Symmetry applied to nuclear microanatomy: a review of gene function and cell differentiation

The purpose of this paper is to review current knowledge and understandings of gene control and cell differentiation, based upon an appreciation of a possible role that nuclear microanatomy and considerations of steric symmetry might play. Metaphase sister chromatids have identical base codes but show a mirror image symmetry of higher order coiling. Chromosomes in the interphase nucleus have spatially well defined domains and are anatomically distinct and ordered. Chromosomes are known to have interactions i.e. sex chromosome inactivation, PEV, etc. An hypothesis of gene activation is made based on steric interactions among chromosomes and between chromosomes and activating and repressor proteins. These interactions may be influenced by the handedness of higher order chromatid coiling, since homologues show mirror-image symmetrical coiling in metaphase, which might be retained to a certain degree in interphase. This may result in a binary switching of genes. All possible combinations of chromatids in the interphase nucleus, would be enabled by a differential segregation of homologous chromatids at mitosis. To conserve patterns of interchromatid interactions, there must be a programmed segregation of chromatids towards one of the two spindle pole attachments. This orientation might be effected by preferential attachment of microtubules to kinetochore attachment sites, by steric hindrance of the kinetochore by condensed chromatin which initially allows only unidirectional tubule attachment, or possibly by a tethering of interacting chromatids which would migrate en masse. An attempt to apply this hypothesis to some illustrative pathological conditions is made.     

Aurora controls sister kinetochore mono-orientation and homolog bi-orientation in meiosis-I

Aurora-B kinases are important regulators of mitotic chromosome segregation, where they are required for the faithful bi-orientation of sister chromatids. In contrast to mitosis, sister chromatids have to be oriented toward the same spindle pole in meiosis-I, while homologous chromosomes are bi-oriented. We find that the fission yeast Aurora kinase Ark1 is required for the faithful bi-orientation of sister chromatids in mitosis and of homologous chromosomes in meiosis-I. Unexpectedly, Ark1 is also necessary for the faithful mono-orientation of sister chromatids in meiosis-I, even though the canonical mono-orientation pathway, which depends on Moa1 and Rec8, seems intact. Our data suggest that Ark1 prevents unified sister kinetochores during metaphase-I from merotelic attachment to both spindle poles and thus from being torn apart during anaphase-I, revealing a novel mechanism promoting monopolar attachment. Furthermore, our results provide an explanation for the previously enigmatic observation that fission yeast Shugoshin Sgo2, which assists in loading Aurora to centromeres, and its regulator Bub1 are required for the mono-orientation of sister chromatids in meiosis-I.     

Nuclear p120 catenin is a component of the perichromosomal layer and coordinates sister chromatid segregation during mitosis in lung cancer cells

Abnormal expression of p120 catenin is associated with the malignant phenotype in human lung cancer. Numerous studies have focused on the function of p120 catenin in the juxta-membrane compartment. However, the role of nuclear p120 catenin remains unclear. In this study, the dynamic changes in nuclear p120 catenin localization during cell cycle progression were investigated. Immunofluorescent staining, FACS analysis, and western blotting revealed that nuclear p120 catenin is a major architectural constituent of the chromosome periphery during mitosis. During mitosis, granule-like p120 catenin dispersed into a cloudy-like structure and formed cordon-like structures surrounding the condensed chromosomes to create the peri-chromosomal layer. Interestingly, lumican and p120 catenin colocalized at the spindle fiber where the perichromosomal layer connects to the condensed chromosomes during mitosis. Furthermore, downregulation of p120 catenin using a specific siRNA induced cell cycle stalling in the G2/M phase and promoted aneuploidy. This study validates the role of nuclear p120 catenin in the formation of the chromosome periphery and reveals the p120 catenin-lumican interaction may couple orientation of cell division with the segregation of sister chromatids during mitosis. Our data suggest the protective role of p120 catenin in maintaining the integrity of chromosomes, and also warrants further studies to evaluate the contribution of the loss of p120 catenin to the creation of gene rearrangement in cancer evolution and tumor progression.Subject terms: Non-small-cell lung cancer, Cell biology     

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.     

