Budding yeast mitotic chromosomes have an intrinsic bias to biorient on the spindle

BACKGROUND: Chromosomes must biorient on the mitotic spindle, with the two sisters attached to opposite spindle poles. The spindle checkpoint detects unattached chromosomes and monitors biorientation by detecting the lack of tension between two sisters attached to the same pole. After the spindle has been depolymerized and allowed to reform, budding yeast sgo1 mutants fail to biorient their sister chromatids and die as cells divide. RESULTS: In sgo1 mutants, chromosomes attach to microtubules normally but cannot reorient if both sisters attach to the same pole. The mutants' fate depends on the position of the spindle poles when the chromosomes attach to microtubules. If the poles have separated, sister chromatids biorient, but if the poles are still close, sister chromatids often attach to the same pole, missegregate, and cause cell death. CONCLUSIONS: These observations argue that budding yeast mitotic chromosomes have an intrinsic, geometric bias to biorient on the spindle. When the poles have already separated, attaching one kinetochore to one pole predisposes its sister to attach to the opposite pole, allowing the cells to segregate the chromosomes correctly. When the poles have not separated, the second kinetochore eventually attaches to either of the two poles randomly, causing orientation errors that are corrected in the wild-type but not in sgo1 mutants. In the absence of spindle damage, sgo1 cells divide successfully, suggesting that kinetochores only make stable attachments to microtubules after the cells have entered mitosis and separated their spindle poles.     

Lack of tension at kinetochores activates the spindle checkpoint in budding yeast

The spindle checkpoint delays the onset of anaphase until all pairs of sister chromatids are attached to the mitotic spindle. The checkpoint could monitor the attachment of microtubules to kinetochores, the tension that results from the two sister chromatids attaching to opposite spindle poles, or both. We tested the role of tension by allowing cells to enter mitosis without a prior round of DNA replication. The unreplicated chromatids are attached to spindle microtubules but are not under tension since they lack a sister chromatid that could attach to the opposite pole. Because the spindle checkpoint is activated in these cells, we conclude that the absence of tension at the yeast kinetochore is sufficient to activate the spindle checkpoint in mitosis.     

Micromanipulation of Chromosomes in Mitotic Vertebrate Tissue Cells: Tension Controls the State of Kinetochore Movement

In mitotic vertebrate tissue cells, chromosome congression to the spindle equator in prometaphase and segregation to the poles in anaphase depend on the movements of kinetochores at their kinetochore microtubule attachment sites. To test if kinetochores sense tension to control their states of movement poleward (P) and away from the pole (AP), we applied an external force to the spindle in preanaphase newt epithelial cells by stretching chromosome arms with microneedles. For monooriented chromosomes (only one kinetochore fiber), an abrupt stretch of an arm away from the attached pole induced the single attached kinetochore to persist in AP movement at about 2 μm/min velocity, resulting in chromosome movement away from the pole. When the stretch was reduced or the needle removed, the kinetochore switched to P movement at about 2 μm/min and pulled the chromosome back to near the premanipulation position within the spindle. For bioriented chromosomes (sister kinetochores attached to opposite poles) near the spindle equator, stretching one arm toward a pole placed the kinetochore facing away from the direction of stretch under tension and the sister facing toward the stretch under reduced tension or compression. Kinetochores under increased tension exhibited prolonged AP movement while kinetochores under reduced tension or compression exhibited prolonged P movement, moving the centromeres at about 2 μm/min velocities off the metaphase plate in the direction of stretch. Removing the needle resulted in centromere movement back to near the spindle equator at similar velocities. These results show that tension controls the direction of kinetochore movement and associated kinetochore microtubule assembly/disassembly to position centromeres within the spindle of vertebrate tissue cells. High tension induces persistent AP movement while low tension induces persistent P movement. The velocity of P and AP movement appears to be load independent and governed by the molecular mechanisms which attach kinetochores to the dynamic ends of kinetochore microtubules.     

