Geometry and force behind kinetochore orientation: Lessons from meiosis

Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology

Volumn 13, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 370-382

  Watanabe, Yoshinori ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANAPHASE PROMOTING COMPLEX; AURORA B KINASE; CASEIN KINASE I; COHESIN; CYCLIN DEPENDENT KINASE 7; PHOSPHOPROTEIN PHOSPHATASE 2A; SEPARASE;

ANAPHASE; ANEUPLOIDY; CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS; CELL CYCLE G1 PHASE; CENTROMERE; CHROMOSOME; CHROMOSOME SEGREGATION; CHROMOSOME STRUCTURE; DNA REPLICATION; DNA SEQUENCE; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; ENZYME ACTIVITY; FORCE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GEOMETRY; HUMAN; MAMMAL; MEIOSIS; MICROTUBULE; MITOSIS; NONHUMAN; OOCYTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; SPINDLE POLE BODY; XENOPUS LAEVIS; YEAST;

ANIMALS; BIOMECHANICS; CHROMOSOMES; HUMANS; KINETOCHORES; MEIOSIS; MICROTUBULES; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84861460658     PISSN: 14710072     EISSN: 14710080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrm3349     Document Type: Review

References (135)

1. Ricke, R. M., van Ree, J. H. & van Deursen, J. M. Whole chromosome instability and cancer: a complex relationship. Trends Genet. 24, 457-466 (2008).
2. Gordon, D. J., Resio, B. & Pellman, D. Causes and consequences of aneuploidy in cancer. Nature Rev. Genet. 13, 189-203 (2012).
3. Moore, D. P. & Orr-Weaver, T. L. Chromosome segregation during meiosis: building an unambivalent bivalent. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 37, 263-299 (1998).
4. Petronczki, M., Siomos, M. F. & Nasmyth, K. Un menage a quatre: the molecular biology of chromosome segregation in meiosis. Cell 112, 423-440 (2003).
5. Tanaka, T. U. Kinetochore-microtubule interactions: steps towards bi-orientation. EMBO J. 29, 4070-4082 (2010).
6. Hauf, S. & Watanabe, Y. Kinetochore orientation in mitosis and meiosis. Cell 119, 317-327 (2004).
7. Cheeseman, I. M. & Desai, A. Molecular architecture of the kinetochore-microtubule interface. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 9, 33-46 (2008).
8. Santaguida, S. & Musacchio, A. The life and miracles of kinetochores. EMBO J. 28, 2511-2531 (2009).
9. Cimini, D. et al. Merotelic kinetochore orientation is a major mechanism of aneuploidy in mitotic mammalian tissue cells. J. Cell Biol. 153, 517-527 (2001).
10. Uhlmann, F. A matter of choice: the establishment of sister chromatid cohesion. EMBO Rep. 10, 1095-1102 (2009).
11. Nasmyth, K. Cohesin: a catenase with separate entry and exit gates? Nature Cell Biol. 13, 1170-1177 (2011).
12. Watanabe, Y. Sister chromatid cohesion along arms and at centromeres. Trends Genet. 21, 405-412 (2005).
13. Ishiguro, K., Kim, J., Fujiyama-Nakamura, S., Kato, S. & Watanabe, Y. A new meiosis-specific cohesin complex implicated in the cohesin code for homologous pairing. EMBO Rep. 12, 267-275 (2011).
14. Lee, J. & Hirano, T. RAD21L, a novel cohesin subunit implicated in linking homologous chromosomes in mammalian meiosis. J. Cell Biol. 192, 263-276 (2011).
15. Herran, Y. et al. The cohesin subunit RAD21L functions in meiotic synapsis and exhibits sexual dimorphism in fertility. EMBO J. 30, 3091-3105 (2011).
16. Severson, A. F., Ling, L., van Zuylen, V. & Meyer, B. J. The axial element protein HTP-3 promotes cohesin loading and meiotic axis assembly in C. elegans to implement the meiotic program of chromosome segregation. Genes Dev. 23, 1763-1778 (2009).
