4.6 Article

p190RhoGAP negatively regulates Rho activity at the cleavage furrow of mitotic cells

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL CELL RESEARCH
Volume 315, Issue 8, Pages 1347-1359

Publisher

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2009.02.014

Keywords

p190RhoGAP; Rho; Mitosis; Cytokinesis; Cleavage furrow; ECT2; FRET

Funding

  1. NCI [CA39438]
  2. Cell Migration Consortium [GM64346]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies demonstrated that p190RhoGAP (p190) negatively affects cytokinesis in a RhoGAP-dependent manner, suggesting that regulation of Rho may be a critical mechanism of p190 action during cytokinesis. P190 localizes to the cleavage furrow (CF) of dividing cells, and its levels decrease during late mitosis by an ubiquitin-mediated mechanism, consistent with the hypothesis that high RhoGTP levels are required for completion of cytokinesis. To determine whether RhoGTP levels in the CF are affected by p190 and to define the phase(s) of cytokinesis in which p-190 is involved, we used FRET analysis alone or in combination with time-lapse microscopy. In normal cell division activated Rho accumulated at the cell equator in early anaphase and in the contractile ring, where it co-localized with p190. Real-time movies revealed that cells expressing elevated levels of p190 exhibited multiple cycles of abnormal CF site selection and ingression/regression, which resulted in failed or prolonged cytokinesis. This was accompanied by mislocalization of active Rho at the aberrant CF sites. Quantified data revealed that in contrast to ECT2 and dominate negative p190 (Y1283Ap190), which resulted in hyper-activated Rho, Rho activity in the CF was reduced by wild type p190 in a dose-dependent manner. These results suggest that p190 regulates cytokinesis through modulation of RhoGTP levels, thereby affecting CF specification site selection and subsequent ring contraction. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available