Progression into and out of mitosis

Progression through mitosis is controlled by cyclin-dependent kinases, which drive cells into metaphase, and by the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome, a ubiquitin ligase that triggers sister chromatid separation and exit from mitosis. Recent work has shown how the mutual regulation between cyclin-dependent kinases and the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome ensures that cell-cycle events occur in the right order. The analysis of complexes required for sister chromatid cohesion and chromosome condensation has revealed how cyclin-dependent kinases and the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome control the behaviour of chromosomes.     

Cell cycle: stressed out of mitosis

Cells in early stages of chromosome condensation are very vulnerable, and many stresses that do not damage DNA induce a transient return to late G2 phase. Such stresses include the drug-induced disassembly of microtubules, which triggers an ATM-independent G2 checkpoint pathway involving a novel ubiquitin ligase.     

Keeping 53BP1 out of focus in mitosis

A recent study published in Science reveals the mechanism and biological importance of DNA damage response abrogation in mitotic cells.For many years, much research has focused on understanding how cells maintain genome integrity despite DNA being constantly challenged by factors of both endogenous and exogenous nature. DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are the most deleterious DNA lesions, and if left unrepaired or repaired incorrectly, a single DSB can trigger genome instability or even cell death¹. Therefore, any DSB has to be recognized and repaired by processes encompassed within the DNA damage response (DDR). Notably, while the ends of mammalian linear chromosomes naturally resemble DSBs, their structure and association with the so-called “Shelterin” complex normally makes them invisible to the DDR².As soon as a DSB is formed, it is sensed and directly bound by the Ku70-Ku80 and/or MRE11-NBS1-RAD50 protein complexes, which recruit and activate the DDR kinases DNA-PKcs and ATM, respectively. The first steps in the DDR to DSBs are followed by cascades of events involving protein post-translational modifications (PTMs) and formation of large protein assemblies at DSB sites known as ionizing radiation-induced foci (IRIF)³. Protein phosphorylation and ubiquitylation are at the heart of these signaling processes³. For example, following recruitment of the DDR mediator protein MDC1 to the phospho-epitope created by ATM and DNA-PKcs on variant histone H2AX, MDC1 is itself phosphorylated by ATM on multiple serines and threonines⁴. MDC1 phosphorylation on a group of threonines near its N-terminus and conforming to the consensus TQXF generates binding sites for the FHA domain of E3-ubiquitin ligase RNF8^5,6. Together with the E2-conjugating enzyme UBC13, RNF8, and another E3 ligase, RNF168, trigger formation of mainly lysine 63-linked ubiquitin adducts in DSB-proximal chromatin, promoting recruitment of downstream factors necessary for DNA repair, such as the RAP80-Abraxas-BRCA1 complex and 53BP1³.Significantly, the full DDR happens only in interphase cells, whereas if mitotic cells sustain DSBs, the process appears to be blocked at the stage of RNF8 recruitment, resulting in IRIF devoid of detectable ubiquitin conjugates⁷. Consequently, 53BP1 and BRCA1 are not recruited to IRIF during mitosis. Even more strikingly, although RNF8 and RNF168 are associated with mitotic IRIF in anaphase, hyperphosphorylated 53BP1 remains excluded from chromatin until cells progress into G1 phase⁷. Based on these findings, it was hypothesized that mitosis-specific PTMs on RNF8 and 53BP1 might preclude formation of repair-competent IRIF⁷. However, the precise mechanistic explanation of the “interrupted” DDR in mitosis remained to be unravelled.A recent study published in Science by the group of Daniel Durocher addressed the question of how full IRIF assembly and DSB repair are prevented in mitotic cells⁸. First, Orthwein et al. focused on the mechanism that abrogates RNF8 recruitment to DSBs during mitosis. They demonstrated that CDK1-dependent mitosis-specific phosphorylation of RNF8 on T198 abolished interaction between RNF8 and its target phospho-TQXF motifs in MDC1. This important finding was somewhat surprising, given that MDC1 binding is mediated by the RNF8 FHA domain^5,6 and T198 is located some distance away from this domain. It will thus be interesting to see how T198 phosphorylation abrogates MDC1 binding, for example via T198 being juxtaposed to the FHA domain in the RNF8 3D structure, through phosphorylated T198 docking with the phospho-binding region of the FHA domain, or via another mechanism. In this regard, we note that T198 is part of an STP motif, which upon modification by CDK1 could constitute a priming site for PLK1 kinase⁹. Thus, T198 phosphorylation might be followed by PLK1-mediated RNF8 phosphorylation. Interestingly, certain sites in RNF8 conform to the PLK1 consensus motif, with those at T39 and T316 being evolutionarily conserved in vertebrates. Moreover, T39 is located in the FHA domain, close to R42, mutation of which abolishes RNF8 interaction with MDC1^5,6. It would therefore be worthwhile mutating these potential PLK1 sites and establishing whether this affects mitotic control of RNF8 binding to MDC1.After identifying T198 as critical for preventing RNF8 recruitment to DSBs during mitosis, Orthwein et al. observed that, while mutating this residue to alanine restored recruitment of RNF8 (and BRCA1) to mitotic IRIF, 53BP1 still remained excluded from DSB sites. This prompted the authors to look for mitosis-specific PTMs of 53BP1 by mass spectrometry, leading to the discovery of two novel phosphosites mapped to the recently described ubiquitin-dependent recruitment (UDR) motif, which mediates binding to ubiquitylated H2A and is required for 53BP1 IRIF formation¹⁰. Notably, the same residues, T1609 and S1618, were also identified by Chowdhury and colleagues¹¹ as target sites for the PP4C/R3β phosphatase. This group showed that T1609 and S1618 must be dephosphorylated for 53BP1 to form IRIF. In accord with these findings, Orthwein et al. established that when T1609 and S1618 were mutated to alanines, the ensuing “53BP1-TASA” protein was recruited to sites of DNA damage during mitosis in cells expressing RNF8-T198A. Moreover, unlike normal cells, cells co-expressing RNF8-T198A and 53BP1-TASA carried out DSB joining reactions during mitosis and were extremely hypersensitive to ionizing radiation (IR). The authors also found that, following irradiation in mitosis, cells carrying these mutant RNF8 and 53BP1 proteins displayed increased rates of kinetochore-positive micronucleus formation, suggesting mis-segregation of full chromosomes. In addition, chromosomes in these cells were prone to sister telomere fusions, thereby helping to explain their elevated levels of aneuploidy and IR hypersensitivity.The research described above has not only revealed how DSB repair is suppressed in mitosis but has also established that this suppression is biologically important. Orthwein et al. propose that, as mitotic telomeres become “underprotected” when mitosis is prolonged upon stress¹², this could lead to telomere fusion if DNA end-joining pathway is active. The suppression of DSB signaling and repair mediated by RNF8 and 53BP1 mitotic phosphorylation therefore probably evolved as a mechanism to mitigate this threat to genome stability. A key question that still remains is why mitotic telomeres become underprotected in the first place? Also, what features in telomere structure or replication and segregation processes make it more beneficial for the cells to keep chromosome ends less protected at the cost of inhibiting the DDR during mitosis? Finally, given that cancers often harbor cell cycle and/or DDR defects¹, it will be of interest to see whether defective mitotic control of DSB repair might play a role in tumor evolution, or could provide opportunities for developing better anti-cancer therapies.     

