Pavithra Aravamudhan1, Isabella Felzer-Kim2, Kaushik Gurunathan3, Ajit P Joglekar4. 1. Biophysics, University of Michigan, 930 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1055, USA. 2. Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, 109 Zina Pitcher Place, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. 3. Sastra University, Tirumalaisamudram, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu 613402, India. 4. Biophysics, University of Michigan, 930 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1055, USA; Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, 109 Zina Pitcher Place, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. Electronic address: ajitj@umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The kinetochore is a multiprotein machine that couples chromosome movement to microtubule (MT) polymerization and depolymerization. It uses numerous copies of at least three MT-binding proteins to generate bidirectional movement. The nanoscale organization of these proteins within the kinetochore plays an important role in shaping the mechanisms that drive persistent, bidirectional movement of the kinetochore. RESULTS: We used fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) between genetically encoded fluorescent proteins fused to kinetochore subunits to reconstruct the nanoscale organization of the budding yeast kinetochore. We performed >60 FRET and high-resolution colocalization measurements involving the essential MT-binding kinetochore components: Ndc80, Dam1, Spc105, and Stu2. These measurements reveal that neighboring Ndc80 complexes within the kinetochore are narrowly distributed along the length of the MT. Dam1 complex molecules are concentrated near the MT-binding domains of Ndc80. Stu2 localizes in high abundance within a narrowly defined territory within the kinetochore centered ∼20 nm on the centromeric side of the Dam1 complex. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that the MT attachment site of the budding yeast kinetochore is well organized. Ndc80, Dam1, and Stu2 are all narrowly distributed about their average positions along the kinetochore-MT axis. The relative organization of these components, their narrow distributions, and their known MT-binding properties together elucidate how their combined actions generate persistent, bidirectional kinetochore movement coupled to MT polymerization and depolymerization.
BACKGROUND: The kinetochore is a multiprotein machine that couples chromosome movement to microtubule (MT) polymerization and depolymerization. It uses numerous copies of at least three MT-binding proteins to generate bidirectional movement. The nanoscale organization of these proteins within the kinetochore plays an important role in shaping the mechanisms that drive persistent, bidirectional movement of the kinetochore. RESULTS: We used fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) between genetically encoded fluorescent proteins fused to kinetochore subunits to reconstruct the nanoscale organization of the budding yeast kinetochore. We performed >60 FRET and high-resolution colocalization measurements involving the essential MT-binding kinetochore components: Ndc80, Dam1, Spc105, and Stu2. These measurements reveal that neighboring Ndc80 complexes within the kinetochore are narrowly distributed along the length of the MT. Dam1 complex molecules are concentrated near the MT-binding domains of Ndc80. Stu2 localizes in high abundance within a narrowly defined territory within the kinetochore centered ∼20 nm on the centromeric side of the Dam1 complex. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that the MT attachment site of the budding yeast kinetochore is well organized. Ndc80, Dam1, and Stu2 are all narrowly distributed about their average positions along the kinetochore-MT axis. The relative organization of these components, their narrow distributions, and their known MT-binding properties together elucidate how their combined actions generate persistent, bidirectional kinetochore movement coupled to MT polymerization and depolymerization.
Authors: Claudio Ciferri; Sebastiano Pasqualato; Emanuela Screpanti; Gianluca Varetti; Stefano Santaguida; Gabriel Dos Reis; Alessio Maiolica; Jessica Polka; Jennifer G De Luca; Peter De Wulf; Mogjiborahman Salek; Juri Rappsilber; Carolyn A Moores; Edward D Salmon; Andrea Musacchio Journal: Cell Date: 2008-05-02 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Emanuela Screpanti; Anna De Antoni; Gregory M Alushin; Arsen Petrovic; Tiziana Melis; Eva Nogales; Andrea Musacchio Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2011-02-25 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Massimiliano Bonomi; Riccardo Pellarin; Seung Joong Kim; Daniel Russel; Bryan A Sundin; Michael Riffle; Daniel Jaschob; Richard Ramsden; Trisha N Davis; Eric G D Muller; Andrej Sali Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Emily M Kudalkar; Emily A Scarborough; Neil T Umbreit; Alex Zelter; Daniel R Gestaut; Michael Riffle; Richard S Johnson; Michael J MacCoss; Charles L Asbury; Trisha N Davis Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jerry F Tien; Neil T Umbreit; Alex Zelter; Michael Riffle; Michael R Hoopmann; Richard S Johnson; Bryan R Fonslow; John R Yates; Michael J MacCoss; Robert L Moritz; Charles L Asbury; Trisha N Davis Journal: Genetics Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 4.562