Regulated assembly of the mitotic spindle: a perspective from two ends

Chromosome segregration and cell division requires the regulated assembly of the mitotic spindle apparatus. This mitotic spindle is composed of condensed chromosomes attached to a dynamic array of microtubules. The microtubule array is nucleated by centrosomes and organized by associated structural and motor proteins. Mechanical linkages between sister chromatids and microtubules are critical for spindle assembly and chromosome segregation. Defects in either chromosome or centrosome segregation can lead to aneuploidy and are correlated with cancer progression. In this review, we discuss current models of how centrosomes and chromosomes organize the spindle for their equal distribution to each daughter cell.     

Genes occupy a fixed and symmetrical position on sister chromatids

A high-resolution fluorescence methodology for nonisotopic in situ hybridization was applied to determine the positions occupied by several single-copy genes, DNA sequences, and integrated viral genomes on sister chromatids. The lateral and longitudinal mapping of the probes was performed on prometaphase and metaphase chromosomes. A fixed lateral position, exterior or median in relation to the longitudinal axis of the chromatids, was observed for a given probe, with a symmetrical position of the double fluorescent spots. This position appears to be independent of chromosome condensation stage from prometaphase to metaphase. These observations suggest an opposite helical-handedness conformation of DNA on both chromatids with a mirror symmetry. They support the model of chromosome packaging recently proposed by Boy de la Tour and Laemmli. Moreover, our results indicate that the last stages of chromosome condensation occur by packing down the coils without further coiling.     

Chromosome condensation and sister chromatid pairing in budding yeast

We have developed a fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) method to examine the structure of both natural chromosomes and small artificial chromosomes during the mitotic cycle of budding yeast. Our results suggest that the pairing of sister chromatids: (a) occurs near the centromere and at multiple places along the chromosome arm as has been observed in other eukaryotic cells; (b) is maintained in the absence of catenation between sister DNA molecules; and (c) is independent of large blocks of repetitive DNA commonly associated with heterochromatin. Condensation of a unique region of chromosome XVI and the highly repetitive ribosomal DNA (rDNA) cluster from chromosome XII were also examined in budding yeast. Interphase chromosomes were condensed 80-fold relative to B form DNA, similar to what has been observed in other eukaryotes, suggesting that the structure of interphase chromosomes may be conserved among eukaryotes. While additional condensation of budding yeast chromosomes were observed during mitosis, the level of condensation was less than that observed for human mitotic chromosomes. At most stages of the cell cycle, both unique and repetitive sequences were either condensed or decondensed. However, in cells arrested in late mitosis (M) by a cdc15 mutation, the unique DNA appeared decondensed while the repetitive rDNA region appeared condensed, suggesting that the condensation state of separate regions of the genome may be regulated differently. The ability to monitor the pairing and condensation of sister chromatids in budding yeast should facilitate the molecular analysis of these processes as well as provide two new landmarks for evaluating the function of important cell cycle regulators like p34 kinases and cyclins. Finally our FISH method provides a new tool to analyze centromeres, telomeres, and gene expression in budding yeast.     

Micromanipulation of chromosomes reveals that cohesion release during cell division is gradual and does not require tension

In mitosis, cohesion appears to be present along the entire length of the chromosome, between centromeres and along chromosome arms. By metaphase, sister chromatids appear as two adjacent but visibly distinct rods. Sister chromatids separate from one another in anaphase by releasing all chromosome cohesion. This is different from meiosis I, in which pairs of sister chromatids separate from one another, moving to each spindle pole by releasing cohesion only between sister chromatid arms. Then, in anaphase II, sister chromatids separate by releasing centromere cohesion. Our objective was to find where cohesion is present or absent on chromosomes in mitosis and meiosis and when and how it is released. We determined cohesion directly by pulling on chromosomes with two micromanipulation needles. Thus, we could distinguish for the first time between apparent doubleness as seen in the microscope and physical separability. We found that apparent doubleness can be deceiving: Visibly distinct sister chromatids often cannot be separated. We also demonstrated that cohesion is released gradually in anaphase, with chromosomes looking as if they were unzipped or pulled apart. This implied that tension from spindle forces was required, but we showed directly that no tension was necessary to pull chromatids apart.     