Double recombinants in mitosis

A mathematical model for the random process of repeated cell division and recombination in two nonoverlapping genetic intervals is formulated and investigated. From this model, a test for statistical independence of recombination in the two intervals and a method of estimating the rate of double recombination are developed. Crossing over in both intervals, crossing over in one and gene conversion in the other, and gene conversion in both are treated. For markers on the same chromosome, all possible arrangements of the loci relative to the centromere are considered.Supported by National Science Foundation Grant DEB81-03530.     

Modeling mitosis

The mitotic spindle is a fascinating protein machine that uses bipolar arrays of dynamic microtubules and many mitotic motors to coordinate the accurate segregation of sister chromatids. Here we discuss recent mathematical models and computer simulations that, in concert with experimental studies, help explain the molecular mechanisms by which the spindle machinery performs its crucial functions. We review current models of spindle assembly, positioning, maintenance and elongation; of chromosome capture and congression; and of the spindle assembly checkpoint. We discuss some limitations of the application of modeling to other aspects of mitosis and the feasibility of building more comprehensive system-level models.     

Role of survivin in mitosis

Human survivin is a member of the IAP (Inhibitor of Apoptosis) family. It was reported that survivin expression is associated with drug resistance, cancer progression and low patient survival rate in many cancers. Survivin is implicated in both: inhibition of apoptosis and regulation of cell division. As a member of Chromosomal Passenger Complex (CPC) it is involved in sister chromatids segregation during mitosis. On the other hand, survivin plays an important role in the surveillance mechanism called mitotic spindle assembly checkpoint (MSAC) which regulates metaphase to anaphase transition during mitosis. Additionally, survivin is necessary for cytokinesis progression. The present review is a summary of survivin's functions, focused on its role in cell division in normal and cancer cells, as well as introduction to discussion about anticancer therapies based on survivin depletion.     

Chromosome motion in mitosis.

The nature of the forces that move chromosomes in mitosis is beginning to be revealed. The kinetochore, a specialized structure situated at the primary constriction of the chromosome, appears to translocate in both directions along the microtubules of the mitotic spindle. One or more members of the newly described families of microtubule motor molecules may power these movements. Microtubules of the mitotic spindle undergo rapid cycles of assembly and disassembly. These microtubule dynamics may contribute toward generating force and regulating direction in chromosome movement.     

Sister chromatid cohesion in mitosis

Sister chromatid cohesion is essential for accurate chromosome segregation during the cell cycle. Newly identified structural proteins are required for sister chromatid cohesion and there may be a link in some organisms between the processes of cohesion and condensation. Proteins that induce and regulate the separation of sister chromatids have also been recently identified.     

Timing of events in mitosis

BACKGROUND: Regulation of the major transitions in the cell cycle, such as G1/S, G2/M, and metaphase to anaphase, are increasingly well understood. However, we have a poor understanding of the timing of events within each phase of the cell cycle, such as S phase or early mitosis. Two extreme models of regulation are possible. A "regulator-controlled model" in which the order of events is governed by the activation of a series of cytoplasmic regulators, such as kinases, phosphatases, or proteases; or a "substrate-controlled model" in which temporal regulation is determined by the differential responses of the cellular machinery to a common set of activators. RESULTS: We have tried to distinguish between these two models by examining the timing of both biochemical and morphological events in Xenopus egg extracts during mitosis. Several proteins respond with different delays to the activation of Cdc2. We have found that the timing of phosphorylation is largely unchanged when these proteins are exposed to extracts that have been in mitosis for various periods of time. Similarly, when Xenopus interphase nuclei are added to extracts at different times after the G2/M transition, they undergo all the expected morphological changes in the proper sequence and with very similar kinetics. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that during early mitosis (from prophase to metaphase) the timing of biochemical events (such as phosphorylation) and morphological events (such as structural changes in the nucleus) is at least partly controlled by the responses of the substrates themselves to a common set of signals.