Mitotic checkpoints and the maintenance of the chromosome karyotype

The goal of the mitotic cell division is the faithful transmission of chromosomes to the daughter cells. To fulfil a correct separation of sister chromatids, kinetochores of all chromosomes should be correctly attached to spindle microtubules of opposite poles and should all be under tension. These events are monitored by the spindle checkpoint, which delays mitotic progression allowing time for corrections when errors occur in the dynamic interactions between chromosomes and microtubules. The G(1) post-mitotic checkpoint constitutes an additional checkpoint preventing further proliferation of cells that have undergone massive spindle damage. This review concentrates on the key structural and protein components which are pivotal for an accurate segregation of chromosomes during anaphase: the chromosome scaffold, sister chromatid cohesion and segregation and the kinetochores in higher eukaryotes. Furthermore, recent advances in understanding spindle and G(1) post-mitotic checkpoint and how they prevent aneuploidization and polyploidization are presented. In a last part the impact of aneuploidy and polyploidy on human health and in particular on cancer development is highlighted.     

Anaphase onset in vertebrate somatic cells is controlled by a checkpoint that monitors sister kinetochore attachment to the spindle

To test the popular but unproven assumption that the metaphase-anaphase transition in vertebrate somatic cells is subject to a checkpoint that monitors chromosome (i.e., kinetochore) attachment to the spindle, we filmed mitosis in 126 PtK1 cells. We found that the time from nuclear envelope breakdown to anaphase onset is linearly related (r2 = 0.85) to the duration the cell has unattached kinetochores, and that even a single unattached kinetochore delays anaphase onset. We also found that anaphase is initiated at a relatively constant 23-min average interval after the last kinetochore attaches, regardless of how long the cell possessed unattached kinetochores. From these results we conclude that vertebrate somatic cells possess a metaphase-anaphase checkpoint control that monitors sister kinetochore attachment to the spindle. We also found that some cells treated with 0.3-0.75 nM Taxol, after the last kinetochore attached to the spindle, entered anaphase and completed normal poleward chromosome motion (anaphase A) up to 3 h after the treatment--well beyond the 9-48-min range exhibited by untreated cells. The fact that spindle bipolarity and the metaphase alignment of kinetochores are maintained in these cells, and that the chromosomes move poleward during anaphase, suggests that the checkpoint monitors more than just the attachment of microtubules at sister kinetochores or the metaphase alignment of chromosomes. Our data are most consistent with the hypothesis that the checkpoint monitors an increase in tension between kinetochores and their associated microtubules as biorientation occurs.     

Spindle checkpoint silencing: PP1 tips the balance

The spindle checkpoint is a mitotic surveillance mechanism that delays anaphase until all sister chromatids are correctly attached to microtubules from opposite poles. Recent studies reveal that protein kinase Aurora B is a key regulator of spindle checkpoint activation whereas protein phosphatase PP1 antagonizes Aurora B and induces checkpoint silencing. Chromosome biorientation stretches the kinetochores and spatially separates centromeric Aurora B from its kinetochore substrates, comprising several PP1-interacting proteins (PIPs). The ensuing dephosphorylation of these PIPs creates docking sites for the bulk recruitment of PP1 to the kinetochores. We propose that this tension-induced targeting of PP1 triggers checkpoint silencing by the dephosphorylation of kinetochore and checkpoint components, including Aurora B substrates. In addition, PP1 also directly inactivates a kinetochore-associated pool of Aurora B and silences checkpoint signaling by opposing the centromeric targeting of Aurora B.     

DNA loops generate intracentromere tension in mitosis

The centromere is the DNA locus that dictates kinetochore formation and is visibly apparent as heterochromatin that bridges sister kinetochores in metaphase. Sister centromeres are compacted and held together by cohesin, condensin, and topoisomerase-mediated entanglements until all sister chromosomes bi-orient along the spindle apparatus. The establishment of tension between sister chromatids is essential for quenching a checkpoint kinase signal generated from kinetochores lacking microtubule attachment or tension. How the centromere chromatin spring is organized and functions as a tensiometer is largely unexplored. We have discovered that centromere chromatin loops generate an extensional/poleward force sufficient to release nucleosomes proximal to the spindle axis. This study describes how the physical consequences of DNA looping directly underlie the biological mechanism for sister centromere separation and the spring-like properties of the centromere in mitosis.     

