Chromosome movement in mitosis requires microtubule anchorage at spindle poles

Anchorage of microtubule minus ends at spindle poles has been proposed to bear the load of poleward forces exerted by kinetochore-associated motors so that chromosomes move toward the poles rather than the poles toward the chromosomes. To test this hypothesis, we monitored chromosome movement during mitosis after perturbation of nuclear mitotic apparatus protein (NuMA) and the human homologue of the KIN C motor family (HSET), two noncentrosomal proteins involved in spindle pole organization in animal cells. Perturbation of NuMA alone disrupts spindle pole organization and delays anaphase onset, but does not alter the velocity of oscillatory chromosome movement in prometaphase. Perturbation of HSET alone increases the duration of prometaphase, but does not alter the velocity of chromosome movement in prometaphase or anaphase. In contrast, simultaneous perturbation of both HSET and NuMA severely suppresses directed chromosome movement in prometaphase. Chromosomes coalesce near the center of these cells on bi-oriented spindles that lack organized poles. Immunofluorescence and electron microscopy verify microtubule attachment to sister kinetochores, but this attachment fails to generate proper tension across sister kinetochores. These results demonstrate that anchorage of microtubule minus ends at spindle poles mediated by overlapping mechanisms involving both NuMA and HSET is essential for chromosome movement during mitosis.     

The forces that position a mitotic spindle asymmetrically are tethered until after the time of spindle assembly

Regulation of the mitotic spindle's position is important for cells to divide asymmetrically. Here, we use Caenorhabditis elegans embryos to provide the first analysis of the temporal regulation of forces that asymmetrically position a mitotic spindle. We find that asymmetric pulling forces, regulated by cortical PAR proteins, begin to act as early as prophase and prometaphase, even before the spindle forms and shifts to a posterior position. The spindle does not shift asymmetrically during these early phases due to a tethering force, mediated by astral microtubules that reach the anterior cell cortex. We show that this tether is normally released after spindle assembly and independently of anaphase entry. Monitoring microtubule dynamics by photobleaching segments of microtubules during anaphase revealed that spindle microtubules do not undergo significant poleward flux in C. elegans. Together with the known absence of anaphase A, these data suggest that the major forces contributing to chromosome separation during anaphase originate outside the spindle. We propose that the forces positioning the mitotic spindle asymmetrically are tethered until after the time of spindle assembly and that these same forces are used later to drive chromosome segregation at anaphase.     

Chromosome micromanipulation

Two types of unusual motion within the spindle have heen studied in a grasshopper (Melanoplus differentialis) spermatocyte. The first is the motion of granules placed by micromanipulation within the normally granule-free spindle. The most specific motions are poleward, approximate the speed of the chromosomes in anaphase, and occur in the area between the kinetochores and the nearer pole during both metaphase and anaphase. Exactly the same transport properties were earlier observed by Bajer inHaemanthus endosperm spindles. The absence of significant motion in the interzone between the separating chromosomes at anaphase has been unequivocally demonstrated inMelanoplus spermatocytes. Thus very specific motion of non-kinetochoric materials is probably a general spindle capability which would much restrict admissible models of mitotic force production,if the same forces move both granules and chromosomes. The second unusual motion is seen following chromosome detachment from the spindle by micromanipulation during anaphase. These tend to move toNearer pole rather than to the pole the chromosome's kinetochoresFace. The latter preference was earlier demonstrated after detachment during prometaphase or metaphase and has been confirmed without exception in the present studies. The apparent preference for motion to the nearer pole in anaphase provides the first evidence for poleward forces within each half-spindle which cannot be entirely specified by the chromosomal spindle fibers. Almost certainly these would be the usual forces responsible for chromosome motion since they act specifically at the kinetochores of detached chromosomes. This evidence requires interpretation, however because additional factors influence chromosome motion following detachment at anaphase. On thesimplest interpretation, certain current models of mitosis clearly are not satisfactory and others are favored.     

