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.     

Kinetochore capture and bi-orientation on the mitotic spindle

Kinetochores are large protein complexes that are formed on chromosome regions known as centromeres. For high-fidelity chromosome segregation, kinetochores must be correctly captured on the mitotic spindle before anaphase onset. During prometaphase, kinetochores are initially captured by a single microtubule that extends from a spindle pole and are then transported poleward along the microtubule. Subsequently, microtubules that extend from the other spindle pole also interact with kinetochores and, eventually, each sister kinetochore attaches to microtubules that extend from opposite poles - this is known as bi-orientation. Here we discuss the molecular mechanisms of these processes, by focusing on budding yeast and drawing comparisons with other organisms.     

Motile kinetochores and polar ejection forces dictate chromosome position on the vertebrate mitotic spindle

We argue that hypotheses for how chromosomes achieve a metaphase alignment, that are based solely on a tug-of-war between poleward pulling forces produced along the length of opposing kinetochore fibers, are no longer tenable for vertebrates. Instead, kinetochores move themselves and their attached chromosomes, poleward and away from the pole, on the ends of relatively stationary but shortening/elongating kinetochore fiber microtubules. Kinetochores are also "smart" in that they switch between persistent constant-velocity phases of poleward and away from the pole motion, both autonomously and in response to information within the spindle. Several molecular mechanisms may contribute to this directional instability including kinetochore-associated microtubule motors and kinetochore microtubule dynamic instability. The control of kinetochore directional instability, to allow for congression and anaphase, is likely mediated by a vectorial mechanism whose magnitude and orientation depend on the density and orientation or growth of polar microtubules. Polar microtubule arrays have been shown to resist chromosome poleward motion and to push chromosomes away from the pole. These "polar ejection forces" appear to play a key role in regulating kinetochore directional instability, and hence, positions achieved by chromosomes on the spindle.     

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.     

Bi-orienting chromosomes: acrobatics on the mitotic spindle

To maintain their genetic integrity, eukaryotic cells must segregate their chromosomes properly to opposite poles during mitosis. This process mainly depends on the forces generated by microtubules that attach to kinetochores. During prometaphase, kinetochores initially interact with a single microtubule that extends from a spindle pole and then move towards a spindle pole. Subsequently, microtubules that extend from the other spindle pole also interact with kinetochores and, eventually, each sister kinetochore attaches to microtubules that extend from opposite poles (sister kinetochore bi-orientation). If sister kinetochores interact with microtubules in wrong orientation, this must be corrected before the onset of anaphase. Here, I discuss the processes leading to bi-orientation and the mechanisms ensuring this pivotal state that is required for proper chromosome segregation.     

Chromosome Fragments Possessing Only One Kinetochore Can Congress to the Spindle Equator

We used laser microsurgery to cut between the two sister kinetochores on bioriented prometaphase chromosomes to produce two chromosome fragments containing one kinetochore (CF1K). Each of these CF1Ks then always moved toward the spindle pole to which their kinetochores were attached before initiating the poleward and away-from-the-pole oscillatory motions characteristic of monooriented chromosomes. CF1Ks then either: (a) remained closely associated with this pole until anaphase (50%), (b) moved (i.e., congressed) to the spindle equator (38%), where they usually (13/19 cells) remained stably positioned throughout the ensuing anaphase, or (c) reoriented and moved to the other pole (12%). Behavior of congressing CF1Ks was indistinguishable from that of congressing chromosomes containing two sister kinetochores. Three-dimensional electron microscopic tomographic reconstructions of CF1Ks stably positioned on the spindle equator during anaphase revealed that the single kinetochore was highly stretched and/or fragmented and that numerous microtubules derived from the opposing spindle poles terminated in its structure. These observations reveal that a single kinetochore is capable of simultaneously supporting the function of two sister kinetochores during chromosome congression and imply that vertebrate kinetochores consist of multiple domains whose motility states can be regulated independently.     