Laser microirradiation of kinetochores in mitotic PtK2 cells: chromatid separation and micronucleus formation

Irradiation of the kinetochore region of PtK2 chromosomes by laser light of 532 nm was used to study the function of the kinetochore region in chromosome movement and to create an artificial micronuclei in cells. When the sister kinetochores of a chromosome were irradiated at prometaphase, the affected chromosome detached from the spindle and exhibited no further directed movements for the duration of mitosis. The chromatids of the chromosome remained attached to one another until anaphase, at which point they separated. No poleward movement of the chromatids was observed, and at telophase they passively moved to one of the daughter cells and were enclosed in a micronucleus. The daughter cell containing the micronucleus was then isolated by micromanipulation and followed through subsequent mitoses. At the next mitosis, two chromosomes, each with two chromatids, condensed in the micronucleus. These chromosomes did not attach to the spindle and showed chromatid separation, but no poleward movements at anaphase. They were again enclosed in micronuclei at telophase. The third generation mitosis was similar to the second. Occasionally, both the irradiation-produced and naturally occurring micronuclei exhibited no chromosome condensation at mitosis. Feulgen-stained monolayers of PtK2 cells with naturally occurring micronuclei showed that some micronuclei stain positive for DNA and others do not. This finding raises questions about the fate of chromosomes in a micronucleus.     

A change in sister chromatid behavior precedes nuclear division in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

We used a genetic assay to monitor the behavior of sister chromatids during the cell cycle. We show that the ability to induce sister chromatid exchanges (SCE) with ionizing radiation is maximal in budded cells with undivided nuclei and then decreases prior to nuclear division. SCE can be induced in cells arrested in G2 using either nocodazole or cdc mutants. These data show that sister chromatids have two different states prior to nuclear division. We suggest that the sister chromatids of cir. III, a circular derivative of chromosome III, separate (anaphase A) prior to spindle elongation (anaphase B). Other interpretations are also discussed. SCE can be induced in cdc mutants that arrest in G2 and in nocodazole-treated cells, suggesting that mitotic checkpoints arrest cells prior to sister chromatid separation.     

Laser microirradiation of kinetochores in mitotic PtK2 cells

Irradiation of the kinetochore region of PtK₂ chromosomes by laser light of 532 nm was used to study the function of the kinetochore region in chromosome movement and to create artificial micronuclei in cells. When the sister kinetochores of a chromosome were irradiated at prometaphase, the affected chromosome detached from the spindle and exhibited no further directed movements for the duration of mitosis. The chromatids of the chromosome remained attached to one another until anaphase, at which point they separated. No poleward movement of the chromatids was observed, and at telophase they passively moved to one of the daughter cells and were enclosed in a micronucleus. The daughter cell containing the micronucleus was then isolated by micromanipulation and followed through subsequent mitoses. At the next mitosis, two chromosomes, each with two chromatids, condensed in the micronucleus. These chromosomes did not attach to the spindle and showed chromatid separation, but no poleward movements at anaphase. They were again enclosed in micronuclei at telophase. The third generation mitosis was similar to the second. Occasionally, both the irradiation-produced and naturally occurring micronuclei exhibited no chromosome condensation at mitosis. Feulgenstained monolayers of PtK₂ cells with naturally occurring micronuclei showed that some micronuclei stain positive for DNA and others do not. This finding raises questions about the fate of chromosomes in a micronucleus.     