Differential expression of a phosphoepitope at the kinetochores of moving chromosomes

A phosphorylated epitope is differentially expressed at the kinetochores of chromosomes in mitotic cells and may be involved in regulating chromosome movement and cell cycle progression. During prophase and early prometaphase, the phosphoepitope is expressed equally among all the kinetochores. In mid-prometaphase, some chromosomes show strong labeling on both kinetochores; others exhibit weak or no labeling; while in other chromosomes, one kinetochore is intensely labeled while its sister kinetochore is unlabeled. Chromosomes moving toward the metaphase plate express the phosphoepitope strongly on the leading kinetochore but weakly on the trailing kinetochore. This is the first demonstration of a biochemical difference between the two kinetochores of a single chromosome. During metaphase and anaphase, the kinetochores are unlabeled. At metaphase, a single misaligned chromosome can inhibit further progression into anaphase. Misaligned chromosomes express the phosphoepitope strongly on both kinetochores, even when all the other chromosomes of a cell are assembled at the metaphase plate and lack expression. This phosphoepitope may be involved in regulating chromosome movement to the metaphase plate during prometaphase and may be part of a cell cycle checkpoint by which the onset of anaphase is inhibited until complete metaphase alignment is achieved.     

Condensin I binds chromatin early in prophase and displays a highly dynamic association with <Emphasis Type="Italic">Drosophila</Emphasis> mitotic chromosomes

The condensed state of mitotic chromosomes is crucial for faithful genome segregation. Key factors implicated in the formation of mitotic chromosomes are the condensin I and II complexes. In Drosophila, condensin I appears to play a major role in mitotic chromosome organization. To analyze its dynamic behavior, we expressed Barren, a condensin I non-Structural Maintenance of Chromosomes subunit, as a fully functional enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) fusion protein in the female and followed it during early embryonic divisions. We find that, in Drosophila, Barren-EGFP associates with chromatin early in prophase concomitantly with the initiation of chromosome condensation. Barren-EGFP loading starts at the centromeric region from where it spreads distally reaching maximum accumulation at metaphase/early anaphase. Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching analysis indicates that most of the bound protein exchanges rapidly with the cytoplasmic pool during prometaphase/metaphase. Taken together, our results suggest that in Drosophila, condensin I is involved in the initial stages of chromosome condensation. Furthermore, the rapid turnover of Barren-EGFP indicates that the mechanism by which condensin I promotes mitotic chromosome organization is inconsistent with a static scaffold model. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

The Cohesion Protein MEI-S332 Localizes to Condensed Meiotic and Mitotic Centromeres until Sister Chromatids Separate

The Drosophila MEI-S332 protein has been shown to be required for the maintenance of sister-chromatid cohesion in male and female meiosis. The protein localizes to the centromeres during male meiosis when the sister chromatids are attached, and it is no longer detectable after they separate. Drosophila melanogaster male meiosis is atypical in several respects, making it important to define MEI-S332 behavior during female meiosis, which better typifies meiosis in eukaryotes. We find that MEI-S332 localizes to the centromeres of prometaphase I chromosomes in oocytes, remaining there until it is delocalized at anaphase II. By using oocytes we were able to obtain sufficient material to investigate the fate of MEI-S332 after the metaphase II–anaphase II transition. The levels of MEI-S332 protein are unchanged after the completion of meiosis, even when translation is blocked, suggesting that the protein dissociates from the centromeres but is not degraded at the onset of anaphase II. Unexpectedly, MEI-S332 is present during embryogenesis, localizes onto the centromeres of mitotic chromosomes, and is delocalized from anaphase chromosomes. Thus, MEI-S332 associates with the centromeres of both meiotic and mitotic chromosomes and dissociates from them at anaphase.     

Co-segregation of sex chromosomes in the male black widow spider <Emphasis Type="Italic">Latrodectus mactans</Emphasis> (Araneae,Theridiidae)

During meiosis I, homologous chromosomes join together to form bivalents. Through trial and error, bivalents achieve stable bipolar orientations (attachments) on the spindle that eventually allow the segregation of homologous chromosomes to opposite poles. Bipolar orientations are stable through tension generated by poleward forces to opposite poles. Unipolar orientations lack tension and are stereotypically not stable. The behavior of sex chromosomes during meiosis I in the male black widow spider Latrodectus mactans (Araneae, Theridiidae) challenges the principles governing such a scenario. We found that male L. mactans has two distinct X chromosomes, X₁ and X₂. The X chromosomes join together to form a connection that is present in prometaphase I but is lost during metaphase I, before the autosomes disjoin at anaphase I. We found that both X chromosomes form stable unipolar orientations to the same pole that assure their co-segregation at anaphase I. Using micromanipulation, immunofluorescence microscopy, and electron microscopy, we studied this unusual chromosome behavior to explain how it may fit the current dogma of chromosome distribution during cell division.     