Loss of function of the Cik1/Kar3 motor complex results in chromosomes with syntelic attachment that are sensed by the tension checkpoint

The attachment of sister kinetochores by microtubules emanating from opposite spindle poles establishes chromosome bipolar attachment, which generates tension on chromosomes and is essential for sister-chromatid segregation. Syntelic attachment occurs when both sister kinetochores are attached by microtubules from the same spindle pole and this attachment is unable to generate tension on chromosomes, but a reliable method to induce syntelic attachments is not available in budding yeast. The spindle checkpoint can sense the lack of tension on chromosomes as well as detached kinetochores to prevent anaphase onset. In budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, tension checkpoint proteins Aurora/Ipl1 kinase and centromere-localized Sgo1 are required to sense the absence of tension but are dispensable for the checkpoint response to detached kinetochores. We have found that the loss of function of a motor protein complex Cik1/Kar3 in budding yeast leads to syntelic attachments. Inactivation of either the spindle or tension checkpoint enables premature anaphase entry in cells with dysfunctional Cik1/Kar3, resulting in co-segregation of sister chromatids. Moreover, the abolished Kar3-kinetochore interaction in cik1 mutants suggests that the Cik1/Kar3 complex mediates chromosome movement along microtubules, which could facilitate bipolar attachment. Therefore, we can induce syntelic attachments in budding yeast by inactivating the Cik1/Kar3 complex, and this approach will be very useful to study the checkpoint response to syntelic attachments.     

Geometry and force behind kinetochore orientation: lessons from meiosis

During mitosis, replicated chromosomes (sister chromatids) become attached at the kinetochore by spindle microtubules emanating from opposite poles and segregate equationally. In the first division of meiosis, however, sister chromatids become attached from the same pole and co-segregate, whereas homologous chromosomes connected by chiasmata segregate to opposite poles. Disorder in this specialized chromosome attachment in meiosis is the leading cause of miscarriage in humans. Recent studies have elucidated the molecular mechanisms determining chromosome orientation, and consequently segregation, in meiosis. Comparative studies of meiosis and mitosis have led to the general principle that kinetochore geometry and tension exerted by microtubules synergistically generate chromosome orientation.     

Merotelic kinetochore attachment: causes and effects

Accurate chromosome segregation depends on the proper attachment of sister kinetochores to microtubules emanating from opposite spindle poles. Merotelic kinetochore orientation is an error in which a single kinetochore is attached to microtubules emanating from both spindle poles. Despite correction mechanisms, merotelically attached kinetochores can persist until anaphase, causing chromatids to lag on the mitotic spindle and hindering their timely segregation. Recent studies showing that merotelic kinetochore attachment represents a major mechanism of aneuploidy in mitotic cells and is the primary mechanism of chromosomal instability in cancer cells have underlined the importance of studying merotely. Here, we highlight recent progress in our understanding of how cells prevent and correct merotelic kinetochore attachments.     

