Joined at the hip: Kinetochores, microtubules, and spindle assembly checkpoint signaling

Trends in Cell Biology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 21-28

  Sacristan, Carlos ^a   Kops, Geert J P L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Aneuploidy; Checkpoint; Kinetochore; Microtubule; Spindle

Indexed keywords

NDC80 COMPLEX; PROTEIN MAD2; CELL CYCLE PROTEIN; MICROTUBULE ASSOCIATED PROTEIN;

ANAPHASE; CELL DIVISION; CENTROMERE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; KINETOCHORE MICROTUBULE; M PHASE CELL CYCLE CHECKPOINT; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PROTEIN LOCALIZATION; REVIEW; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; ANIMAL; CHROMOSOME SEGREGATION; MICROTUBULE; PHYSIOLOGY;

ANIMALS; CELL CYCLE PROTEINS; CHROMOSOME SEGREGATION; HUMANS; KINETOCHORES; M PHASE CELL CYCLE CHECKPOINTS; MAD2 PROTEINS; MICROTUBULE-ASSOCIATED PROTEINS; MICROTUBULES; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION;

EID: 84918558075     PISSN: 09628924     EISSN: 18793088     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcb.2014.08.006     Document Type: Review

References (109)

1. Carmena M., et al. The chromosomal passenger complex (CPC): from easy rider to the godfather of mitosis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2012, 13:789-803.
2. Pines J. Cubism and the cell cycle: the many faces of the APC/C. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2011, 12:427-438.
3. Kemmler S., et al. Mimicking Ndc80 phosphorylation triggers spindle assembly checkpoint signalling. EMBO J. 2009, 28:1099-1110.
4. Nijenhuis W., et al. A TPR domain-containing N-terminal module of MPS1 is required for its kinetochore localization by Aurora B. J. Cell Biol. 2013, 201:217-231.
5. Murray A.W. A brief history of error. Nat. Cell Biol. 2011, 13:1178-1182.
6. Vleugel M., et al. Evolution and function of the mitotic checkpoint. Dev. Cell 2012, 23:239-250.
7. Foley E.A., Kapoor T.M. Microtubule attachment and spindle assembly checkpoint signalling at the kinetochore. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2013, 14:25-37.
8. Musacchio A. Spindle assembly checkpoint: the third decade. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 2011, 366:3595-3604.
9. Lara-Gonzalez P., et al. The spindle assembly checkpoint. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22:R966-R980.
10. Mansfeld J., et al. APC15 drives the turnover of MCC-CDC20 to make the spindle assembly checkpoint responsive to kinetochore attachment. Nat. Cell Biol. 2011, 13:1234-1243.
11. Varetti G., et al. Homeostatic control of mitotic arrest. Mol. Cell 2011, 44:710-720.
12. Foster S.A., Morgan D.O. The APC/C subunit Mnd2/Apc15 promotes Cdc20 autoubiquitination and spindle assembly checkpoint inactivation. Mol. Cell 2012, 47:921-932.
13. Uzunova K., et al. APC15 mediates CDC20 autoubiquitylation by APC/CMCC and disassembly of the mitotic checkpoint complex. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2012, 19:1116-1123.
14. Hein J.B., Nilsson J. Stable MCC binding to the APC/C is required for a functional spindle assembly checkpoint. EMBO Rep. 2014, 15:264-272.
15. Burton J.L., Solomon M.J. Mad3p, a pseudosubstrate inhibitor of APCCdc20 in the spindle assembly checkpoint. Genes Dev. 2007, 21:655-667.
16. Sczaniecka M., et al. The spindle checkpoint functions of Mad3 and Mad2 depend on a Mad3 KEN box-mediated interaction with Cdc20-anaphase-promoting complex (APC/C). J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283:23039-23047.
