4.7 Article

Spindle rotation in human cells is reliant on a MARK2-mediated equatorial spindle-centering mechanism

Journal

JOURNAL OF CELL BIOLOGY
Volume 217, Issue 9, Pages 3057-3070

Publisher

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1083/jcb.201804166

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK Career Development Award [C28598/A9787]
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/R01003X/1]
  3. Queen Mary University of London Laboratory startup grant
  4. Universiti Brunei Darussalam
  5. Queen Mary University of London
  6. London Interdisciplinary Bio-sciences Consortium Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/M009513/1]
  7. Islamic Development Bank PhD studentship
  8. BBSRC [BB/R01003X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The plane of cell division is defined by the final position of the mitotic spindle. The spindle is pulled and rotated to the correct position by cortical dynein. However, it is unclear how the spindle's rotational center is maintained and what the consequences of an equatorially off centered spindle are in human cells. We analyzed spindle movements in 100s of cells exposed to protein depletions or drug treatments and uncovered a novel role for MARK2 in maintaining the spindle at the cell's geometric center. Following MARK2 depletion, spindles glide along the cell cortex, leading to a failure in identifying the correct division plane. Surprisingly, spindle off centering in MARK2-depleted cells is not caused by excessive pull by dynein. We show that MARK2 modulates mitotic microtubule growth and length and that codepleting mitotic centromere-associated protein (MCAK), a microtubule destabilizer, rescues spindle off centering in MARK2-depleted cells. Thus, we provide the first insight into a spindle-centering mechanism needed for proper spindle rotation and, in turn, the correct division plane in human cells.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available