17. Revenkova, E. & Jessberger, R. Keeping sister chromatids together: cohesins in meiosis. Reproduction 130, 783-790 (2005).
18. Kitajima, T. S., Yokobayashi, S., Yamamoto, M. & Watanabe, Y. Distinct cohesin complexes organize meiotic chromosome domains. Science 300, 1152-1155 (2003).
19. Klein, F. et al. A central role for cohesins in sister chromatid cohesion, formation of axial elements, and recombination during yeast meiosis. Cell 98, 91-103 (1999). The first study describing the central role of meiotic cohesin in chromosome differentiation.
20. Watanabe, Y. & Nurse, P. Cohesin Rec8 is required for reductional chromosome segregation at meiosis. Nature 400, 461-464 (1999). The first study to show that cohesin Rec8 is required for establishing mono-orientation of sister kinetochores.
21. Xu, H., Beasley, M. D., Warren, W. D., van der Horst, G. T. & McKay, M. J. Absence of mouse REC8 cohesin promotes synapsis of sister chromatids in meiosis. Dev. Cell 8, 949-961 (2005).
22. Kim, K. P. et al. Sister cohesion and structural axis components mediate homolog bias of meiotic recombination. Cell 143, 924-937 (2010).
23. Ellermeier, C. & Smith, G. R. Cohesins are required for meiotic DNA breakage and recombination in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 10952-10957 (2005).
24. Neale, M. J. & Keeney, S. Clarifying the mechanics of DNA strand exchange in meiotic recombination. Nature 442, 153-158 (2006).
25. Gerton, J. L. & Hawley, R. S. Homologous chromosome interactions in meiosis: diversity amidst conservation. Nature Rev. Genet. 6, 477-487 (2005).
26. Bhalla, N. & Dernburg, A. F. Prelude to a division. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 24, 397-424 (2008).
27. Scherthan, H. A bouquet makes ends meet. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2, 621-627 (2001).
28. Yamamoto, A. & Hiraoka, Y. How do meiotic chromosomes meet their homologous partners?: lessons from fission yeast. Bioessays 23, 526-533 (2001).
29. Sato, A. et al. Cytoskeletal forces span the nuclear envelope to coordinate meiotic chromosome pairing and synapsis. Cell 139, 907-919 (2009).
30. Wolf, K. W. How meiotic cells deal with non-exchange chromosomes. Bioessays 16, 107-114 (1994).
31. Buonomo, S. B. et al. Disjunction of homologous chromosomes in meiosis I depends on proteolytic cleavage of the meiotic cohesin Rec8 by separin. Cell 103, 387-398 (2000).
32. Kitajima, T. S., Miyazaki, Y., Yamamoto, M. & Watanabe, Y. Rec8 cleavage by separase is required for meiotic nuclear divisions in fission yeast. EMBO J. 22, 5643-5653 (2003).
33. Goldstein, L. S. Mechanisms of chromosome orientation revealed by two meiotic mutants in Drosophila melanogaster. Chromosoma 78, 79-111 (1980).
34. Miyazaki, W. Y. & Orr-Weaver, T. L. Sister-chromatid cohesion in mitosis and meiosis. Annu. Rev. Genet. 28, 167-168 (1994).
35. Kitajima, T. S., Kawashima, S. A. & Watanabe, Y. The conserved kinetochore protein shugoshin protects centromeric cohesion during meiosis. Nature 427, 510-517 (2004). The first study to identify shugoshins as protectors of cohesin at the centromeres.
36. Rabitsch, K. P. et al. Two fission yeast homologs of Drosophila Mei-S332 are required for chromosome segregation during meiosis I and II. Curr. Biol. 14, 287-301 (2004).
37. Marston, A. L., Tham, W. H., Shah, H. & Amon, A. A genome-wide screen identifies genes required for centromeric cohesion. Science 303, 1367-1370 (2004).
