authors:  Geert J P L Kops; Jagesh V Shah
Journal:  Chromosoma       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 4.316

7.  APC16 is a conserved subunit of the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome.

Authors:  Geert J P L Kops; Monique van der Voet; Moniek van der Voet; Michael S Manak; Maria H J van Osch; Said M Naini; Andrea Brear; Ian X McLeod; Dirk M Hentschel; John R Yates; Sander van den Heuvel; Jagesh V Shah
Journal:  J Cell Sci       Date:  2010-04-14       Impact factor: 5.285

8.  Re-evaluating the role of Tao1 in the spindle checkpoint.

Authors:  Frederick G Westhorpe; Maria A Diez; Mark D J Gurden; Anthony Tighe; Stephen S Taylor
Journal:  Chromosoma       Date:  2010-02-17       Impact factor: 4.316

9.  Up-regulation of the mitotic checkpoint component Mad1 causes chromosomal instability and resistance to microtubule poisons.

Authors:  Sean D Ryan; Eric M C Britigan; Lauren M Zasadil; Kristen Witte; Anjon Audhya; Avtar Roopra; Beth A Weaver
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-07-09       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 10.  SUMO modification of DNA topoisomerase II: trying to get a CENse of it all.

Authors:  Ming-Ta Lee; Jeff Bachant
Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)       Date:  2009-02-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.