Prevention and correction mechanisms behind anaphase synchrony: implications for the genesis of aneuploidy

The perpetuation of the species' genomic identity strongly depends on the accurate maintenance of chromosome number through countless cell generations. The synchronous entry and progression of all chromosomes through anaphase is fundamental for the quality of mitosis and is guaranteed by error prevention and correction mechanisms that ultimately certify the bipolar attachment of chromosomes to the mitotic spindle, the uniform distribution of forces amongst different chromosomes, and the simultaneity of sister-chromatid separation. The existence of a kinetochore-attachment checkpoint (KAC; also known as spindle-assembly checkpoint) ensures a delay in anaphase onset if any kinetochore remains unattached or devoid of a proper complement of microtubules. The stochastic nature of microtubule-kinetochore interactions predisposes the mitotic process to mistakes, but different molecular players cooperate by detecting and releasing incorrect attachments and thus delaying checkpoint satisfaction. Conversely, correct microtubule-kinetochore interactions become selectively stabilized. Once anaphase onset is triggered, the segregation velocities achieved by each chromosome should be similar, so that none of the chromosomes is lagged behind. This reflects the uniformity of forces acting on the different chromosomes and relies on a conspicuous mitotic spindle property known as microtubule poleward flux. Importantly, not all incorrect attachments are detected and resolved prior to anaphase leading to asynchronous chromosome segregation, but several mechanisms are in place to prevent aneuploidy. One of these mechanisms relies on anaphase spindle forces and another, known as the NoCut checkpoint, delays cell cleavage during cytokinesis until chromosomes can free the spindle mid-region. In this review we discuss how these different mechanisms act in concert to ensure the fidelity of the mitotic process.     

A mechanomolecular model for the movement of chromosomes during mitosis driven by a minimal kinetochore bicyclic cascade

During mitosis chromosomes use a complex network of dynamic microtubules to find the cell equator in preparation for division signals. The roles of cellular chemical signals in mechanisms driving mitotic chromosomal movements are not well understood. In this paper we propose a mathematical model of this process which incorporates a molecular scale model of kinetochore-microtubule interactions into a negative feedback loop between spindle forces and local kinetochore biochemical reactions. This system allows kinetochore biochemical reactions to control and coordinate chromosome movement thus providing a direct connection between mechanical signals and mitosis chemical species. Our feedback control model can recreate chromosome movement from prometaphase to anaphase in good agreement with experimental data.     

HURP controls spindle dynamics to promote proper interkinetochore tension and efficient kinetochore capture

Through a functional genomic screen for mitotic regulators, we identified hepatoma up-regulated protein (HURP) as a protein that is required for chromosome congression and alignment. In HURP-depleted cells, the persistence of unaligned chromosomes and the reduction of tension across sister kinetochores on aligned chromosomes resulted in the activation of the spindle checkpoint. Although these defects transiently delayed mitotic progression, HeLa cells initiated anaphase without resolution of these deficiencies. This bypass of the checkpoint arrest provides a tumor-specific mechanism for chromosome missegregation and genomic instability. Mechanistically, HURP colocalized with the mitotic spindle in a concentration gradient increasing toward the chromosomes. HURP binds directly to microtubules in vitro and enhances their polymerization. In vivo, HURP stabilizes mitotic microtubules, promotes microtubule polymerization and bipolar spindle formation, and decreases the turnover rate of the mitotic spindle. Thus, HURP controls spindle stability and dynamics to achieve efficient kinetochore capture at prometaphase, timely chromosome congression to the metaphase plate, and proper interkinetochore tension for anaphase initiation.     

Functional autonomy of monopolar spindle and evidence for oscillatory movement in mitosis

The oscillations of chromosomes associated with a single spindle pole in monocentric and bipolar spindles were analysed by time-lapse cinematography in mitosis of primary cultures of lung epithelium from the newt Taricha granulosa. Chromosomes oscillate toward and away from the pole in all stages of mitosis including anaphase. The duration, velocity, and amplitude of such oscillations are the same in all stages of mitosis. The movement away from the pole in monocentric spindle is rapid enough to suggest the existence of a previously unrecognized active component in chromosome movement, presumably resulting from a pushing action of the kinetochore fiber. During prometaphase oscillations, chromosomes may approach the pole even more closely than at the end of anaphase. Together, these observations demonstrate that a monopolar spindle is sufficient to generate the forces for chromosome transport, both toward and away from the pole. The coordination of the aster/centrosome migration in prophase with the development of the kinetochore fibers determines the course of mitosis. After the breaking of the nuclear envelope in normal mitosis, aster/centrosome separation is normally followed by the rapid formation of bipolar chromosomal fibers. There are two aberrant extremes that may result from a failure in coordination between these processes: (a) A monocentric spindle will arise when aster separation does not occur, and (b) an anaphaselike prometaphase will result if the aster/centrosomal complexes are already well-separated and bipolar chromosomal fibers do not form. In the latter case, the two monopolar prometaphase half-spindles migrate apart, each containing a random number of two chromatid (metaphase) monopolar-oriented chromosomes. This random segregation of prometaphase chromosome displays many features of a standard anaphase and may be followed by a false cleavage. The process of polar separation during prometaphase occurs without any visible interzonal structures. Aster/centrosomes and monopolar spindles migrate autonomously by an unknown mechanism. There are, however, firm but transitory connections between the aster center and the kinetochores as demonstrated by the occasional synchrony of centrosome-kinetochore movement. The data suggest that aster motility is important in the progress of both prometaphase and anaphase in normal mitosis.     

