Dynamic bonds and polar ejection force distribution explain kinetochore oscillations in PtK1 cells

Journal of Cell Biology

Volumn 201, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 577-593

  Civelekoglu Scholey, Gul ^a   He, Bin ^b   Shen, Muyao ^b   Wan, Xiaohu ^c   Roscioli, Emanuele ^b   Bowden, Brent ^b   Cimini, Daniela ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DYNEIN ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATASE; NDC80 COMPLEX;

ANIMAL CELL; ARTICLE; CELL FUNCTION; CELL INTERACTION; CELL LINE; CENTROMERE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEPOLYMERIZATION; DROSOPHILA; EMBRYO; METAPHASE CHROMOSOME; NONHUMAN; OSCILLATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PTK1 CELL; STEADY STATE;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; CELL LINE; CHROMOSOMES; ELASTICITY; HEK293 CELLS; HUMANS; KINETICS; KINETOCHORES; MICROTUBULES; MITOSIS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NUCLEAR PROTEINS; POTOROIDAE; SPINDLE APPARATUS;

EID: 84878617999     PISSN: 00219525     EISSN: 15408140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1083/jcb.201301022     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Akiyoshi, B., K.K. Sarangapani, A.F. Powers, C.R. Nelson, S.L. Reichow, H. Arellano-Santoyo, T. Gonen, J.A. Ranish, C.L. Asbury, and S. Biggins. 2010. Tension directly stabilizes reconstituted kinetochoremicrotubule attachments. Nature. 468:576-579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ nature09594
2. Asbury, C.L., J.F. Tien, and T.N. Davis. 2011. Kinetochores' gripping feat: conformational wave or biased diffusion? Trends Cell Biol. 21:38-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2010.09.003
3. Bader, J.R., and K.T. Vaughan. 2010. Dynein at the kinetochore: timing, interactions and functions. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 21:269-275. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.12.015
4. Brust-Mascher, I., and J.M. Scholey. 2002. Microtubule flux and sliding in mitotic spindles of Drosophila embryos. Mol. Biol. Cell. 13:3967-3975. http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.02-05-0069
5. Cameron, L.A., G. Yang, D. Cimini, J.C. Canman, O. Kisurina-Evgenieva, A. Khodjakov, G. Danuser, and E.D. Salmon. 2006. Kinesin 5-independent poleward flux of kinetochore microtubules in PtK1 cells. J. Cell Biol. 173:173-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200601075
6. Cheeseman, I.M., and A. Desai. 2008. Molecular architecture of the kinetochoremicrotubule interface. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 9:33-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm2310
7. Cheeseman, I.M., J.S. Chappie, E.M. Wilson-Kubalek, and A. Desai. 2006. The conserved KMN network constitutes the core microtubule-binding site of the kinetochore. Cell. 127:983-997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.09.039
8. Cimini, D. 2008. Merotelic kinetochore orientation, aneuploidy, and cancer. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1786:32-40.