Cell division in two large pennate diatoms Hantzschia and Nitzschia III. A new proposal for kinetochore function during prometaphase

Prometaphase in two large species of diatoms is examined, using the following techniques: (a) time-lapse cinematography of chromosome movements in vivo; (b) electron microscopy of corresponding stages: (c) reconstruction of the microtubules (MTs) in the kinetochore fiber of chromosomes attached to the spindle. In vivo, the chromosomes independently commence oscillations back and forth to one pole. The kinetochore is usually at the leading edge of such chromosome movements; a variable time later both kinetochores undergo such oscillations but toward opposite poles and soon stretch poleward to establish stable bipolar attachment. Electron microscopy of early prometaphase shows that the kinetochores usually laterally associate with MTs that have one end attached to the spindle pole. At late prometaphase, most chromosomes are fully attached to the spindle, but the kinetochores on unattached chromosomes are bare of MTs. Reconstruction of the kinetochore fiber demonstrates that most of its MTs (96%) extend past the kinetochore and are thus apparently not nucleated there. At least one MT terminates at each kinetochore analyzed. Our interpretation is that the conventional view of kinetochore function cannot apply to diatoms. The kinetochore fiber in diatoms appears to be primarily composed of MTs from the poles, in contrast to the conventional view that many MTs of the kinetochore fiber are nucleated by the kinetochore. Similarly, chromosomes appear to initially orient their kinetochores to opposite poles by moving along MTs attached to the poles, instead of orientation effected by kinetochore MTs laterally associating with other MTs in the spindle. The function of the kinetochore in diatoms and other cell types is discussed.     

Orientation of nonrandomly segregating sex chromosomes in spermatocytes of the flea beetle, Alagoasa bicolor L.

In males of the flea beetle, Alagoasa bicolor L., spermatocytes have two achiasmate sex chromosomes, X and Y, each of which is approximately five times larger than the ten pairs of chiasmate autosomes. At metaphase I, these univalent sex chromosomes are located on a spindle domain separated from the autosomal spindle domain by a sheath of mitochondria. A single centriole pair is located at each pole of the spindle. In prometaphase I, each sex chromosome appears to maintain an attachment to both spindle poles via kinetochore microtubules (i.e., amphitelic orientation). Before anaphase I, this orientation changes to the syntelic orientation (both sister kinetochores connected to the same pole), perhaps by the release of microtubule attachments from the more distant pole by each of the chromosomes. The syntelic orientation just prior to anaphase I leaves each sex chromosome attached to the nearest pole via kinetochore microtubules, ensuring nonrandom segregation. As the sex chromosomes reorient, the autosomes follow in a sequential manner, starting with the bivalent closest to the sex spindle domain. We report here data that shed new light on the mechanism of this exceptional meiotic chromosome behavior.     

Directional instability of kinetochore motility during chromosome congression and segregation in mitotic newt lung cells: a push-pull mechanism

Most models of mitotic congression and segregation assume that only poleward pulling forces occur at kinetochores. However, there are reports for several different cell types that both mono-oriented and bi- oriented chromosomes oscillate toward and away from the pole throughout mitosis. We used new methods of high resolution video microscopy and computer-assisted tracking techniques to measure the positions over time of individual kinetochores with respect to their poles during mitosis in living newt lung cells. The results show that kinetochores oscillate throughout mitosis when they are tethered to spindle poles by attachment to the plus-ends of kinetochore microtubules (kMTs). Oscillations were not sinusoidal. Instead, kinetochores abruptly (as quick as 6 s or less) switched between persistent (approximately 1.5 min average duration) phases of poleward (P) and away from the pole (AP) movement. This kinetochore "directional instability" was a property of motility at the plus-ends of kMTs since fluorescent marks on the lattice of kMTs have previously been observed to exhibit only relatively slow P movement. Each P and AP phase consisted of one or a few constant velocity domains (approximately 1.7 microns/min average velocity). Velocities of P and AP phases were similar from prometaphase through mid-anaphase. Kinetochores occasionally switched to an indeterminant (N) phase of no or confused motion, which was usually brief compared to the durations of P and AP phases. Net chromosome displacements that occurred during congression to the equator or poleward movement during anaphase were primarily generated by differences in the durations and not the velocities of P and AP movements. Careful analysis of centromere deformation showed that kinetochore P movement produced pulling forces while kinetochore AP movement produced pushing forces. These data show that kinetochore directional instability is fundamental to the processes of chromosome congression and segregation. We argue that tension at the kinetochore attachment site is a key factor which controls the switching between P and AP phases of kinetochore motion.     