Bipolar spindle attachments affect redistributions of ZW10, a Drosophila centromere/kinetochore component required for accurate chromosome segregation

Previous efforts have shown that mutations in the Drosophila ZW10 gene cause massive chromosome missegregation during mitotic divisions in several tissues. Here we demonstrate that mutations in ZW10 also disrupt chromosome behavior in male meiosis I and meiosis II, indicating that ZW10 function is common to both equational and reductional divisions. Divisions are apparently normal before anaphase onset, but ZW10 mutants exhibit lagging chromosomes and irregular chromosome segregation at anaphase. Chromosome missegregation during meiosis I of these mutants is not caused by precocious separation of sister chromatids, but rather the nondisjunction of homologs. ZW10 is first visible during prometaphase, where it localizes to the kinetochores of the bivalent chromosomes (during meiosis I) or to the sister kinetochores of dyads (during meiosis II). During metaphase of both divisions, ZW10 appears to move from the kinetochores and to spread toward the poles along what appear to be kinetochore microtubules. Redistributions of ZW10 at metaphase require bipolar attachments of individual chromosomes or paired bivalents to the spindle. At the onset of anaphase I or anaphase II, ZW10 rapidly relocalizes to the kinetochore regions of the separating chromosomes. In other mutant backgrounds in which chromosomes lag during anaphase, the presence or absence of ZW10 at a particular kinetochore predicts whether or not the chromosome moves appropriately to the spindle poles. We propose that ZW10 acts as part of, or immediately downstream of, a tension-sensing mechanism that regulates chromosome separation or movement at anaphase onset.     

Microinjected centromere [corrected] kinetochore antibodies interfere with chromosome movement in meiotic and mitotic mouse oocytes [published erratum appears in J Cell Biol 1990 Dec;111(6 Pt 1):following 2800]

Kinetochores may perform several functions at mitosis and meiosis including: (a) directing anaphase chromosome separation, (b) regulating prometaphase alignment of the chromosomes at the spindle equator (congression), and/or (c) capturing and stabilizing microtubules. To explore these functions in vivo, autoimmune sera against the centromere/kinetochore complex are microinjected into mouse oocytes during specific phases of first or second meiosis, or first mitosis. Serum E.K. crossreacts with an 80-kD protein in mouse cells and detects the centromere/kinetochore complex in permeabilized cells or when microinjected into living oocytes. Chromosome separation at anaphase is not blocked when these antibodies are microinjected into unfertilized oocytes naturally arrested at second meiotic metaphase, into eggs at first mitotic metaphase, or into immature oocytes at first meiotic metaphase. Microtubule capture and spindle reformation occur normally in microinjected unfertilized oocytes recovering from cold or microtubule disrupting drugs; the chromosomes segregate correctly after parthenogenetic activation. Prometaphase congression is dramatically influenced when antikinetochore/centromere antibodies are introduced during interphase or in prometaphase-stage meiotic or mitotic eggs. At metaphase, these oocytes have unaligned chromosomes scattered throughout the spindle with several remaining at the poles; anaphase is aberrant and, after division, karyomeres are found in the polar body and oocyte or daughter blastomeres. Neither nonimmune sera, diffuse scleroderma sera, nor sham microinjections affect either meiosis or mitosis. These results suggest that antikinetochore/centromere antibodies produced by CREST patients interfere with chromosome congression at prometaphase in vivo.     

