4.8 Article

The degradation of two mitotic cyclins contributes to the timing of cytokinesis

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 373-383

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00127-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM037193-18, R01 GM037193, R37 GM037193, GM37193, R01 GM037193-17] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cytokinesis occurs just as chromosomes complete segregation and reform nuclei. It has been proposed that cyclin/Cdk kinase inhibits cytokinesis until exit from mitosis; however, the timer of cytokinesis has not been experimentally defined. Whereas expression of a stable version of Drosophila cyclin B blocks cytokinesis along with numerous events of mitotic exit, stable cyclin B3 allows cytokinesis even though it blocks late events of mitotic exit [1]. We examined the interface between mitotic cyclin destruction and the timing of cytokinesis. Results: In embryonic mitosis 14, the cytokinesis furrow appeared 60 s after the metaphase/anaphase transition and closed 90 s later during telophase. In cyclin B or cyclin B3 mutant cells, the cytokinesis furrow appeared at an earlier stage of mitosis. Expression of stable cyclin B3 delayed and prolonged furrow invagination; nonetheless, cytokinesis completed during the extended mitosis. Reduced function of Pebble, a Rho GEF required for cytokinesis, also delayed and slowed furrow invagination, but incomplete furrows were aborted at the time of mitotic exit. In functional and genetic tests, cyclin B and cyclin B3 inhibited Pebble contributions to cytokinesis. Conclusions: Temporal coordination of mitotic events involves inhibition of cytokinesis by cyclin B and cyclin B3 and punctual relief of the inhibition by destruction of these cyclins. Both cyclins inhibit Pebble-dependent activation of cytokinesis, whereas cyclin B can inhibit cytokinesis by additional modes. Stable cyclin B3 also blocks the later return to interphase that otherwise appears to impose a deadline for the completion of cytokinesis.

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