38. Katis, V. L., Galova, M., Rabitsch, K. P., Gregan, J. & Nasmyth, K. Maintenance of cohesin at centromeres after meiosis I in budding yeast requires a kinetochore-associated protein related to MEI-S332. Curr. Biol. 14, 560-572 (2004).
39. Hamant, O. et al. A REC8-dependent plant shugoshin is required for maintenance of centromeric cohesion during meiosis and has no mitotic functions. Curr. Biol. 15, 948-954 (2005).
40. Lee, J. et al. Unified mode of centromeric protection by shugoshin in mammalian oocytes and somatic cells. Nature Cell Biol. 10, 42-52 (2008).
41. Llano, E. et al. Shugoshin-2 is essential for the completion of meiosis but not for mitotic cell division in mice. Genes Dev. 22, 2400-2413 (2008).
42. Wang, M. et al. OsSGO1 maintains synaptonemal complex stabilization in addition to protecting centromeric cohesion during rice meiosis. Plant J. 67, 583-594 (2011).
43. Kitajima, T. S. et al. Shugoshin collaborates with protein phosphatase 2A to protect cohesin. Nature 441, 46-52 (2006).
44. Riedel, C. G. et al. Protein phosphatase 2A protects centromeric sister chromatid cohesion during meiosis I. Nature 441, 53-61 (2006).
45. Brar, G. A. et al. Rec8 phosphorylation and recombination promote the step-wise loss of cohesins in meiosis. Nature 441, 532-536 (2006).
46. Ishiguro, T., Tanaka, K., Sakuno, T. & Watanabe, Y. Shugoshin-PP2A counteracts casein-kinase-1-dependent cleavage of Rec8 by separase. Nature Cell Biol. 12, 500-506 (2010).
47. Katis, V. L. et al. Rec8 phosphorylation by casein kinase 1 and Cdc7-Dbf4 kinase regulates cohesin cleavage by separase during meiosis. Dev. Cell 18, 397-409 (2010).
48. Salic, A., Waters, J. C. & Mitchison, T. J. Vertebrate shugoshin links sister centromere cohesion and kinetochore microtubule stability in mitosis. Cell 118, 567-578 (2004). The first demonstration that shugoshins protect centromeric cohesion in vertebrate mitotic cells.
49. McGuinness, B. E., Hirota, T., Kudo, N. R., Peters, J.-M. & Nasmyth, K. Shugoshin prevents dissociation of cohesin from centromeres during mitosis in vertebrate cells. PLoS Biol. 3, e86 (2005).
50. Kitajima, T. S., Hauf, S., Ohsugi, M., Yamamoto, T. & Watanabe, Y. Human Bub1 defines the persistent cohesion site along the mitotic chromosome by affecting shugoshin localization. Curr. Biol. 15, 353-359 (2005).
51. Tanno, Y. et al. Phosphorylation of mammalian Sgo2 by Aurora B recruits PP2A and MCAK to centromeres. Genes Dev. 24, 2169-2179 (2010).
52. Huang, H. et al. Tripin/hSgo2 recruits MCAK to the inner centromere to correct defective kinetochore attachments. J. Cell Biol. 177, 413-424 (2007).
53. Rivera, T. et al. Xenopus Shugoshin 2 regulates the spindle assembly pathway mediated by the chromosomal passenger complex. EMBO J. 31,1467-1479 (2012).
54. Östergren, G. The mechanism of co-orientation in bivalents and multivalents. Hereditas 37, 85-156 (1951).
55. Journey, L. J. & Whaley, A. Kinetochore ultrastructure in vincristine-treated mammalian cells. J. Cell Sci. 7, 49-54 (1970).
56. Goldstein, L. S. Kinetochore structure and its role in chromosome orientation during the first meiotic division in male D. melanogaster. Cell 25, 591-602 (1981). This paper outlines the morphological differences between mitotic and meiotic sister kinetochores.
57. Hodges, C. A. & Hunt, P. A. Simultaneous analysis of chromosomes and chromosome-associated proteins in mammalian oocytes and embryos. Chromosoma 111, 165-169 (2002).