17. Chao W.C.H., et al. Structure of the mitotic checkpoint complex. Nature 2012, 484:208-213.
18. Herzog F., et al. Structure of the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome interacting with a mitotic checkpoint complex. Science 2009, 323:1477-1481.
19. Izawa D., Pines J. Mad2 and the APC/C compete for the same site on Cdc20 to ensure proper chromosome segregation. J. Cell Biol. 2012, 199:27-37.
20. Lau D.T.C., Murray A.W. Mad2 and Mad3 cooperate to arrest budding yeast in mitosis. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22:180-190.
21. Han J.S., et al. Catalytic assembly of the mitotic checkpoint inhibitor BubR1-Cdc20 by a Mad2-induced functional switch in Cdc20. Mol. Cell 2013, 51:92-104.
22. Kulukian A., et al. Unattached kinetochores catalyze production of an anaphase inhibitor that requires a Mad2 template to prime Cdc20 for BubR1 binding. Dev. Cell 2009, 16:105-117.
23. Nilsson J., et al. The APC/C maintains the spindle assembly checkpoint by targeting Cdc20 for destruction. Nat. Cell Biol. 2008, 10:1411-1420.
24. comet-mediated extraction of Mad2 from the MCC promotes efficient mitotic exit. J. Cell Sci. 2011, 124:3905-3916.
25. Skinner J.J., et al. The Mad2 partial unfolding model: regulating mitosis through Mad2 conformational switching. J. Cell Biol. 2008, 183:761-768.
26. Luo X., et al. The Mad2 spindle checkpoint protein has two distinct natively folded states. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2004, 11:338-345.
27. Sironi L., 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.
28. De Antoni A., et al. The Mad1/Mad2 complex as a template for Mad2 activation in the spindle assembly checkpoint. Curr. Biol. 2005, 15:214-225.
29. Clute P., Pines J. Temporal and spatial control of cyclin B1 destruction in metaphase. Nat. Cell Biol. 1999, 1:82-87.
30. Dick A.E., Gerlich D.W. Kinetic framework of spindle assembly checkpoint signalling. Nat. Cell Biol. 2013, 15:1370-1377.
31. Kamenz J., Hauf S. Slow checkpoint activation kinetics as a safety device in anaphase. Curr. Biol. 2014, 24:646-651.
32. Heinrich S., et al. Mad1 contribution to spindle assembly checkpoint signalling goes beyond presenting Mad2 at kinetochores. EMBO Rep. 2014, 15:291-298.
33. Kruse T., et al. A direct role of Mad1 in the spindle assembly checkpoint beyond Mad2 kinetochore recruitment. EMBO Rep. 2014, 15:282-290.
34. Ballister E.R., et al. Recruitment of Mad1 to metaphase kinetochores is sufficient to reactivate the mitotic checkpoint. J. Cell Biol. 2014, 204:901-908.
35. London N., Biggins S. Mad1 kinetochore recruitment by Mps1-mediated phosphorylation of Bub1 signals the spindle checkpoint. Genes Dev. 2014, 28:140-152.
36. Moyle M.W., et al. A Bub1-Mad1 interaction targets the Mad1-Mad2 complex to unattached kinetochores to initiate the spindle checkpoint. J. Cell Biol. 2014, 204:647-657.
37. Klebig C., et al. Bub1 regulates chromosome segregation in a kinetochore-independent manner. J. Cell Biol. 2009, 185:841-858.
38. Kim S., et al. Structure of human Mad1 C-terminal domain reveals its involvement in kinetochore targeting. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:6549-6554.
39. Karess R. Rod-Zw10-Zwilch: a key player in the spindle checkpoint. Trends Cell Biol. 2005, 15:386-392.
40. Martin-Lluesma S., et al. Role of Hec1 in spindle checkpoint signaling and kinetochore recruitment of Mad1/Mad2. Science 2002, 297:2267-2270.
41. McCleland M.L., et al. The highly conserved Ndc80 complex is required for kinetochore assembly, chromosome congression, and spindle checkpoint activity. Genes Dev. 2003, 17:101-114.
