4.7 Article

Asymmetrical segregation of chromosomes with a normal metaphase/anaphase checkpoint in polyploid megakaryocytes

期刊

BLOOD
卷 97, 期 8, 页码 2238-2247

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V97.8.2238

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During differentiation, megakaryocytes increase ploidy through a process called endomitosis, whose mechanisms remain unknown. As it corresponds to abortive mitosis at anaphase and is associated with a multipolar spindle, investigation of chromosome segregation may help to better understand this cell-cycle abnormality. To examine this variation, a new method was developed to combine primed in situ labeling to label centromeres of one chromosome category and immunostaining of tubulin. Human megakaryocytes were obtained from normal bone marrow culture. By confocal microscopy, this study demonstrates an asymmetrical distribution of chromosomes (1 or 7) either between the spindle poles at anaphase stage of endomitosis and between the different lobes of interphase megakaryocyte nuclei. The metaphase/ anaphase checkpoint appears normal on the evidence that under nocodazole treatment megakaryocytes progressively accumulate in pseudo-metaphase, without spontaneous escape from this blockage. Immunostaining of p55CDC/hCDC20 with similar kinetochore localization and dynamics as during normal mitosis confirms this result. HCdh1 was also expressed in megakaryocytes, and its main target, cyclin B1, was normally degraded at anaphase, suggesting that the hCdh1-anaphase-promoting complex checkpoint was also functional. This study found the explanation for these unexpected results of an asymmetrical segregation coupled to normal checkpoints by careful analysis of multipolar endomitotic spindles: whereas each aster is connected to more than one other aster, one chromosome may segregate symmetrically between 2 spindle poles and still show asymmetrical segregation when the entire complex spindle is considered. (Blood, 2001;97: 2238-2247) (C) 2001 by The American Society of Hematology.

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

4.7
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