4.8 Article

Kinetochore motors drive congression of peripheral polar chromosomes by overcoming random arm-ejection forces

期刊

NATURE CELL BIOLOGY
卷 16, 期 12, 页码 1249-U259

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ncb3060

关键词

-

资金

  1. FEDER through the Operational Competitiveness Programme-COMPETE
  2. National Funds through FCT-Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-015941, PTDC/SAUONC/112917/2009]
  3. Human Frontier Science Program
  4. 7th framework program grant PRECISE from the European Research Council
  5. [FWF DK W 1101]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate chromosome segregation during cell division in metazoans relies on proper chromosome congression at the equator. Chromosome congression is achieved after bi-orientation to both spindle poles shortly after nuclear envelope breakdown, or by the coordinated action of motor proteins that slide misaligned chromosomes along pre-existing spindle microtubules(1). These proteins include the minus-end-directed kinetochore motor dynein(2-5), and the plus-end-directed motors CENP-E at kinetochores(6,7) and chromokinesins on chromosome arms(8-11). However, how these opposite and spatially distinct activities are coordinated to drive chromosome congression remains unknown. Here we used RNAi, chemical inhibition, kinetochore tracking and laser microsurgery to uncover the functional hierarchy between kinetochore and arm-associated motors, exclusively required for congression of peripheral polar chromosomes in human cells. We show that dynein poleward force counteracts chromokinesins to prevent stabilization of immature/incorrect end-on kinetochore microtubule attachments and random ejection of polar chromosomes. At the poles, CENP-E becomes dominant over dynein and chromokinesins to bias chromosome ejection towards the equator. Thus, dynein and CENP-E at kinetochores drive congression of peripheral polar chromosomes by preventing arm-ejection forces mediated by chromokinesins from working in the wrong direction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据