Kinetochore dynein generates a poleward pulling force to facilitate congression and full chromosome alignment

For proper chromosome segregation, all kinetochores must achieve bipolar microtubule （MT） attachment and subsequently align at the spindle equator before anaphase onset. The MT minus end-directed motor dynein/dynactin binds kinetoehores in prometaphase and has long been implicated in chromosome congression. Unfortunately, inactivation of dynein usually disturbs spindle organization, thus hampering evaluation of its kinetochore roles. Here we specifically eliminated kinetochore dynein/dynactin by RNAi-mediated depletion of ZW10, a protein essential for kinetochore localization of the motor. Time-lapse microscopy indicated markedly-reduced congression efficiency, though congressing chromosomes displayed similar velocities as in control cells. Moreover, cells frequently failed to achieve full chromosome alignment, despite their normal spindles. Confocal microcopy revealed that the misaligned kinetochores were monooriented or unattached and mostly lying outside the spindle, suggesting a difficulty to capture MTs from the opposite pole. Kinetoehores on monoastral spindles were dispersed farther away from the pole and exhibited only mild oscillation. Furthermore, inactivating dynein by other means generated similar phenotypes. Therefore, kinetochore dynein produces on monooriented kinetochores a poleward pulling force, which may contribute to efficient bipolar attachment by facilitating their proper microtubule captures to promote congression as well as full chromosome alignment.     

Chromosome motion during attachment to the vertebrate spindle: initial saltatory-like behavior of chromosomes and quantitative analysis of force production by nascent kinetochore fibers

Before forming a monopolar attachment to the closest spindle pole, chromosomes attaching in newt (Taricha granulosa) pneumocytes generally reside in an optically clear region of cytoplasm that is largely devoid of cytoskeletal components, organelles, and other chromosomes. We have previously demonstrated that chromosome attachment in these cells occurs when an astral microtubule contacts one of the kinetochores (Hayden, J., S. S. Bowser, and C. L. Rieder. 1990. J. Cell Biol. 111:1039-1045), and that once this association is established the chromosome can be transported poleward along the surface of the microtubule (Rieder, C. L., and S. P. Alexander. 1990. J. Cell Biol. 110:81-95). In the study reported here we used video enhanced differential interference contrast light microscopy and digital image processing to compare, at high spatial and temporal resolution (0.1 microns and 0.93 s, respectively), the microtubule-mediated poleward movement of attaching chromosomes and poleward moving particles on the spindle. The results of this analysis demonstrate obvious similarities between minus end-directed particle motion on the newt pneumocyte spindle and the motion of attaching chromosomes. This is consistent with the hypothesis that both are driven by a similar force-generating mechanism. We then used the Brownian displacements of particles in the vicinity of attaching chromosomes to calculate the apparent viscosity of cytoplasm through which the chromosomes were moving. From these data, and that from our kinetic analyses and previous work, we calculate the force-producing potential of nascent kinetochore fibers in newt pneumocytes to be approximately 0.1-7.4 x 10(-6) dyn/microtubule) This is essentially equivalent to that calculated by Nicklas (Nicklas, R.B. 1988. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biophys. Chem. 17:431-449) for prometaphase (4 x 10(-6) dyn/microtubule) and anaphase (5 x 10(-6) dyn/microtubule) chromosomes in Melanoplus. Thus, within the limits of experimental error, there appears to be a remarkable consistency in force production per microtubule throughout the various stages of mitosis and between groups of diverse taxonomic affinities.     

