Literature DB >> 8896591

Kinetochores moving away from their associated pole do not exert a significant pushing force on the chromosome.

A Khodjakov1, C L Rieder.   

Abstract

We used video-light microscopy and laser microsurgery to test the hypothesis that as a bioriented prometaphase chromosome changes position in PtK1 cells, the kinetochore moving away from its associated pole (AP) exerts a pushing force on the centromere. When we rapidly severed congressing chromosomes near the spindle equator between the sister kinetochores, the kinetochore that was originally "leading" the motion towards a pole (P) always (17/17 cells) continued moving P whereas the "trailing" kinetochore moving AP always stopped moving as soon as the operation was completed. This trailing kinetochore then initiated motion towards the pole it was originally moving away from up to 50 s later. The same result was observed (15/15 cells) when we selectively destroyed the leading (P moving) kinetochore on a congressing chromosome positioned > or = 3 microns from the pole it was moving away from. When we conducted this experiment on congressing chromosomes positioned within 3 microns of the pole, the centromere region either stopped moving, before switching into motion towards the near pole (2/4 cells), or it continued to move AP for 30-44 s (2/4 cells) before switching into P motion. Finally, kinetochore-free chromosome fragments, generated in the polar regions of PtK1 spindles, were ejected AP and often towards the spindle equator at approximately 2 microns/min. From these data we conclude that the kinetochore moving AP on a moving chromosome does not exert a significant pushing force on the chromosome. Instead, our results reveal that, when not generating a P force, kinetochores are in a "neutral" state that allows them to remain stationary or to coast AP in response to external forces sufficient to allow their K-fiber to elongate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8896591      PMCID: PMC2121052          DOI: 10.1083/jcb.135.2.315

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cell Biol        ISSN: 0021-9525            Impact factor:   10.539


  37 in total

1.  Two different microtubule-based motor activities with opposite polarities in kinetochores.

Authors:  A A Hyman; T J Mitchison
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-05-16       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Chromosome fiber dynamics and congression oscillations in metaphase PtK2 cells at 23 degrees C.

Authors:  D Wise; L Cassimeris; C L Rieder; P Wadsworth; E D Salmon
Journal:  Cell Motil Cytoskeleton       Date:  1991

Review 3.  Formation of the astral mitotic spindle: ultrastructural basis for the centrosome-kinetochore interaction.

Authors:  C L Rieder
Journal:  Electron Microsc Rev       Date:  1990

4.  Modulation of microtubule stability by kinetochores in vitro.

Authors:  A A Hyman; T J Mitchison
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 10.539

5.  Studies on the ejection properties of asters: astral microtubule turnover influences the oscillatory behavior and positioning of mono-oriented chromosomes.

Authors:  J G Ault; A J DeMarco; E D Salmon; C L Rieder
Journal:  J Cell Sci       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 5.285

6.  Kinetochore motility after severing between sister centromeres using laser microsurgery: evidence that kinetochore directional instability and position is regulated by tension.

Authors:  R V Skibbens; C L Rieder; E D Salmon
Journal:  J Cell Sci       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.285

7.  Poleward force at the kinetochore in metaphase depends on the number of kinetochore microtubules.

Authors:  T S Hays; E D Salmon
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 10.539

8.  Polewards microtubule flux in the mitotic spindle: evidence from photoactivation of fluorescence.

Authors:  T J Mitchison
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 10.539

9.  Kinetochores are transported poleward along a single astral microtubule during chromosome attachment to the spindle in newt lung cells.

Authors:  C L Rieder; S P Alexander
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 10.539

10.  Chromosome motion during attachment to the vertebrate spindle: initial saltatory-like behavior of chromosomes and quantitative analysis of force production by nascent kinetochore fibers.

Authors:  S P Alexander; C L Rieder
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 10.539

View more
  57 in total

1.  Microtubule-dependent changes in assembly of microtubule motor proteins and mitotic spindle checkpoint proteins at PtK1 kinetochores.

Authors:  D B Hoffman; C G Pearson; T J Yen; B J Howell; E D Salmon
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.138

2.  CENP-E is essential for reliable bioriented spindle attachment, but chromosome alignment can be achieved via redundant mechanisms in mammalian cells.

Authors:  B F McEwen; G K Chan; B Zubrowski; M S Savoian; M T Sauer; T J Yen
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 4.138

3.  Microtubule flux mediates poleward motion of acentric chromosome fragments during meiosis in insect spermatocytes.

Authors:  J R LaFountain; R Oldenbourg; R W Cole; C L Rieder
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.138

4.  EB1 targets to kinetochores with attached, polymerizing microtubules.

Authors:  Jennifer S Tirnauer; Julie C Canman; E D Salmon; Timothy J Mitchison
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.138

5.  A simple, mechanistic model for directional instability during mitotic chromosome movements.

Authors:  Ajit P Joglekar; Alan J Hunt
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 4.033

Review 6.  Biophysics of mitosis.

Authors:  J Richard McIntosh; Maxim I Molodtsov; Fazly I Ataullakhanov
Journal:  Q Rev Biophys       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.318

7.  Deformations within moving kinetochores reveal different sites of active and passive force generation.

Authors:  Sophie Dumont; E D Salmon; Timothy J Mitchison
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Minimal model for collective kinetochore-microtubule dynamics.

Authors:  Edward J Banigan; Kevin K Chiou; Edward R Ballister; Alyssa M Mayo; Michael A Lampson; Andrea J Liu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-09-28       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 9.  Reconstituting the kinetochore–microtubule interface: what, why, and how.

Authors:  Bungo Akiyoshi; Sue Biggins
Journal:  Chromosoma       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.316

10.  Kif18A and chromokinesins confine centromere movements via microtubule growth suppression and spatial control of kinetochore tension.

Authors:  Jason Stumpff; Michael Wagenbach; Andrew Franck; Charles L Asbury; Linda Wordeman
Journal:  Dev Cell       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 12.270

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.