58. Toth, A. et al. Functional genomics identifies monopolin: a kinetochore protein required for segregation of homologs during meiosis I. Cell 103, 1155-1168 (2000). By using a genetic approach, this study identifies monopolin as a necessary complex for sister kinetochore mono-orientation in budding yeast.
59. Rabitsch, K. P. et al. Kinetochore recruitment of two nucleolar proteins is required for homolog segregation in meiosis I. Dev. Cell 4, 535-548 (2003).
60. Petronczki, M. et al. Monopolar attachment of sister kinetochores at meiosis I requires casein kinase 1. Cell 126, 1049-1064 (2006).
61. Katis, V. L. et al. Spo13 facilitates monopolin recruitment to kinetochores and regulates maintenance of centromeric cohesion during yeast meiosis. Curr. Biol. 14, 2183-2196 (2004).
62. Lee, B. H., Kiburz, B. M. & Amon, A. Spo13 maintains centromeric cohesion and kinetochore coorientation during meiosis I. Curr. Biol. 14, 2168-2182 (2004).
63. Matos, J. et al. Dbf4-dependent CDC7 kinase links DNA replication to the segregation of homologous chromosomes in meiosis I. Cell 135, 662-678 (2008).
64. Gregan, J. et al. The kinetochore proteins Pcs1 and Mde4 and heterochromatin are required to prevent merotelic orientation. Curr. Biol. 17, 1190-1200 (2007).
65. Corbett, K. D. et al. The monopolin complex crosslinks kinetochore components to regulate chromosome-microtubule attachments. Cell 142, 556-567 (2010).
66. Tada, K., Susumu, H., Sakuno, T. & Watanabe, Y. Condensin association with histone H2A shapes mitotic chromosomes. Nature 474, 477-483 (2011).
67. Monje-Casas, F., Prabhu, V. R., Lee, B. H., Boselli, M. & Amon, A. Kinetochore orientation during meiosis is controlled by Aurora B and the monopolin complex. Cell 128, 477-490 (2007).
68. Watanabe, Y., Yokobayashi, S., Yamamoto, M. & Nurse, P. Pre-meiotic S phase is linked to reductional chromosome segregation and recombination. Nature 409, 359-363 (2001).
69. Pidoux, A. & Allshire, R. Kinetochore and heterochromatin domains of the fission yeast centromere. Chromosome Res. 12, 521-534 (2004).
70. Yokobayashi, S., Yamamoto, M. & Watanabe, Y. Cohesins determine the attachment manner of kinetochores to spindle microtubules at meiosis I in fission yeast. Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 3965-3973 (2003).
71. Yokobayashi, S. & Watanabe, Y. The kinetochore protein Moa1 enables cohesion-mediated monopolar attachment at meiosis I. Cell 123, 803-817 (2005).
72. Kagami, A. et al. Acetylation regulates monopolar attachment at multiple levels during meiosis I in fission yeast. EMBO Rep. 12, 1189-1195 (2011).
73. Yu, H.-G. & Dawe, R. K. Functional redundancy in the maize meiotic kinetochore. J. Cell Biol. 151, 131-141 (2000).
74. Chelysheva, L. et al. AtREC8 and AtSCC3 are essential to the monopolar orientation of the kinetochores during meiosis. J. Cell Sci. 118, 4621-4632 (2005).
75. Sakuno, T., Tada, K. & Watanabe, Y. Kinetochore geometry defined by cohesion within the centromere. Nature 458, 852-858 (2009). This study establishes the causal link between kinetochore geometry and cohesion within the centromere.
76. Tanaka, T. U. et al. Evidence that the Ipl1-Sli15 (Aurora kinase-INCENP) complex promotes chromosome bi-orientation by altering kinetochore-spindle pole connections. Cell 108, 317-329 (2002). This first study to show that Aurora B destabilizes microtubule-kinetochore attachment and thereby promotes chromosome bi-orientation.
