Literature DB >> 24583014

Slow checkpoint activation kinetics as a safety device in anaphase.

Julia Kamenz1, Silke Hauf2.   

Abstract

Chromosome attachment to the mitotic spindle in early mitosis is guarded by an Aurora B kinase-dependent error correction mechanism [1, 2] and by the spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC), which delays cell-cycle progression in response to errors in chromosome attachment [3, 4]. The abrupt loss of sister chromatid cohesion at anaphase creates a type of chromosome attachment that in early mitosis would be recognized as erroneous, would elicit Aurora B-dependent destabilization of kinetochore-microtubule attachment, and would activate the checkpoint [5, 6]. However, in anaphase, none of these responses occurs, which is vital to ensure progression through anaphase and faithful chromosome segregation. The difference has been attributed to the drop in CDK1/cyclin B activity that accompanies anaphase and causes Aurora B translocation away from centromeres [7-12] and to the inactivation of the checkpoint by the time of anaphase [10, 11, 13, 14]. Here, we show that checkpoint inactivation may not be crucial because checkpoint activation by anaphase chromosomes is too slow to take effect on the timescale during which anaphase is executed. In addition, we observe that checkpoint activation can still occur for a considerable time after the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome (APC/C) becomes active, raising the question whether the checkpoint is indeed completely inactivated by the time of anaphase under physiologic conditions.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24583014     DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.02.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  9 in total

1.  Inefficient degradation of cyclin B1 re-activates the spindle checkpoint right after sister chromatid disjunction.

Authors:  Linda Clijsters; Wouter van Zon; Bas Ter Riet; Erik Voets; Michiel Boekhout; Janneke Ogink; Cornelia Rumpf-Kienzl; Rob M F Wolthuis
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 4.534

2.  Erroneous Silencing of the Mitotic Checkpoint by Aberrant Spindle Pole-Kinetochore Coordination.

Authors:  Jing Chen; Jian Liu
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 4.033

Review 3.  Signalling dynamics in the spindle checkpoint response.

Authors:  Nitobe London; Sue Biggins
Journal:  Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2014-10-10       Impact factor: 94.444

4.  MASTL promotes cyclin B1 destruction by enforcing Cdc20-independent binding of cyclin B1 to the APC/C.

Authors:  Erik Voets; Rob Wolthuis
Journal:  Biol Open       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 2.422

Review 5.  Multiple Duties for Spindle Assembly Checkpoint Kinases in Meiosis.

Authors:  Adele L Marston; Katja Wassmann
Journal:  Front Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2017-12-13

6.  Protein Phosphatase 1 inactivates Mps1 to ensure efficient Spindle Assembly Checkpoint silencing.

Authors:  Margarida Moura; Mariana Osswald; Nelson Leça; João Barbosa; António J Pereira; Helder Maiato; Claudio E Sunkel; Carlos Conde
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 7.  The Aurora B Kinase in Chromosome Bi-Orientation and Spindle Checkpoint Signaling.

Authors:  Veronica Krenn; Andrea Musacchio
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 6.244

8.  Spatial-temporal model for silencing of the mitotic spindle assembly checkpoint.

Authors:  Jing Chen; Jian Liu
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  Cdc48 influence on separase levels is independent of mitosis and suggests translational sensitivity of separase.

Authors:  Drisya Vijayakumari; Janina Müller; Silke Hauf
Journal:  Cell Rep       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 9.995

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.