Literature DB >> 9013330

Oscillating mitotic newt lung cell kinetochores are, on average, under tension and rarely push.

J C Waters1, R V Skibbens, E D Salmon.   

Abstract

Experimentally introduced tension on kinetochores and their centromeres has been shown to stabilize kinetochore attachment to microtubules, modify kinetochore directional instability, and regulate cell-cycle progression into anaphase. In mitosis, kinetochore tension and the stretch of centromere chromatin are produced by the movement of sister kinetochores toward opposite poles and astral ejection forces on the chromosome arms. However, newt lung cell kinetochores oscillate between poleward and away from the pole motility states throughout mitosis, indicating kinetochores are not under constant tension. To test whether kinetochores are under net tension while they are oscillating, and how often they are under compression and pushing into the chromosome, we measured the distance between sister kinetochores in newt lung cells using both video-enhanced differential interference contrast microscopy (VE-DIC) and immunofluorescence microscopy. We found that for chromosomes in which sister kinetochores are attached to opposite spindle poles, centromeres are, on average, stretched (2.2 microns in living cells and 1.8 microns in fixed cells) with respect to the inter-kinetochore 'rest' length (1.1 microns in living and fixed cells). For chromosomes in which only one kinetochore is attached to the spindle, the centromere chromatin associated with the tethered kinetochore is, on average, stretched to approximately half of the average inter-kinetochore distance measured for chromosomes in which both kinetochores are attached. We conclude that while newt lung cell kinetochores oscillate between states of P and AP movement, they are under tension approximately 90% of the time and under compression less than 6% of the time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 9013330     DOI: 10.1242/jcs.109.12.2823

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


  62 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.  Microtubule treadmilling in vitro investigated by fluorescence speckle and confocal microscopy.

Authors:  S Grego; V Cantillana; E D Salmon
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.033

3.  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

4.  Mammalian mad2 and bub1/bubR1 recognize distinct spindle-attachment and kinetochore-tension checkpoints.

Authors:  D A Skoufias; P R Andreassen; F B Lacroix; L Wilson; R L Margolis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-03-27       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Depletion of centromeric MCAK leads to chromosome congression and segregation defects due to improper kinetochore attachments.

Authors:  Susan L Kline-Smith; Alexey Khodjakov; Polla Hergert; Claire E Walczak
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2003-12-29       Impact factor: 4.138

6.  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 7.  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

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.