42. Caldas G.V., DeLuca J.G. KNL1: bringing order to the kinetochore. Chromosoma 2014, 123:169-181.
43. Kiyomitsu T., et al. Protein interaction domain mapping of human kinetochore protein Blinkin reveals a consensus motif for binding of spindle assembly checkpoint proteins Bub1 and BubR1. Mol. Cell Biol. 2011, 31:998-1011.
44. Petrovic A., et al. Modular assembly of RWD domains on the Mis12 complex underlies outer kinetochore organization. Mol. Cell 2014, 53:591-605.
45. Shepperd L.A., et al. Phosphodependent recruitment of Bub1 and Bub3 to Spc7/KNL1 by Mph1 kinase maintains the spindle checkpoint. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22:891-899.
46. Yamagishi Y., et al. MPS1/Mph1 phosphorylates the kinetochore protein KNL1/Spc7 to recruit SAC components. Nat. Cell Biol. 2012, 14:746-752.
47. London N., et al. Phosphoregulation of Spc105 by Mps1 and PP1 regulates Bub1 localization to kinetochores. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22:900-906.
48. Vleugel M., et al. Arrayed BUB recruitment modules in the kinetochore scaffold KNL1 promote accurate chromosome segregation. J. Cell Biol. 2013, 203:943-955.
49. Krenn V., et al. KI motifs of human Knl1 enhance assembly of comprehensive spindle checkpoint complexes around MELT repeats. Curr. Biol. 2014, 24:29-39.
50. Zhang G., et al. A minimal number of MELT repeats supports all the functions of KNL1 in chromosome segregation. J. Cell Sci. 2014, 127:871-884.
51. Primorac I., et al. Bub3 reads phosphorylated MELT repeats to promote spindle assembly checkpoint signaling. Elife 2013, 2:e01030.
52. Elowe S. Bub1 and BubR1: at the interface between chromosome attachment and the spindle checkpoint. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2011, 31:3085-3093.
53. Perera D., et al. Bub1 maintains centromeric cohesion by activation of the spindle checkpoint. Dev. Cell 2007, 13:566-579.
54. Logarinho E., et al. The human spindle assembly checkpoint protein Bub3 is required for the establishment of efficient kinetochore-microtubule attachments. Mol. Biol. Cell 2008, 19:1798-1813.
55. Jiang H., et al. A microtubule-associated zinc finger protein, BuGZ, regulates mitotic chromosome alignment by ensuring Bub3 stability and kinetochore targeting. Dev. Cell 2014, 28:268-281.
56. Toledo C.M., et al. BuGZ is required for Bub3 stability, Bub1 kinetochore function, and chromosome alignment. Dev. Cell 2014, 28:282-294.
57. Bolanos-Garcia V.M., et al. Structure of a Blinkin-BUBR1 complex reveals an interaction crucial for kinetochore-mitotic checkpoint regulation via an unanticipated binding site. Structure 2011, 19:1691-1700.
58. Krenn V., et al. Structural analysis reveals features of the spindle checkpoint kinase Bub1-kinetochore subunit Knl1 interaction. J. Cell Biol. 2012, 196:451-467.
59. Kang J., et al. Autophosphorylation-dependent activation of human Mps1 is required for the spindle checkpoint. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104:20232-20237.
60. Mattison C.P., et al. Mps1 activation loop autophosphorylation enhances kinase activity. J. Biol. Chem. 2007, 282:30553-30561.
61. Howell B.J., et al. Spindle checkpoint protein dynamics at kinetochores in living cells. Curr. Biol. 2004, 14:953-964.
62. Jelluma N., et al. Release of Mps1 from kinetochores is crucial for timely anaphase onset. J. Cell Biol. 2010, 191:281-290.
63. Saurin A.T., et al. Aurora B potentiates Mps1 activation to ensure rapid checkpoint establishment at the onset of mitosis. Nat. Commun. 2011, 2:316.
64. Santaguida S., et al. Evidence that Aurora B is implicated in spindle checkpoint signalling independently of error correction. EMBO J. 2011, 30:1508-1519.