The 'anaphase problem': how to disable the mitotic checkpoint when sisters split

Two closely connected mechanisms safeguard the fidelity of chromosome segregation in eukaryotic cells. The mitotic checkpoint monitors the attachment of kinetochores to microtubules and delays anaphase onset until all sister kinetochores have become attached to opposite poles. In addition, an error correction mechanism destabilizes erroneous attachments that do not lead to tension at sister kinetochores. Aurora B kinase, the catalytic subunit of the CPC (chromosomal passenger complex), acts as a sensor and effector in both pathways. In this review we focus on a poorly understood but important aspect of mitotic control: what prevents the mitotic checkpoint from springing into action when sister centromeres are split and tension is suddenly lost at anaphase onset? Recent work has shown that disjunction of sister chromatids, in principle, engages the mitotic checkpoint, and probably also the error correction mechanism, with potentially catastrophic consequences for cell division. Eukaryotic cells have solved this 'anaphase problem' by disabling the mitotic checkpoint at the metaphase-to-anaphase transition. Checkpoint inactivation is in part due to the reversal of Cdk1 (cyclin-dependent kinase 1) phosphorylation of the CPC component INCENP (inner centromere protein; Sli15 in budding yeast), which causes the relocation of the CPC from centromeres to the spindle midzone. These findings highlight principles of mitotic checkpoint control: when bipolar chromosome attachment is reached in mitosis, the checkpoint is satisfied, but still active and responsive to loss of tension. Mitotic checkpoint inactivation at anaphase onset is required to prevent checkpoint re-engagement when sister chromatids split.     

An Mtw1 complex promotes kinetochore biorientation that is monitored by the Ipl1/Aurora protein kinase

Chromosome segregation depends on kinetochore biorientation so that sister kinetochores attach to microtubules from opposite poles and come under tension. The budding yeast Ipl1/Aurora protein kinase allows the absence of tension to activate the spindle checkpoint. We found that checkpoint activation in the mtw1-1 kinetochore mutant requires Ipl1p, suggesting that Mtw1p promotes tension. We isolated mtw1-1 dosage suppressors and identified Dsn1, a kinetochore protein that immunoprecipitates with the Mif2/CENP-C and Cse4/CENP-A proteins, as well as the Mtw1, Nnf1, and Nsl1 kinetochore proteins. mtw1 and dsn1 mutant strains exhibit similar phenotypes, suggesting that Mtw1p and Dsn1p act together. Although mtw1 mutant cells contained unattached chromosomes, attachment was restored by impairing Ipl1p function. These results suggest that mtw1 mutant kinetochores are competent to bind microtubules but Ipl1p generates unattached chromosomes. We therefore propose that an Mtw1 complex is required for kinetochore biorientation that is monitored by the Ipl1p kinase.     

Merotelic kinetochores in mammalian tissue cells

Merotelic kinetochore attachment is a major source of aneuploidy in mammalian tissue cells in culture. Mammalian kinetochores typically have binding sites for about 20-25 kinetochore microtubules. In prometaphase, kinetochores become merotelic if they attach to microtubules from opposite poles rather than to just one pole as normally occurs. Merotelic attachments support chromosome bi-orientation and alignment near the metaphase plate and they are not detected by the mitotic spindle checkpoint. At anaphase onset, sister chromatids separate, but a chromatid with a merotelic kinetochore may not be segregated correctly, and may lag near the spindle equator because of pulling forces toward opposite poles, or move in the direction of the wrong pole. Correction mechanisms are important for preventing segregation errors. There are probably more than 100 times as many PtK1 tissue cells with merotelic kinetochores in early mitosis, and about 16 times as many entering anaphase as the 1% of cells with lagging chromosomes seen in late anaphase. The role of spindle mechanics and potential functions of the Ndc80/Nuf2 protein complex at the kinetochore/microtubule interface is discussed for two correction mechanisms: one that functions before anaphase to reduce the number of kinetochore microtubules to the wrong pole, and one that functions after anaphase onset to move merotelic kinetochores based on the ratio of kinetochore microtubules to the correct versus incorrect pole.     

The current view for the silencing of the spindle assembly checkpoint

Chromosome bipolar attachment is achieved when sister kinetochores are attached by microtubules emanating from opposite spindle poles, and this process is essential for faithful chromosome segregation during anaphase. A fundamental question in cell biology is how cells ensure that chromosome segregation only occurs after bipolar attachment. It is well documented that unattached kinetochores activate the spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) to delay chromosome segregation. Therefore, the silencing of the SAC is thought to trigger anaphase onset, but how correct chromosome attachment is coupled with SAC silencing and the subsequent anaphase onset is poorly understood. The establishment of chromosome bipolar attachment not only results in the occupancy of kinetochores by microtubules but also applies tension on sister kinetochores. A long-standing debate is whether the kinetochore attachment (occupancy) or the tension silences the SAC. Recent work in budding yeast reveals the SAC silencing network SSN that prevents SAC silencing prior to tension generation at kinetochores. Therefore, this signaling pathway ensures that SAC silencing and the subsequent anaphase onset occur only after chromosome bipolar attachment applies tension on chromosomes. This review will summarize the recent advances in the understanding of the SAC silencing process.     