77. Hauf, S. et al. The small molecule Hesperadin reveals a role for Aurora B in correcting kinetochore-microtubule attachment and in maintaining the spindle assembly checkpoint. J. Cell Biol. 161, 281-294 (2003).
78. Ruchaud, S., Carmena, M. & Earnshaw, W. C. Chromosomal passengers: conducting cell division. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 8, 798-812 (2007).
79. Liu, D., Vader, G., Vromans, M. J., Lampson, M. A. & Lens, S. M. Sensing chromosome bi-orientation by spatial separation of aurora B kinase from kinetochore substrates. Science 323, 1350-1353 (2009). This study demonstrates the influence of the relative location of Aurora B and kinetochores on the stability of the microtubule-kinetochore attachment.
80. DeLuca, J. G. et al. Kinetochore microtubule dynamics and attachment stability are regulated by Hec1. Cell 127, 969-982 (2006).
81. Welburn, J. P. et al. Aurora B phosphorylates spatially distinct targets to differentially regulate the kinetochore-microtubule interface. Mol. Cell 38, 383-392 (2010).
82. Liu, D. et al. Regulated targeting of protein phosphatase 1 to the outer kinetochore by KNL1 opposes Aurora B kinase. J. Cell Biol. 188, 809-820 (2010).
83. Lampson, M. A. & Cheeseman, I. M. Sensing centromere tension: Aurora B and the regulation of kinetochore function. Trends Cell Biol. 21, 133-140 (2011).
84. Foley, E. A., Maldonado, M. & Kapoor, T. M. Formation of stable attachments between kinetochores and microtubules depends on the B56-PP2A phosphatase. Nature Cell Biol. 13, 1265-1271 (2011).
85. Kawashima, S. A., Yamagishi, Y., Honda, T., Ishiguro, K. & Watanabe, Y. Phosphorylation of H2A by Bub1 prevents chromosomal instability through localizing shugoshin. Science 327, 172-177 (2010).
86. Kawashima, S. A. et al. Shugoshin enables tension-generating attachment of kinetochores by loading Aurora to centromeres. Genes Dev. 21, 420-435 (2007).
87. Vanoosthuyse, V., Prykhozhij, S. & Hardwick, K. G. Shugoshin 2 regulates localization of the chromosomal passenger proteins in fission yeast mitosis. Mol. Biol. Cell 18, 1657-1669 (2007).
88. Tsukahara, T., Tanno, Y. & Watanabe, Y. Phosphorylation of the CPC by Cdk1 promotes chromosome bi-orientation. Nature 467, 719-723 (2010).
89. Indjeian, V. B., Stern, B. M. & Murray, A. W. The centromeric protein Sgo1 is required to sense lack of tension on mitotic chromosomes. Science 307, 130-133 (2005).
90. Kelly, A. E. et al. Survivin reads phosphorylated histone H3 threonine 3 to activate the mitotic kinase Aurora B. Science 330, 235-239 (2010).
91. Wang, F. et al. Histone H3 Thr-3 phosphorylation by Haspin positions Aurora B at centromeres in mitosis. Science 330, 231-235 (2010).
92. Yamagishi, Y., Honda, T., Tanno, Y. & Watanabe, Y. Two histone marks establish the inner centromere and chromosome bi-orientation. Science 330, 239-243 (2010). This study, together with references 85, 90 and 91, establishes that the inner centromere (or Aurora B position) is defined by the ICS network, which is composed of two histone phosphorylation pathways.
93. Jeyaprakash, A. A., Basquin, C., Jayachandran, U. & Conti, E. Structural basis for the recognition of phosphorylated histone h3 by the survivin subunit of the chromosomal passenger complex. Structure 19, 1625-1634 (2011).
94. Maresca, T. J. & Salmon, E. D. Intrakinetochore stretch is associated with changes in kinetochore phosphorylation and spindle assembly checkpoint activity. J. Cell Biol. 184, 373-381 (2009).
95. Uchida, K. S. et al. Kinetochore stretching inactivates the spindle assembly checkpoint. J. Cell Biol. 184, 383-390 (2009).
