4.8 Article

Investigating the Regulation of Stem and Progenitor Cell Mitotic Progression by In Situ Imaging

Journal

CURRENT BIOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 9, Pages 1123-1134

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.02.054

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CIHR [MOP-115171]
  2. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  3. Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genome stability relies upon efficacious chromosome congression and regulation by the spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC). The study of these fundamental mitotic processes in adult stem and progenitor cells has been limited by the technical challenge of imaging mitosis in these cells in situ. Notably, how broader physiological changes, such as dietary intake or age, affect mitotic progression in stem and/or progenitor cells is largely unknown. Using in situ imaging of C. elegans adult germlines, we describe the mitotic parameters of an adult stem and progenitor cell population in an intact animal. We find that SAC regulation in germline stem and progenitor cells is distinct from that found in early embryonic divisions and is more similar to that of classical tissue culture models. We further show that changes in organismal physiology affect mitotic progression in germline stem and progenitor cells. Reducing dietary intake produces a check-point-dependent delay in anaphase onset, and inducing dietary restriction when the checkpoint is impaired increases the incidence of segregation errors in mitotic and meiotic cells. Similarly, developmental aging of the germline stem and progenitor cell population correlates with a decline in the rate of several mitotic processes. These results provide the first in vivo validation of models for SAC regulation developed in tissue culture systems and demonstrate that several fundamental features of mitotic progression in adult stem and progenitor cells are highly sensitive to organismal physiological changes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available