Evidence that the Ipl1-Sli15 (Aurora kinase-INCENP) complex promotes chromosome bi-orientation by altering kinetochore-spindle pole connections

How sister kinetochores attach to microtubules from opposite spindle poles during mitosis (bi-orientation) remains poorly understood. In yeast, the ortholog of the Aurora B-INCENP protein kinase complex (Ipl1-Sli15) may have a role in this crucial process, because it is necessary to prevent attachment of sister kinetochores to microtubules from the same spindle pole. We investigated IPL1 function in cells that cannot replicate their chromosomes but nevertheless duplicate their spindle pole bodies (SPBs). Kinetochores detach from old SPBs and reattach to old and new SPBs with equal frequency in IPL1+ cells, but remain attached to old SPBs in ipl1 mutants. This raises the possibility that Ipl1-Sli15 facilitates bi-orientation by promoting turnover of kinetochore-SPB connections until traction of sister kinetochores toward opposite spindle poles creates tension in the surrounding chromatin.     

Kinetochore rearrangement in meiosis II requires attachment to the spindle

The distinctive behaviors of chromosomes in mitosis and meiosis depend upon differences in kinetochore position. Kinetochore position is well established except for a critical transition between meiosis I and meiosis II. We examined kinetochore position during the transition and compared it with the position of kinetochores in mitosis. Immunofluorescence staining using the 3F3/2 antibody showed that in mitosis in grasshopper cells, as in other organisms, kinetochores are positioned on opposite sides of the two sister chromatids. In meiosis I, sister kinetochores are positioned side by side. At nuclear envelope breakdown in meiosis II, sister kinetochores are still side by side, but are separated by the time all chromosomes have fully attached in metaphase II. Micromanipulation experiments reveal that this switch from side-by-side to separated sister kinetochores requires attachment to the spindle. Moreover, it is irreversible, as chromosomes detached from a metaphase II spindle retain separate kinetochores. How this critical separation of sister kinetochores occurs in meiosis is uncertain, but clearly it is not built into the chromosome before nuclear envelope breakdown, as it is in mitosis.     

Anaphase spindle mechanics prevent mis-segregation of merotelically oriented chromosomes

Merotelic kinetochore orientation is a kinetochore misattachment in which a single kinetochore is attached to microtubules from both spindle poles instead of just one. It can be favored in specific circumstances, is not detected by the mitotic checkpoint, and induces lagging chromosomes in anaphase. In mammalian cells, it occurs at high frequency in early mitosis, but few anaphase cells show lagging chromosomes. We developed live-cell imaging methods to determine whether and how the mitotic spindle prevents merotelic kinetochores from producing lagging chromosomes. We found that merotelic kinetochores entering anaphase never lost attachment to the spindle poles; they remained attached to both microtubule bundles, but this did not prevent them from segregating correctly. The two microtubule bundles usually showed different fluorescence intensities, the brighter bundle connecting the merotelic kinetochore to the correct pole. During anaphase, the dimmer bundle lengthened much more than the brighter bundle as spindle elongation occurred. This resulted in correct segregation of the merotelically oriented chromosome. We propose a model based on the ratios of microtubules to the correct versus incorrect pole for how anaphase spindle dynamics and microtubule polymerization at kinetochores prevent potential segregation errors deriving from merotelic kinetochore orientation.     