Mps1 promotes poleward chromosome movements in meiotic prometaphase

In prophase of meiosis I, homologous chromosomes pair and become connected by cross-overs. Chiasmata, the connections formed by cross-overs, enable the chromosome pair, called a bivalent, to attach as a single unit to the spindle. When the meiotic spindle forms in prometaphase, most bivalents are associated with one spindle pole and then go through a series of oscillations on the spindle, attaching to and detaching from microtubules until the partners of the bivalent become bioriented—attached to microtubules from opposite sides of the spindle. The conserved kinase, Mps1, is essential for the bivalents to be pulled by microtubules across the spindle in prometaphase. Here we show that MPS1 is needed for efficient triggering of the migration of microtubule-attached kinetochores toward the poles and promotes microtubule depolymerization. Our data support the model Mps1 acts at the kinetochore to coordinate the successful attachment of a microtubule and the triggering of microtubule depolymerization to then move the chromosome.     

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.     

Dynein is a transient kinetochore component whose binding is regulated by microtubule attachment, not tension

Cytoplasmic dynein is the only known kinetochore protein capable of driving chromosome movement toward spindle poles. In grasshopper spermatocytes, dynein immunofluorescence staining is bright at prometaphase kinetochores and dimmer at metaphase kinetochores. We have determined that these differences in staining intensity reflect differences in amounts of dynein associated with the kinetochore. Metaphase kinetochores regain bright dynein staining if they are detached from spindle microtubules by micromanipulation and kept detached for 10 min. We show that this increase in dynein staining is not caused by the retraction or unmasking of dynein upon detachment. Thus, dynein genuinely is a transient component of spermatocyte kinetochores.We further show that microtubule attachment, not tension, regulates dynein localization at kinetochores. Dynein binding is extremely sensitive to the presence of microtubules: fewer than half the normal number of kinetochore microtubules leads to the loss of most kinetochoric dynein. As a result, the bulk of the dynein leaves the kinetochore very early in mitosis, soon after the kinetochores begin to attach to microtubules. The possible functions of this dynein fraction are therefore limited to the initial attachment and movement of chromosomes and/or to a role in the mitotic checkpoint.     

Microtubules,chromosome movement,and reorientation after chromosomes are detached from the spindle by micromanipulation

The relationship between chromosome movement and mirotubules was explored by combining micromanipulation of living grasshopper spermatocytes with electron microscopy. We detached chromosomes from the spindle and placed them far out in the cytoplasm. Soon, the chromosomes began to move back toward the spindle and the cells were fixed at a chosen moment. The microtubules seen in three-dimensional reconstructions were correlated with the chromosome movement just prior to fixation. Before movement began, detached chromosomes had no kinetochore microtubules or a single one at most. Renewed movement was always accompanied by the reappearance of kinetochore microtubules; a single kinetochore microtubule appeared to suffice. Chromosome movements and kinetochore microtubule arrangements were unusual after reattachment, but their relationship was not: poleward forces, parallel to the kinetochore microtubule axis (as in normal anaphase), would explain the movement, however odd. The initial arrangement of kinetochore microtubules would have led to aberrant chromosome distribution if it persisted, but instead, reorientation to the appropriate arrangement always followed. Observations on living cells permitted us to place in sequence the kinetochore microtubule arrangements seen in fixed cells, revealing the microtubule transformations during reorientation. From the sequence of events we conclude that chromosome movement can cause reorientation to begin and that in the changes which follow, an unstable attachment of kinetochore microtubules to the spindle plays a major role.     

Cell division and the microtubular cytoskeleton]

Kinetochore microtubules result from an interaction between astral microtubules and the kinetochore of the chromosomes after breakdown of the nuclear envelope at the end of prophase. In this process, the end of a microtubule projecting from one of the polar regions contacts the primary constriction of a chromosome. The latter then undergoes rapid poleward movement. Concerning the mechanism of anaphase chromosome movement, the motive force for the chromosome-to-pole movement appears to be generated at the kinetochore or in the region very close to it. It has not been determined whether chromosomes propel themselves along stationary kinetochore microtubules by a motor at the kinetochore, or they are pulled poleward by a traction fiber consisting of kinetochore microtubules and associated motors. As chromosomes move poleward coordinate disassembly of kinetochore microtubules might occur from their kinetochore ends. In diatom and yeast spindles, elongation of the spindle in anaphase (anaphase B) may be explained by microtubule assembly at polar microtubule ends in the spindle mid-zone and sliding of the antiparallel microtubules from the opposite poles. The sliding force appears to be generated through an ATP-dependent microtubule motor. In isolated sea urchin spindles, the microtubule assembly at the equator alone might provide the force for spindle elongation, although, in addition, involvement of microtubule sliding by a GTP-requiring mechanochemical enzyme cannot be excluded. Discussions were made on possible participation in anaphase chromosome movement of such microtubule motors as dynein, kinesin, dynamin and the claret segregation protein.     

