Molecular mechanisms and function of the spindle checkpoint, a guardian of the chromosome stability

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

Volumn 675, Issue , 2010, Pages 15-26

  Ito, Daisuke ^b   Matsumoto, Tomohiro ^a  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANAPHASE PROMOTING COMPLEX; BUB1 RELATED PROTEIN; BUB3 PROTEIN; CELL CYCLE PROTEIN 20; DYNEIN ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATASE; PROTEIN MAD1; PROTEIN MAD2; SECURIN;

ANAPHASE; ARTICLE; CARCINOGENESIS; CELL CYCLE ARREST; CELL DIVISION; CENTROMERE; CHROMATID; CHROMOSOMAL INSTABILITY; CHROMOSOME SEGREGATION; GENE ACTIVATION; GENE OVEREXPRESSION; GENE SILENCING; HUMAN; METAPHASE; MICROTUBULE; MITOSIS SPINDLE; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN LOCALIZATION; PROTEIN PHOSPHORYLATION; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SPINDLE CHECKPOINT; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR GENE; UBIQUITINATION; ANEUPLOIDY; BARRETT ESOPHAGUS; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; CANCER GROWTH; CELL ACTIVATION; CELL PROLIFERATION; M PHASE CELL CYCLE CHECKPOINT; MITOSIS; MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY; POLYPLOIDY; SOLID TUMOR; ANIMAL; CELL TRANSFORMATION; GENETICS; HUMAN CHROMOSOME; METABOLISM; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; REVIEW;

ANEUPLOIDY; ANIMALS; CELL TRANSFORMATION, NEOPLASTIC; CHROMATIDS; CHROMOSOMAL INSTABILITY; CHROMOSOMES, HUMAN; HUMANS; MITOTIC SPINDLE APPARATUS; NEOPLASMS; POLYPLOIDY;