96. Akiyoshi, B. et al. Tension directly stabilizes reconstituted kinetochore-microtubule attachments. Nature 468, 576-579 (2010).
97. Pinsky, B. A. & Biggins, S. The spindle checkpoint: tension versus attachment. Trends Cell Biol. 15, 486-493 (2005).
98. Nezi, L. & Musacchio, A. Sister chromatid tension and the spindle assembly checkpoint. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 21, 785-795 (2009).
99. Murray, A. W. A brief history of error. Nature Cell Biol. 13, 1178-1182 (2011).
100. Nicklas, R. B. How cells get the right chromosomes. Science 275, 632-637 (1997).
101. Nicklas, R. B. & Koch, C. A. Chromosome micromanipulation. 3. Spindle fiber tension and the reorientation of mal-oriented chromosomes. J. Cell Biol. 43, 40-50 (1969). Micromanipulation experiments in meiotic cells demonstrate that the physical appliance of tension can lead to a stabilization of attachment.
102. Hauf, S. et al. Aurora controls sister kinetochore mono-orientation and homolog bi-orientation in meiosis-I. EMBO J. 26, 4475-4486 (2007).
103. Kitajima, T. S., Ohsugi, M. & Ellenberg, J. Complete kinetochore tracking reveals error-prone homologous chromosome biorientation in mammalian oocytes. Cell 146, 568-581 (2011).
104. Lane, S. I., Chang, H. Y., Jennings, P. C. & Jones, K. T. The Aurora kinase inhibitor ZM447439 accelerates first meiosis in mouse oocytes by overriding the spindle assembly checkpoint. Reproduction 140, 521-530 (2010).
105. Shuda, K., Schindler, K., Ma, J., Schultz, R. M. & Donovan, P. J. Aurora kinase B modulates chromosome alignment in mouse oocytes. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 76, 1094-1105 (2009).
106. Sharif, B. et al. The chromosome passenger complex is required for fidelity of chromosome transmission and cytokinesis in meiosis of mouse oocytes. J. Cell Sci. 123, 4292-4300 (2010).
107. Yang, K. T. et al. Aurora-C kinase deficiency causes cytokinesis failure in meiosis I and production of large polyploid oocytes in mice. Mol. Biol. Cell 21, 2371-2383 (2010).
108. Sakuno, T., Tanaka, K., Hauf, S. & Watanabe, Y. Repositioning of Aurora B promoted by chiasmata ensures sister chromatid mono-orientation in meiosis I. Dev. Cell 21, 534-545 (2011). This study identifies a molecular mechanism that explains how chiasmata are more likely to cause the bi-orientation of bivalents than the bi-orientation of univalents at meiosis I.
109. Parra, M. T. et al. A perikinetochoric ring defined by MCAK and Aurora-B as a novel centromere domain. PLoS Genet. 2, e84 (2006).
110. Maguire, M. P. A possible role for the synaptonemal complex in chiasma maintenance. Exp. Cell Res. 112, 297-308 (1978).
111. LeMaire-Adkins, R., Radke, K. & Hunt, P. A. Lack of checkpoint control at the metaphase/anaphase transition: a mechanism of meiotic nondisjunction in mammalian females. J. Cell Biol. 139, 1611-1619 (1997).
112. Nagaoka, S. I., Hodges, C. A., Albertini, D. F. & Hunt, P. A. Oocyte-specific differences in cell-cycle control create an innate susceptibility to meiotic errors. Curr. Biol. 21, 651-657 (2011).
113. Hirose, Y. et al. Chiasmata promote monopolar attachment of sister chromatids and their co-segregation toward the proper pole during meiosis I. PLoS Genet. 7, e1001329 (2011).
114. Hassold, T. & Hunt, P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nature Rev. Genet. 2, 280-291 (2001).
115. Henderson, S. A. & Edwards, R. G. Chiasma frequency and maternal age in mammals. Nature 218, 22-28 (1968).
116. Angell, R. R., Xian, J., Keith, J., Ledger, W. & Baird, D. T. First meiotic division abnormalities in human oocytes: mechanism of trisomy formation. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 65, 194-202 (1994).