Oscillatory movements of monooriented chromosomes and their position relative to the spindle pole result from the ejection properties of the aster and half-spindle

During mitosis a monooriented chromosome oscillates toward and away from its associated spindle pole and may be positioned many micrometers from the pole at the time of anaphase. We tested the hypothesis of Pickett-Heaps et al. (Pickett-Heaps, J. D., D. H. Tippit, and K. R. Porter, 1982, Cell, 29:729-744) that this behavior is generated by the sister kinetochores of a chromosome interacting with, and moving in opposite direction along, the same set of polar microtubules. When the sister chromatids of a monooriented chromosome split at the onset of anaphase in newt lung cells, the proximal chromatid remains stationary or moves closer to the pole, with the kinetochore leading. During this time the distal chromatid moves a variable distance radially away from the pole, with one or both chromatid arms leading. Subsequent electron microscopy of these cells revealed that the kinetochore on the distal chromatid is free of microtubules. These results suggest that the distal kinetochore is not involved in the positioning of a monooriented chromosome relative to the spindle pole or in its oscillatory movements. To test this conclusion we used laser microsurgery to create monooriented chromosomes containing one kinetochore. Correlative light and electron microscopy revealed that chromosomes containing one kinetochore continue to undergo normal oscillations. Additional observations on normal and laser-irradiated monooriented chromosomes indicated that the chromosome does not change shape, and that the kinetochore region is not deformed, during movement away from the pole. Thus movement away from the pole during an oscillation does not appear to arise from a push generated by the single pole-facing kinetochore fiber, as postulated (Bajer, A. S., 1982, J. Cell Biol., 93:33-48). When the chromatid arms of a monooriented chromosome are cut free of the kinetochore, they are immediately ejected radially outward from the spindle pole at a constant velocity of 2 micron/min. This ejection velocity is similar to that of the outward movement of an oscillating chromosome. We conclude that the oscillations of a monooriented chromosome and its position relative to the spindle pole result from an imbalance between poleward pulling forces acting at the proximal kinetochore and an ejection force acting along the chromosome, which is generated within the aster and half-spindle.     

Functional redundancy in the maize meiotic kinetochore

Kinetochores can be thought of as having three major functions in chromosome segregation: (a) moving plateward at prometaphase; (b) participating in spindle checkpoint control; and (c) moving poleward at anaphase. Normally, kinetochores cooperate with opposed sister kinetochores (mitosis, meiosis II) or paired homologous kinetochores (meiosis I) to carry out these functions. Here we exploit three- and four-dimensional light microscopy and the maize meiotic mutant absence of first division 1 (afd1) to investigate the properties of single kinetochores. As an outcome of premature sister kinetochore separation in afd1 meiocytes, all of the chromosomes at meiosis II carry single kinetochores. Approximately 60% of the single kinetochore chromosomes align at the spindle equator during prometaphase/metaphase II, whereas acentric fragments, also generated by afd1, fail to align at the equator. Immunocytochemistry suggests that the plateward movement occurs in part because the single kinetochores separate into half kinetochore units. Single kinetochores stain positive for spindle checkpoint proteins during prometaphase, but lose their staining as tension is applied to the half kinetochores. At anaphase, approximately 6% of the kinetochores develop stable interactions with microtubules (kinetochore fibers) from both spindle poles. Our data indicate that maize meiotic kinetochores are plastic, redundant structures that can carry out each of their major functions in duplicate.     

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.