Mechanism of chromosome elimination in the hybridogenetic spermatogenesis of allotriploid males between Japanese and European water frogs

Of 21 allotriploid males that possessed two genomes of Rana nigromaculata and one genome of Rana lessonae 10 produced a large number of spermatozoa in their testes. When 4 of these males were backcrossed with a female of R. nigromaculata, all of the resulting froglets were diploid in chromosome number and were completely R. nigromaculata type in appearance. These allotriploid males proved to have produced spermatozoa with one R. nigromaculata genome hybridogentically. Therefore, their germ line cells were investigated for the mechanism of elimination of their R. lessonae chromosomes. In histologicla sections of testes, the great majority of spermatogonia (approximately 10⁴ cells) between mitotic prometaphase and anaphase appeared normal in chromosome behavior, whereas 17 spermatogonia showed several chromosomes whose behavior deviated from the normal course during the same period. These deviant chromosomes concentrated together near the equatorial plate and remained stationary at anaphase. In metaphase chromosome preparations made from spermatogonia, 67 and 185 of the 477 chromosome spreads were diploid and triploid, respectively. The rest were aneuploid. Notably, 8 triploid spreads consisted of 26 or more normal chromosomes and 13 or fewer degenerate chromosomes. From these results it is concluded that a set of R. lessonae chromosomes is eliminated from some, but not all spermatogonia by becoming degenerate during the mitotic period.by H.C. Macgregor     

Activation of the MKK/ERK Pathway during Somatic Cell Mitosis: Direct Interactions of Active ERK with Kinetochores and Regulation of the Mitotic 3F3/2 Phosphoantigen

The mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase pathway, which includes extracellular signal–regulated protein kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1, ERK2) and MAP kinase kinases 1 and 2 (MKK1, MKK2), is well-known to be required for cell cycle progression from G1 to S phase, but its role in somatic cell mitosis has not been clearly established. We have examined the regulation of ERK and MKK in mammalian cells during mitosis using antibodies selective for active phosphorylated forms of these enzymes. In NIH 3T3 cells, both ERK and MKK are activated within the nucleus during early prophase; they localize to spindle poles between prophase and anaphase, and to the midbody during cytokinesis. During metaphase, active ERK is localized in the chromosome periphery, in contrast to active MKK, which shows clear chromosome exclusion. Prophase activation and spindle pole localization of active ERK and MKK are also observed in PtK₁ cells. Discrete localization of active ERK at kinetochores is apparent by early prophase and during prometaphase with decreased staining on chromosomes aligned at the metaphase plate. The kinetochores of chromosomes displaced from the metaphase plate, or in microtubule-disrupted cells, still react strongly with the active ERK antibody. This pattern resembles that reported for the 3F3/2 monoclonal antibody, which recognizes a phosphoepitope that disappears with kinetochore attachment to the spindles, and has been implicated in the mitotic checkpoint for anaphase onset (Gorbsky and Ricketts, 1993. J. Cell Biol. 122:1311–1321). The 3F3/2 reactivity of kinetochores on isolated chromosomes decreases after dephosphorylation with protein phosphatase, and then increases after subsequent phosphorylation by purified active ERK or active MKK. These results suggest that the MAP kinase pathway has multiple functions during mitosis, helping to promote mitotic entry as well as targeting proteins that mediate mitotic progression in response to kinetochore attachment.     

Model of chromosome motility in Drosophila embryos: adaptation of a general mechanism for rapid mitosis

During mitosis, ensembles of dynamic MTs and motors exert forces that coordinate chromosome segregation. Typically, chromosomes align at the metaphase spindle equator where they oscillate along the pole-pole axis before disjoining and moving poleward during anaphase A, but spindles in different cell types display differences in MT dynamicity, in the amplitude of chromosome oscillations and in rates of chromatid-to-pole motion. Drosophila embryonic mitotic spindles, for example, display remarkably dynamic MTs, barely detectable metaphase chromosome oscillations, and a rapid rate of "flux-pacman-dependent" anaphase chromatid-to-pole motility. Here we develop a force-balance model that describes Drosophila embryo chromosome motility in terms of a balance of forces acting on kinetochores and kMTs that is generated by multiple polymer ratchets and mitotic motors coupled to tension-dependent kMT dynamics. The model shows that i), multiple MTs displaying high dynamic instability can drive steady and rapid chromosome motion; ii), chromosome motility during metaphase and anaphase A can be described by a single mechanism; iii), high kinetochore dynein activity is deployed to dampen metaphase oscillations, to augment the basic flux-pacman mechanism, and to drive rapid anaphase A; iv), modulation of the MT rescue frequency by the kinetochore-associated kinesin-13 depolymerase promotes metaphase chromosome oscillations; and v), this basic mechanism can be adapted to a broad range of spindles.     