65. Cheerambathur D.K., et al. Crosstalk between microtubule attachment complexes ensures accurate chromosome segregation. Science 2013, 342:1239-1242.
66. DeLuca K.F., et al. Temporal changes in Hec1 phosphorylation control kinetochore-microtubule attachment stability during mitosis. J. Cell Sci. 2011, 124:622-634.
67. Guimaraes G.J., et al. Kinetochore-microtubule attachment relies on the disordered N-terminal tail domain of Hec1. Curr. Biol. 2008, 18:1778-1784.
68. Zhu T., et al. Phosphorylation of microtubule-binding protein Hec1 by mitotic kinase Aurora B specifies spindle checkpoint kinase Mps1 signaling at the kinetochore. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288:36149-36159.
69. Zhao Y., Chen R-H. Mps1 phosphorylation by MAP kinase is required for kinetochore localization of spindle-checkpoint proteins. Curr. Biol. 2006, 16:1764-1769.
70. Yeh C-W., et al. Phosphorylation at threonine 288 by cell cycle checkpoint kinase 2 (CHK2) Controls human monopolar spindle 1 (Mps1) kinetochore localization. J. Biol. Chem. 2014, 289:15319-15327.
71. Heinrich S., et al. Mph1 kinetochore localization is crucial and upstream in the hierarchy of spindle assembly checkpoint protein recruitment to kinetochores. J. Cell Sci. 2012, 125:4720-4727.
72. Ito D., et al. Centromere-tethered Mps1 pombe homolog (Mph1) kinase is a sufficient marker for recruitment of the spindle checkpoint protein Bub1, but not Mad1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:209-214.
73. Rieder C.L., 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.
74. Collin P., et al. The spindle assembly checkpoint works like a rheostat rather than a toggle switch. Nat. Cell Biol. 2013, 15:1378-1385.
75. Heinrich S., et al. Determinants of robustness in spindle assembly checkpoint signalling. Nat. Cell Biol. 2013, 15:1328-1339.
76. Hübner N.C., et al. Re-examination of siRNA specificity questions role of PICH and Tao1 in the spindle checkpoint and identifies Mad2 as a sensitive target for small RNAs. Chromosoma 2010, 119:149-165.
77. Westhorpe F.G., et al. Re-evaluating the role of Tao1 in the spindle checkpoint. Chromosoma 2010, 119:371-379.
78. Pfau S.J., Amon A. Chromosomal instability and aneuploidy in cancer: from yeast to man. EMBO Rep. 2012, 13:515-527.
79. Maldonado M., Kapoor T.M. Constitutive Mad1 targeting to kinetochores uncouples checkpoint signalling from chromosome biorientation. Nat. Cell Biol. 2011, 13:475-482.
80. Kuijt T.E.F., et al. Conditional targeting of MAD1 to kinetochores is sufficient to reactivate the spindle assembly checkpoint in metaphase. Chromosoma 2014, 10.1007/s00412-014-0458-9.
81. Kops G.J.P.L., Shah J.V. Connecting up and clearing out: how kinetochore attachment silences the spindle assembly checkpoint. Chromosoma 2012, 121:509-525.
82. Gassmann R., et al. Removal of Spindly from microtubule-attached kinetochores controls spindle checkpoint silencing in human cells. Genes Dev. 2010, 24:957-971.
83. Barisic M., et al. Spindly/CCDC99 is required for efficient chromosome congression and mitotic checkpoint regulation. Mol. Biol. Cell 2010, 21:1968-1981.
84. Mao Y., et al. Activating and silencing the mitotic checkpoint through CENP-E-dependent activation/inactivation of BubR1. Cell 2003, 114:87-98.
85. Mao Y., et al. Microtubule capture by CENP-E silences BubR1-dependent mitotic checkpoint signaling. J. Cell Biol. 2005, 170:873-880.
86. Tanudji M., et al. Gene silencing of CENP-E by small interfering RNA in HeLa cells leads to missegregation of chromosomes after a mitotic delay. Mol. Biol. Cell 2004, 15:3771-3781.