EID: 77955890926     PISSN: 00652598     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-6199-0_2     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Funabiki H, Murray AW. The Xenopus chromokinesin Xkid is essential for metaphase chromosome alignment and must be degraded to allow anaphase chromosome movement. Cell 2000; 102:411-424.
2. Levesque AA, Compton DA. The chromokinesin Kid is necessary for chromosome arm orientation and oscillation, but not congression, on mitotic spindles. J Cell Biol 2001; 154:1135-1146. (Pubitemid 34286192)
3. Skibbens RV, Skeen VP, Salmon ED. Directional instability of kinetochore motility during chromosome congression and segregation in mitotic newt lung cells: A push-pull mechanism. J Cell Biol 1993; 122:859-875. (Pubitemid 23241095)
4. Kapoor TM, Compton DA. Searching for the middle ground: Mechanisms of chromosome alignment during mitosis. J Cell Biol 2002; 157:551-556. (Pubitemid 34839783)
5. Kapoor TM, Lampson MA, Hergert P et al. Chromosomes can congress to the metaphase plate before biorientation. Science 2006; 311:388-391. (Pubitemid 43132665)
6. Cleveland DW, Mao YH, Sullivan KF. Centromeres and kinetochores: From epigenetics to mitotic checkpoint signaling. Cell 2003; 112:407-421. (Pubitemid 36263076)
7. Hwang LH, Lau LF, Smith DL et al. Budding yeast Cdc20: A target of the spindle checkpoint. Science 1998; 279:1041-1044. (Pubitemid 28113307)
8. Kim SH, Lin DP, Matsumoto S et al. Fission yeast Slp1: An effector of the Mad2-dependent spindle checkpoint. Science 1998; 279:1045-1047. (Pubitemid 28113308)
9. Peters JM. The anaphase promoting complex/cyclosome: A machine designed to destroy. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2006; 7:644-656.
10. Li R, Murray AW. Feedback control of mitosis in budding yeast. Cell 1991; 66:519-531. (Pubitemid 121001388)
11. Hoyt MA, Totis L, Roberts BT. S. cerevisiae genes required for cell cycle arrest in response to loss of microtubule function. Cell 1991; 66:507-517. (Pubitemid 121001387)
12. Winey M, Goetsch L, Baum P et al. MPS1 and MPS2: Novel yeast genes defining distinct steps of spindle pole body duplication. J Cell Biol 1991; 114:745-754. (Pubitemid 21909840)
13. Hardwick KG, Murray AW. Mad1p, a phosphoprotein component of the spindle assembly checkpoint in budding yeast. J Cell Biol 1995; 131:709-720.
14. Karess R. Rod-Zw10-Zwilch: A key player in the spindle checkpoint. Trends Cell Biol 2005; 15:386-392. (Pubitemid 40943528)
15. Habu T, Kim SH, Weinstein J et al. Identification of a MAD2-binding protein, CMT2 and its role in mitosis. EMBO J 2002; 21:6419-6228.
16. Mao Y, Abrieu A, Cleveland DW. Activating and silencing the mitotic checkpoint through CENP-Edependent activation/inactivation of BubR1. Cell 2003; 114:87-98. (Pubitemid 36859843)
17. Li X, Nicklas RB. Mitotic forces control a cell-cycle checkpoint. Nature 1995; 373:630-632.
18. Rieder CL, Cole RW, Khodjakov A et al. The checkpoint delaying anaphase in response to chromosome monoorientation is mediated by an inhibitory signal produced by unattached kinetochores. J Cell Biol 1995; 130:941-948.
19. Nicklas RB, Waters JC, Salmon ED et al. Checkpoint signals in grasshopper meiosis are sensitive to microtubule attachment, but tension is still essential. J Cell Sci 2001; 114:4173-4183. (Pubitemid 33138655)
20. Waters JC, Chen RH, Murray AW et al. Localization of Mad2 to kinetochores depends on microtubule attachment, not tension. J Cell Biol 1998; 141:1181-1191. (Pubitemid 28265612)
21. Skoufias DA, Andreassen PR, Lacroix FB et al. Mammalian mad2 and bub1/bubR1 recognize distinct spindle-attachment and kinetochore-tension checkpoints. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98:4492-4497. (Pubitemid 32295004)
22. Martin-Lluesma S, Stucke VM, Nigg EA. Role of Hec1 in spindle checkpoint signaling and kinetochore recruitment of Mad1/Mad2. Science 2002; 297:2267-2270.
23. Hori T, Haraguchi T, Hiraoka Y et al. Dynamic behavior of Nuf2-Hec1 complex that localizes to the centrosome and centromere and is essential for mitotic progression in vertebrate cells. J Cell Sci 2003; 116:3347-3362. (Pubitemid 37038983)
24. Sudakin V, Chan GK, Yen TJ. Checkpoint inhibition of the APC/C in HeLa cells is mediated by a complex of BUBR1, BUB3, CDC20 and MAD2. J Cell Biol 2001; 154:925-936. (Pubitemid 34286173)
25. Luo X, Tang Z, Rizo J et al. The Mad2 spindle checkpoint protein undergoes similar major conformational changes upon binding to either Mad1 or Cdc20. Mol Cell 2002; 9:59-71. (Pubitemid 34127771)
26. Sironi L, Mapelli M, Knapp S et al. Crystal structure of the tetrameric Mad1-Mad2 core complex: Implications of a 'safety belt' binding mechanism for the spindle checkpoint. EMBO J 2002; 21:2496-2506. (Pubitemid 34546721)
27. Luo XL, Tang ZY, Xia GH et al. The Mad2 spindle checkpoint protein has two distinct natively folded states. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2004; 11:338-345.