Chromosome behavior after laser microirradiation of a single kinetochore in mitotic PtK2 cells

The role of the kinetochore in chromosome movement was studied by 532- nm wavelength laser microirradiation of mitotic PtK2 cells. When the kinetochore of a single chromatid is irradiated at mitotic prometaphase or metaphase, the whole chromosome moves towards the pole to which the unirradiated kinetochore is oriented, while the remaining chromosomes congregate on the metaphase plate. The chromatids of the irradiated chromosome remain attached to one another until anaphase, at which time they separate by a distance of 1 or 2 micrometers and remain parallel to each other, not undergoing any poleward separation. Electron microscopy shows that irradiated chromatids exhibit either no recognizable kinetochore structure or a typical inactive kinetochore in which the tri-layer structure is present but has no microtubules associated with it. Graphical analysis of the movement of the irradiated chromosome shows that the chromosome moves to the pole rapidly with a velocity of approximately 3 micrometers/min. If the chromosome is close to one pole at irradiation, and the kinetochore oriented towards that pole is irradiated, the chromosome moves across the spindle to the opposite pole. The chromosome is slowed down as it traverses the equatorial region, but the velocity in both half-spindles is approximately the same as the anaphase velocity of a single chromatid. Thus a single kinetochore moves twice the normal mass of chromatin (two chromatids) at the same velocity with which it moves a single chromatid, showing that the velocity with which a kinetochore moves is independent, within limits, of the mass associated with it.     

Congression of achiasmate chromosomes to the metaphase plate in Drosophila melanogaster oocytes

Chiasmata established by recombination are normally sufficient to ensure accurate chromosome segregation during meiosis by physically interlocking homologs until anaphase I. Drosophila melanogaster female meiosis is unusual in that it is both exceptionally tolerant of nonexchange chromosomes and competent in ensuring their proper segregation. As first noted by Puro and Nokkala [Puro, J., Nokkala, S., 1977. Meiotic segregation of chromosomes in Drosophila melanogaster oocytes. A cytological approach. Chromosoma 63, 273-286], nonexchange chromosomes move precociously towards the poles following formation of a bipolar spindle. Indeed, metaphase arrest has been previously defined as the stage at which nonexchange homologs are symmetrically positioned between the main chromosome mass and the poles of the spindle. Here we use studies of both fixed images and living oocytes to show that the stage in which achiasmate chromosomes are separated from the main mass does not in fact define metaphase arrest, but rather is a component of an extended prometaphase. At the end of prometaphase, the nonexchange chromosomes retract into the main chromosome mass, which is tightly repackaged with properly co-oriented centromeres. This repackaged state is the true metaphase arrest configuration in Drosophila female meiosis.     

Cytoplasmic dynein is required for poleward chromosome movement during mitosis in Drosophila embryos

The movement of chromosomes during mitosis occurs on a bipolar, microtubule-based protein machine, the mitotic spindle. It has long been proposed that poleward chromosome movements that occur during prometaphase and anaphase A are driven by the microtubule motor cytoplasmic dynein, which binds to kinetochores and transports them toward the minus ends of spindle microtubules. Here we evaluate this hypothesis using time-lapse confocal microscopy to visualize, in real time, kinetochore and chromatid movements in living Drosophila embryos in the presence and absence of specific inhibitors of cytoplasmic dynein. Our results show that dynein inhibitors disrupt the alignment of kinetochores on the metaphase spindle equator and also interfere with kinetochore- and chromatid-to-pole movements during anaphase A. Thus, dynein is essential for poleward chromosome motility throughout mitosis in Drosophila embryos.     

A simple,mechanistic model for directional instability during mitotic chromosome movements

During mitosis, chromosomes become attached to microtubules that emanate from the two spindle poles. Thereafter, a chromosome moves along these microtubule "tracks" as it executes a series of movements that bring it to the spindle equator. After the onset of anaphase, the sister chromatids separate and move to opposite spindle poles. These movements are often characterized by "directional instability" (a series of runs with approximately constant speed, punctuated by sudden reversals in the direction of movement). To understand mitosis, it is critical to describe the physical mechanisms that underlie the coordination of the forces that drive directional instability. We propose a simple mechanistic model that describes the origin of the forces that move chromosomes and the coordination of these forces to produce directional instability. The model demonstrates that forces, speeds, and direction of motion associated with prometaphase through anaphase chromosome movements can be predicted from the molecular kinetics of interactions between dynamic microtubules and arrays of microtubule binding sites that are linked to the chromosome by compliant elements.