117. Revenkova, E. et al. Cohesin SMC1â is required for meiotic chromosome dynamics, sister chromatid cohesion and DNA recombination. Nature Cell Biol. 6, 555-562 (2004).
118. Hodges, C. A., Revenkova, E., Jessberger, R., Hassold, T. J. & Hunt, P. A. SMC1â-deficient female mice provide evidence that cohesins are a missing link in age-related nondisjunction. Nature Genet. 37, 1351-1355 (2005).
119. Leland, S. et al. Heterozygosity for a Bub1 mutation causes female-specific germ cell aneuploidy in mice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 12776-12781 (2009).
120. Chiang, T., Duncan, F. E., Schindler, K., Schultz, R. M. & Lampson, M. A. Evidence that weakened centromere cohesion is a leading cause of age-related aneuploidy in oocytes. Curr. Biol. 20, 1522-1528 (2010).
121. Lister, L. M. et al. Age-related meiotic segregation errors in mammalian oocytes are preceded by depletion of cohesin and Sgo2. Curr. Biol. 20, 1511-1521 (2010).
122. Revenkova, E., Herrmann, K., Adelfalk, C. & Jessberger, R. Oocyte cohesin expression restricted to predictyate stages provides full fertility and prevents aneuploidy. Curr. Biol. 20, 1529-1533 (2010).
123. Tachibana-Konwalski, K. et al. Rec8-containing cohesin maintains bivalents without turnover during the growing phase of mouse oocytes. Genes Dev. 24, 2505-2516 (2010).
124. Kouznetsova, A., Lister, L., Nordenskjold, M., Herbert, M. & Hoog, C. Bi-orientation of achiasmatic chromosomes in meiosis I oocytes contributes to aneuploidy in mice. Nature Genet. 39, 966-968 (2007). The first study to suggest that bi-orientated univalents evade the SAC, thus raising the risk of aneuploidy.
125. Loncarek, J. et al. The centromere geometry essential for keeping mitosis error free is controlled by spindle forces. Nature 450, 745-749 (2007).
126. Magidson, V. et al. The spatial arrangement of chromosomes during prometaphase facilitates spindle assembly. Cell 146, 555-567 (2011).
127. Barber, T. D. et al. Chromatid cohesion defects may underlie chromosome instability in human colorectal cancers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 3443-3448 (2008).
128. Solomon, D. A. et al. Mutational inactivation of STAG2 causes aneuploidy in human cancer. Science 333, 1039-1043 (2011).
129. Holland, A. J. & Cleveland, D. W. Boveri revisited: chromosomal instability, aneuploidy and tumorigenesis. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 478-487 (2009).
130. Kiburz, B. M., Amon, A. & Marston, A. L. Shugoshin promotes sister kinetochore biorientation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Biol. Cell 19, 1199-1209 (2008).
131. Tang, Z., Sun, Y., Harley, S. E., Zou, H. & Yu, H. Human Bub1 protects centromeric sister-chromatid cohesion through Shugoshin during mitosis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 18012-18017 (2004).
132. Boyarchuk, Y., Salic, A., Dasso, M. & Arnaoutov, A. Bub1 is essential for assembly of the functional inner centromere. J. Cell Biol. 176, 919-928 (2007).
133. Yamagishi, Y., Sakuno, T., Shimura, M. & Watanabe, Y. Heterochromatin links to centromeric protection by recruiting shugoshin. Nature 455, 251-255 (2008).
134. Kiburz, B. M. et al. The core centromere and Sgo1 establish a 50-kb cohesin-protected domain around centromeres during meiosis I. Genes Dev. 19, 3017-3030 (2005).
135. Lampert, F. & Westermann, S. A blueprint for kinetochores - new insights into the molecular mechanics of cell division. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 12, 407-412 (2011).