87. Suijkerbuijk S.J.E., et al. The vertebrate mitotic checkpoint protein BUBR1 is an unusual pseudokinase. Dev. Cell 2012, 22:1321-1329.
88. Cheeseman I.M., et al. The conserved KMN network constitutes the core microtubule-binding site of the kinetochore. Cell 2006, 127:983-997.
89. Espeut J., et al. Microtubule binding by KNL-1 contributes to spindle checkpoint silencing at the kinetochore. J. Cell Biol. 2012, 196:469-482.
90. Liu D., et al. Regulated targeting of protein phosphatase 1 to the outer kinetochore by KNL1 opposes Aurora B kinase. J. Cell Biol. 2010, 188:809-820.
91. Vanoosthuyse V., Hardwick K.G. A novel protein phosphatase 1-dependent spindle checkpoint silencing mechanism. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19:1176-1181.
92. Meadows J.C., et al. Spindle checkpoint silencing requires association of PP1 to both Spc7 and kinesin-8 motors. Dev. Cell 2011, 20:739-750.
93. Pinsky B.A., et al. Protein phosphatase 1 regulates exit from the spindle checkpoint in budding yeast. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19:1182-1187.
94. Rosenberg J.S., et al. KNL1/Spc105 recruits PP1 to silence the spindle assembly checkpoint. Curr. Biol. 2011, 21:942-947.
95. Ohta S., et al. The protein composition of mitotic chromosomes determined using multiclassifier combinatorial proteomics. Cell 2010, 142:810-821.
96. Zaytsev A.V., et al. Accurate phosphoregulation of kinetochore-microtubule affinity requires unconstrained molecular interactions. J. Cell Biol. 2014, 206:45-59.
97. DeLuca J.G., Musacchio A. Structural organization of the kinetochore-microtubule interface. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2012, 24:48-56.
98. Foley E.A., et al. Formation of stable attachments between kinetochores and microtubules depends on the B56-PP2A phosphatase. Nat. Cell Biol. 2011, 13:1265-1271.
99. Nilsson J. Looping in on Ndc80 - how does a protein loop at the kinetochore control chromosome segregation?. Bioessays 2012, 34:1070-1077.
100. Watanabe Y. Temporal and spatial regulation of targeting Aurora B to the inner centromere. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 2010, 75:419-423.
101. Suijkerbuijk S.J.E., et al. Integration of kinase and phosphatase activities by BUBR1 ensures formation of stable kinetochore-microtubule attachments. Dev. Cell 2012, 23:745-755.
102. Kruse T., et al. Direct binding between BubR1 and B56-PP2A phosphatase complexes regulate mitotic progression. J. Cell Sci. 2013, 126:1086-1092.
103. Jelluma N., et al. Mps1 phosphorylates Borealin to control Aurora B activity and chromosome alignment. Cell 2008, 132:233-246.
104. van der Waal M.S., et al. Mps1 promotes rapid centromere accumulation of Aurora B. EMBO Rep. 2012, 13:847-854.
105. Rodriguez-Bravo V., et al. Nuclear pores protect genome integrity by assembling a premitotic and Mad1-dependent anaphase inhibitor. Cell 2014, 156:1017-1031.
106. Hewitt L., et al. Sustained Mps1 activity is required in mitosis to recruit O-Mad2 to the Mad1-C-Mad2 core complex. J. Cell Biol. 2010, 190:25-34.
107. Lince-Faria M., et al. Spatiotemporal control of mitosis by the conserved spindle matrix protein Megator. J. Cell Biol. 2009, 184:647-657.
108. Lee S.H., et al. Tpr directly binds to Mad1 and Mad2 and is important for the Mad1-Mad2-mediated mitotic spindle checkpoint. Genes Dev. 2008, 22:2926-2931.
109. Schweizer N., et al. Spindle assembly checkpoint robustness requires Tpr-mediated regulation of Mad1/Mad2 proteostasis. J. Cell Biol. 2013, 203:883-893.