9. Cimini, D., L.A. Cameron, and E.D. Salmon. 2004. Anaphase spindle mechanics prevent mis-segregation of merotelically oriented chromosomes. Curr. Biol. 14:2149-2155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.11.029
10. Cimini, D., X. Wan, C.B. Hirel, and E.D. Salmon. 2006. Aurora kinase promotes turnover of kinetochore microtubules to reduce chromosome segregation errors. Curr. Biol. 16:1711-1718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.022
11. Civelekoglu-Scholey, G., D.J. Sharp, A. Mogilner, and J.M. Scholey. 2006. Model of chromosome motility in Drosophila embryos: adaptation of a general mechanism for rapid mitosis. Biophys. J. 90:3966-3982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.105.078691
12. Coppin, C.M., D.W. Pierce, L. Hsu, and R.D. Vale. 1997. The load dependence of kinesin's mechanical cycle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 94:8539-8544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8539
13. Courtheoux, T., G. Gay, Y. Gachet, and S. Tournier. 2009. Ase1/Prc1-dependent spindle elongation corrects merotely during anaphase in fission yeast. J. Cell Biol. 187:399-412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200902093
14. de Lartigue, J., I. Brust-Mascher, and J.M. Scholey. 2011. Anaphase B spindle dynamics in Drosophila S2 cells: Comparison with embryo spindles. Cell Div. 6:8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1747-1028-6-8
15. DeLuca, J.G., W.E. Gall, C. Ciferri, D. Cimini, A. Musacchio, and E.D. Salmon. 2006. Kinetochore microtubule dynamics and attachment stability are regulated by Hec1. Cell. 127:969-982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.09.047
16. Dembo, M., D.C. Torney, K. Saxman, and D. Hammer. 1988. The reactionlimited kinetics of membrane-to-surface adhesion and detachment. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 234:55-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1988.0038
17. Desai, A., P.S. Maddox, T.J. Mitchison, and E.D. Salmon. 1998. Anaphase A chromosome movement and poleward spindle microtubule flux occur at similar rates in Xenopus extract spindles. J. Cell Biol. 141:703-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.141.3.703
18. Dumont, S., E.D. Salmon, and T.J. Mitchison. 2012. Deformations within moving kinetochores reveal different sites of active and passive force generation. Science. 337:355-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1221886
19. Evans, E. 2001. Probing the relation between force-lifetime-and chemistry in single molecular bonds. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 30:105-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biophys.30.1.105
20. Funabiki, H., I. Hagan, S. Uzawa, and M. Yanagida. 1993. Cell cycle-dependent specific positioning and clustering of centromeres and telomeres in fission yeast. J. Cell Biol. 121:961-976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.121.5.961
21. Ganem, N.J., and D.A. Compton. 2006. Functional roles of poleward microtubule flux during mitosis. Cell Cycle. 5:481-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/cc.5.5.2519
22. Ganem, N.J., K. Upton, and D.A. Compton. 2005. Efficient mitosis in human cells lacking poleward microtubule flux. Curr. Biol. 15:1827-1832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.08.065
23. Gardner, M.K., and D.J. Odde. 2006. Modeling of chromosome motility during mitosis. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 18:639-647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2006.10.006
24. Gay, G., T. Courtheoux, C. Reyes, S. Tournier, and Y. Gachet. 2012. A stochastic model of kinetochore-microtubule attachment accurately describes fission yeast chromosome segregation. J. Cell Biol. 196:757-774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201107124
25. Grishchuk, E.L., M.I. Molodtsov, F.I. Ataullakhanov, and J.R. McIntosh. 2005. Force production by disassembling microtubules. Nature. 438:384-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04132
26. Hill, T.L. 1985. Theoretical problems related to the attachment of microtubules to kinetochores. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 82:4404-4408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.82.13.4404
27. Hoffman, D.B., C.G. Pearson, T.J. Yen, B.J. Howell, and E.D. Salmon. 2001. Microtubule-dependent changes in assembly of microtubule motor proteins and mitotic spindle checkpoint proteins at PtK1 kinetochores. Mol. Biol. Cell. 12:1995-2009.
28. Howard, J. 2001. Mechanics of motor proteins and the cytoskeleton. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 367 pp.
29. Janson, M.E., M.E. de Dood, and M. Dogterom. 2003. Dynamic instability of microtubules is regulated by force. J. Cell Biol. 161:1029-1034. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200301147
30. Jaqaman, K., E.M. King, A.C. Amaro, J.R. Winter, J.F. Dorn, H.L. Elliott, N. McHedlishvili, S.E. McClelland, I.M. Porter, M. Posch, et al. 2010. Kinetochore alignment within the metaphase plate is regulated by centromere stiffness and microtubule depolymerases. J. Cell Biol. 188:665-679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200909005
31. Joglekar, A.P., and J.G. DeLuca. 2009. Chromosome segregation: Ndc80 can carry the load. Curr. Biol. 19:R404-R407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.04.014
32. Joglekar, A.P., and A.J. Hunt. 2002. A simple, mechanistic model for directional instability during mitotic chromosome movements. Biophys. J. 83:42-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(02)75148-5
33. Ke, K., J. Cheng, and A.J. Hunt. 2009. The distribution of polar ejection forces determines the amplitude of chromosome directional instability. Curr. Biol. 19:807-815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.04.036
34. LaFountain, J.R. Jr., R. Oldenbourg, R.W. Cole, and C.L. Rieder. 2001. Microtubule flux mediates poleward motion of acentric chromosome fragments during meiosis in insect spermatocytes. Mol. Biol. Cell. 12:4054-4065.