28. De Antoni A, Pearson CG, Cimini D et al. The Mad1/Mad2 complex as a template for Mad2 activation in the spindle assembly checkpoint. Curr Biol 2005; 15:214-225. (Pubitemid 40205701)
29. Luo X, Fang G, Coldiron M et al. Structure of the Mad2 spindle assembly checkpoint protein and its interaction with Cdc20. Nat Struct Biol 2000; 7:224-229. (Pubitemid 30140769)
30. Giet R, Petretti C, Prigent C. Aurora kinases, aneuploidy and cancer, a coincidence or a real link? Trends Cell Biol 2005; 15:241-250. (Pubitemid 40603893)
31. Pinsky BA, Kung C, Shokat KM et al. The Ipl1-Aurora protein kinase activates the spindle checkpoint by creating unattached kinetochores. Nat Cell Biol 2006; 8:78-83. (Pubitemid 43064800)
32. Hardwick KG, Weiss E, Luca FC et al. Activation of the budding yeast spindle assembly checkpoint without mitotic spindle disruption. Science 1996; 273:953-956. (Pubitemid 26275171)
33. Seeley TW, Wang L, Zhen JY. Phosphorylation of human MAD1 by the BUB1 kinase in vitro. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1999; 257:589-595. (Pubitemid 29301487)
34. He X, Jones MH, Winey M et al. Mph1, a member of the Mps1-like family of dual specificity protein kinases, is required for the spindle checkpoint in S. pombe. J Cell Sci 1998; 111:1635-1647. (Pubitemid 28330551)
35. Waters JC, Chen RH, Murray AW et al. Mad2 binding by phosphorylated kinetochores links error detection and checkpoint action in mitosis. Curr Biol 1999; 9:649-652. (Pubitemid 29291945)
36. Ahonen LJ, Kallio MJ, Daum JR et al. Polo-like kinase 1 creates the tension-sensing 3F3/2 phosphoepitope and modulates the association of spindle-checkpoint proteins at kinetochores. Curr Biol 2005; 15:1078-1089. (Pubitemid 40841350)
37. Wong OK, Fang G. Plx1 is the 3F3/2 kinase responsible for targeting spindle checkpoint proteins to kinetochores. J Cell Biol 2005; 170:709-719. (Pubitemid 41242104)
38. Rieder CL, Maiato H. Stuck in division or passing through: What happens when cells cannot satisfy the spindle assembly checkpoint. Dev Cell 2004; 7:637-651. (Pubitemid 39462685)
39. Reddy SK, Rape M, Margansky WA et al. Ubiquitination by the anaphase-promoting complex drives spindle checkpoint inactivation. Nature 2007; 446:921-925. (Pubitemid 46633168)
40. Stegmeier F, Rape M, Draviam VM et al. Anaphase initiation is regulated by antagonistic ubiquitination and deubiquitination activities. Nature 2007; 446:876-881.
41. Howell BJ, McEwen BF, Canman JC et al. Cytoplasmic dynein/dynactin drives kinetochore protein transport to the spindle poles and has a role in mitotic spindle checkpoint inactivation. J Cell Biol 2001; 155:1159-1172. (Pubitemid 34286267)
42. Wojcik E, Basto R, Serr M et al. Kinetochore dynein: Its dynamics and role in the transport of the Rough deal checkpoint protein. Nat Cell Biol 2001; 3:1001-1007. (Pubitemid 34428745)
43. Griffis ER, Stuurman N, Vale RD. Spindly, a novel protein essential for silencing the spindle assembly checkpoint, recruits dynein to the kinetochore. J Cell Biol 2007; 177:1005-1015. (Pubitemid 46955705)
44. Shi Q, King RW. Chromosome nondisjunction yields tetraploid rather than aneuploid cells in human cell lines. Nature 2005; 437:1038-1042. (Pubitemid 41486986)
45. Boveri T. The origin of malignant tumors. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1929. Originally published in 1914 as Zur Frage der Entstehung maligner Tumoren.
46. Shackney SE, Smith CA, Miller BW et al. Model for the genetic evolution of human solid tumors. Cancer Res 1989; 49:3344-3354. (Pubitemid 19162149)
47. Andreassen PR, Lohez OD, Lacroix FB et al. Tetraploid state induces p53-dependent arrest of nontransformed mammalian cells in G1. Mol Biol Cell 2001; 12:1315-1328. (Pubitemid 33044413)
48. Galipeau PC, Cowan DS, Sanchez CA et al 17p (p53) allelic losses, 4N (G2/tetraploid) populations and progression to aneuploidy in Barrett's esophagus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93:7081-7084. (Pubitemid 26243505)
49. Fujiwara T, Bandi M, Nitta M et al. Cytokinesis failure generating tetraploids promotes tumorigenesis in p53-null cells. Nature 2005; 437:1043-1047. (Pubitemid 41486987)
50. Sotillo R, Hernando E, Diaz-Rodriguez E et al. Mad2 overexpression promotes aneuploidy and tumorigenesis in mice. Cancer Cell 2007; 11:9-23. (Pubitemid 46054519)
51. Mayer VW, Aguilera A. High levels of chromosome instability in polyploids of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mutat Res 1990; 231:177-186. (Pubitemid 20252550)
52. Andalis AA, Storchova Z, Styles C et al. Defects arising from whole-genome duplications in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 2004; 167:1109-1121. (Pubitemid 39045621)
53. Storchova Z, Breneman A, Cande J et al. Genome-wide genetic analysis of polyploidy in yeast. Nature 2006; 443:541-547. (Pubitemid 44527285)