Requirement of chromatid cohesion proteins rad21/scc1 and mis4/scc2 for normal spindle-kinetochore interaction in fission yeast

BACKGROUND: Proteins conserved from yeast to human hold two sister chromatids together. The failure to form cohesion in the S phase results in premature separation of chromatids in G2/M. Mitotic kinetochores free from microtubules or the lack of tension are known to activate spindle checkpoint. RESULTS: The loss of chromatid cohesion in fission yeast mutants (mis4-242 and rad21-K1) leads to the activation of Mad2- and Bub1-dependent checkpoint, possibly due to a diminished microtubule-kinetochore interaction. Bub1, a checkpoint kinase, localizes briefly at early mitotic kinetochores in wild-type, whereas the cohesion mutation greatly increases the duration of kinetochore localization. Bub1 is bound to the central centromere region of mitotic cells. These cohesion mutants are hypersensitive to a tubulin poison and are synthetic lethal with dis1 and bir1/cut17, which are defective in microtubule-kinetochore interaction. The formation of specialized centromere chromatin containing CENP-A does not require cohesion. Dominant-negative noncleavable Rad21 fails to activate checkpoint but blocks sister chromatid separation and full spindle elongation in anaphase. CONCLUSIONS: Mis4 and Rad21 (budding yeast Scc2 and Scc1 homologs, respectively) act in establishing the normal spindle-kinetochore interaction in early mitosis and inhibit sister chromatid separation until the cleavage of Rad21 in anaphase. Checkpoint directly or indirectly monitors the states of cohesion in early mitosis. Full spindle extension occurs with unequal nuclear division in cohesion mutants in the absence of Mad2.     

DNA topoisomerase II is a determinant of the tensile properties of yeast centromeric chromatin and the tension checkpoint

Centromeric (CEN) chromatin is placed under mechanical tension and stretches as kinetochores biorient on the mitotic spindle. This deformation could conceivably provide a readout of biorientation to error correction mechanisms that monitor kinetochore–spindle interactions, but whether CEN chromatin acts in a tensiometer capacity is unresolved. Here, we report observations linking yeast Topoisomerase II (Top2) to both CEN mechanics and assessment of interkinetochore tension. First, in top2-4 and sumoylation-resistant top2-SNM mutants CEN chromatin stretches extensively during biorientation, resulting in increased sister kinetochore separation and preanaphase spindle extension. Our data indicate increased CEN stretching corresponds with alterations to CEN topology induced in response to tension. Second, Top2 potentiates aspects of the tension checkpoint. Mutations affecting the Mtw1 kinetochore protein activate Ipl1 kinase to detach kinetochores and induce spindle checkpoint arrest. In mtw1top2-4 and mtw1top2-SNM mutants, however, kinetochores are resistant to detachment and checkpoint arrest is attenuated. For top2-SNM cells, CEN stretching and checkpoint attenuation occur even in the absence of catenation linking sister chromatids. In sum, Top2 seems to play a novel role in CEN compaction that is distinct from decatenation. Perturbations to this function may allow weakened kinetochores to stretch CENs in a manner that mimics tension or evades Ipl1 surveillance.     

Tension-dependent regulation of microtubule dynamics at kinetochores can explain metaphase congression in yeast

During metaphase in budding yeast mitosis, sister kinetochores are tethered to opposite poles and separated, stretching their intervening chromatin, by singly attached kinetochore microtubules (kMTs). Kinetochore movements are coupled to single microtubule plus-end polymerization/depolymerization at kinetochore attachment sites. Here, we use computer modeling to test possible mechanisms controlling chromosome alignment during yeast metaphase by simulating experiments that determine the 1) mean positions of kinetochore Cse4-GFP, 2) extent of oscillation of kinetochores during metaphase as measured by fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) of kinetochore Cse4-GFP, 3) dynamics of kMTs as measured by FRAP of GFP-tubulin, and 4) mean positions of unreplicated chromosome kinetochores that lack pulling forces from a sister kinetochore. We rule out a number of possible models and find the best fit between theory and experiment when it is assumed that kinetochores sense both a spatial gradient that suppresses kMT catastrophe near the poles and attachment site tension that promotes kMT rescue at higher amounts of chromatin stretch.