35. Maddox, P., A. Desai, K. Oegema, T.J. Mitchison, and E.D. Salmon. 2002. Poleward microtubule flux is a major component of spindle dynamics and anaphase a in mitotic Drosophila embryos. Curr. Biol. 12:1670-1674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(02)01183-1
36. Maddox, P., A. Straight, P. Coughlin, T.J. Mitchison, and E.D. Salmon. 2003. Direct observation of microtubule dynamics at kinetochores in Xenopus extract spindles: implications for spindle mechanics. J. Cell Biol. 162:377-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200301088
37. Magidson, V., C.B. O'Connell, J. Loncarek, R. Paul, A. Mogilner, and A. Khodjakov. 2011. The spatial arrangement of chromosomes during prometaphase facilitates spindle assembly. Cell. 146:555-567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.07.012
38. Maiato, H., J. DeLuca, E.D. Salmon, and W.C. Earnshaw. 2004. The dynamic kinetochore-microtubule interface. J. Cell Sci. 117:5461-5477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jcs.01536
39. Maresca, T.J., and E.D. Salmon. 2009. Intrakinetochore stretch is associated with changes in kinetochore phosphorylation and spindle assembly checkpoint activity. J. Cell Biol. 184:373-381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200808130
40. McIntosh, J.R., E.L. Grishchuk, and R.R. West. 2002. Chromosome-microtubule interactions during mitosis. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 18:193-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.18.032002.132412
41. McIntosh, J.R., E.L. Grishchuk, M.K. Morphew, A.K. Efremov, K. Zhudenkov, V.A. Volkov, I.M. Cheeseman, A. Desai, D.N. Mastronarde, and F.I. Ataullakhanov. 2008. Fibrils connect microtubule tips with kinetochores: a mechanism to couple tubulin dynamics to chromosome motion. Cell. 135:322-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.08.038
42. Mitchison, T.J. 1989. Polewards microtubule flux in the mitotic spindle: evidence from photoactivation of fluorescence. J. Cell Biol. 109:637-652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.109.2.637
43. Mitchison, T., and M. Kirschner. 1984. Dynamic instability of microtubule growth. Nature. 312:237-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/312237a0
44. Pearson, C.G., P.S. Maddox, E.D. Salmon, and K. Bloom. 2001. Budding yeast chromosome structure and dynamics during mitosis. J. Cell Biol., 152:1255-1266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.152.6.1255
45. Powers, A.F., A.D. Franck, D.R. Gestaut, J. Cooper, B. Gracyzk, R.R. Wei, L. Wordeman, T.N. Davis, and C.L. Asbury. 2009. The Ndc80 kinetochore complex forms load-bearing attachments to dynamic microtubule tips via biased diffusion. Cell. 136:865-875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.12.045
46. Rieder, C.L., and R. Hard. 1990. Newt lung epithelial cells: cultivation, use, and advantages for biomedical research. Int. Rev. Cytol. 122:153-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0074-7696(08)61208-5
47. Rogers, G.C., S.L. Rogers, T.A. Schwimmer, S.C. Ems-McClung, C.E. Walczak, R.D. Vale, J.M. Scholey, and D.J. Sharp. 2004. Two mitotic kinesins cooperate to drive sister chromatid separation during anaphase. Nature. 427:364-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02256
48. Salic, A., J.C. Waters, and T.J. Mitchison. 2004. Vertebrate shugoshin links sister centromere cohesion and kinetochore microtubule stability in mitosis. Cell. 118:567-578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2004.08.016
49. Skibbens, R.V., V.P. Skeen, and E.D. Salmon. 1993. Directional instability of kinetochore motility during chromosome congression and segregation in mitotic newt lung cells: a push-pull mechanism. J. Cell Biol. 122:859-875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.122.4.859
50. Sprague, B.L., C.G. Pearson, P.S. Maddox, K.S. Bloom, E.D. Salmon, and D.J. Odde. 2003. Mechanisms of microtubule-based kinetochore positioning in the yeast metaphase spindle. Biophys. J. 84:3529-3546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(03)75087-5
51. Stumpff, J., Y. Du, C.A. English, Z. Maliga, M. Wagenbach, C.L. Asbury, L. Wordeman, and R. Ohi. 2011. A tethering mechanism controls the processivity and kinetochore-microtubule plus-end enrichment of the kinesin-8 Kif18A. Mol. Cell. 43:764-775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2011.07.022
52. Stumpff, J., M. Wagenbach, A. Franck, C.L. Asbury, and L. Wordeman. 2012. Kif18A and chromokinesins confine centromere movements via microtubule growth suppression and spatial control of kinetochore tension. Dev. Cell. 22:1017-1029. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2012.02.013
53. Svoboda, K., and S.M. Block. 1994. Force and velocity measured for single kinesin molecules. Cell. 77:773-784. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(94)90060-4
54. Toba, S., T.M. Watanabe, L. Yamaguchi-Okimoto, Y.Y. Toyoshima, and H. Higuchi. 2006. Overlapping hand-over-hand mechanism of single molecular motility of cytoplasmic dynein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 103: 5741-5745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508511103
55. Torosantucci, L., M. De Santis Puzzonia, C. Cenciarelli, W. Rens, and F. Degrassi. 2009. Aneuploidy in mitosis of PtK1 cells is generated by random loss and nondisjunction of individual chromosomes. J. Cell Sci. 122:3455-3461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jcs.047944
56. Uchida, K.S., K. Takagaki, K. Kumada, Y. Hirayama, T. Noda, and T. Hirota. 2009. Kinetochore stretching inactivates the spindle assembly checkpoint. J. Cell Biol. 184:383-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200811028
57. Valentine, M.T., P.M. Fordyce, T.C. Krzysiak, S.P. Gilbert, and S.M. Block. 2006. Individual dimers of the mitotic kinesin motor Eg5 step processively and support substantial loads in vitro. Nat. Cell Biol. 8:470-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncb1394
58. VandenBeldt, K.J., R.M. Barnard, P.J. Hergert, X. Meng, H. Maiato, and B.F. McEwen. 2006. Kinetochores use a novel mechanism for coordinating the dynamics of individual microtubules. Curr. Biol. 16:1217-1223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.04.046
59. Varga, V., J. Helenius, K. Tanaka, A.A. Hyman, T.U. Tanaka, and J. Howard. 2006. Yeast kinesin-8 depolymerizes microtubules in a lengthdependent manner. Nat. Cell Biol. 8:957-962. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncb1462
60. Varga, V., C. Leduc, V. Bormuth, S. Diez, and J. Howard. 2009. Kinesin-8 motors act cooperatively to mediate length-dependent microtubule depolymerization. Cell. 138:1174-1183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.07.032
61. Verde, F., M. Dogterom, E. Stelzer, E. Karsenti, and S. Leibler. 1992. Control of microtubule dynamics and length by cyclin A-and cyclin B-dependent kinases in Xenopus egg extracts. J. Cell Biol. 118:1097-1108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.118.5.1097
62. Vladimirou, E., E. Harry, N. Burroughs, and A.D. McAinsh. 2011. Springs, clutches and motors: driving forward kinetochore mechanism by modelling. Chromosome Res. 19:409-421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10577-011-9191-x
63. Wan, X., D. Cimini, L.A. Cameron, and E.D. Salmon. 2012. The coupling between sister kinetochore directional instability and oscillations in centromere stretch in metaphase PtK1 cells. Mol. Biol. Cell. 23:1035-1046. http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E11-09-0767
64. Yadav, V., and S. Mukherji. 2011. Length-dependent dynamics of microtubules. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 84:062902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.84.062902