Condensin restructures chromosomes in preparation for meiotic divisions

The production of haploid gametes from diploid germ cells requires two rounds of meiotic chromosome segregation after one round of replication. Accurate meiotic chromosome segregation involves the remodeling of each pair of homologous chromosomes around the site of crossover into a highly condensed and ordered structure. We showed that condensin, the protein complex needed for mitotic chromosome compaction, restructures chromosomes during meiosis in Caenorhabditis elegans. In particular, condensin promotes both meiotic chromosome condensation after crossover recombination and the remodeling of sister chromatids. Condensin helps resolve cohesin-independent linkages between sister chromatids and alleviates recombination-independent linkages between homologues. The safeguarding of chromosome resolution by condensin permits chromosome segregation and is crucial for the formation of discrete, individualized bivalent chromosomes.     

Molecular dynamics of Aurora-A kinase in living mitotic cells simultaneously visualized with histone H3 and nuclear membrane protein importinalpha

Aurora-A is known to be a mitotic kinase required for spindle assembly. We constructed a human stable cell-line in which Aurora-A, histone H3 and importinalpha were differentially expressed as fusions to green, cyan, and red fluorescent proteins (GFP, CFP and DsRed). In interphase cells, GFP-Aurora-A was localized in the centrosome. Its molecular behavior in living mitotic cells was extensively analyzed by an advanced timelapse image analyzing system. In G2 phase, duplicated centrosomal dots of Aurora-A separated and moved to the opposite poles, a process requiring 18 min. In prophase, the Aurora-A dots approached closer and the nuclear membrane of DsRed-importinalpha beneath them became thick and invaginated, resulting in a "dumb-bell" shaped nucleus with condensed chromatin. As the importinalpha membrane further shrank and disappeared, the condensed chromatin was excluded from the nucleus and the Aurora-A dots grew rapidly into a spindle-like structure. Congression of mitotic chromosomes continued for 20-50 min until they were properly aligned at the spindle equator and then the sister chromatids started to segregate, taking 4-6 min for them to reach the poles. An importinalpha membrane reappeared around the surface of chromatin 10 min after anaphase onset. Aurora-A gradually decreased in size in telophase and returned to the surface of the newly formed small sister nuclei. These observations showed that the morphological change of Aurora-A was cooperated with the breakdown and reformation of nuclear membrane. Immunostaining with anti-alpha or gamma-tubulin further indicated that Aurora-A was involved in the formation of mitotic spindle in metaphase as well as the subsequent chromosome movement in anaphase.     

A change in sister chromatid behavior precedes nuclear division in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

We used a genetic assay to monitor the behavior of sister chromatids during the cell cycle. We show that the ability to induce sister chromatid exchanges (SCE) with ionizing radiation is maximal in budded cells with undivided nuclei and then decreases prior to nuclear division. SCE can be induced in cells arrested in G2 using either nocodazole or cdc mutants. These data show that sister chromatids have two different states prior to nuclear division. We suggest that the sister chromatids of cir. III, a circular derivative of chromosome III, separate (anaphase A) prior to spindle elongation (anaphase B). Other interpretations are also discussed. SCE can be induced in cdc mutants that arrest in G2 and in nocodazole-treated cells, suggesting that mitotic checkpoints arrest cells prior to sister chromatid separation. Received: 3 July 1996 / Accepted: 4 October 1996     

Kiss and break up—a safe passage to anaphase in mitosis and meiosis

Eukaryotic chromosomes have many challenges to overcome between DNA replication and sister chromatid segregation. If these challenges are not met, cell death or unregulated cell division (cancer) may result. During prophase, chromosomes condense, the nuclear membrane breaks down and cohesins are removed from chromosome arms. In prometaphase, initial spindle attachments are made by sister kinetochores followed by correction of erroneous attachments, centromere oscillation between spindle poles and congression towards the cell's equator. In metaphase, all chromosomes attain stable bipolar spindle attachments and align at the metaphase plate, ready for the metaphase–anaphase transition when all ties between sister chromatids are broken. This review concentrates on recent developments that have revealed the intricacies of these processes. We now know more about how the mechanisms of cohesin removal differ between prophase and the metaphase–anaphase transition, the processes for detection and correction of improper spindle-kinetochore attachments and the concept that tension between sister kinetochores is the driving factor for satisfying the spindle checkpoint. We are also beginning to gain some understanding of the mechanisms behind the co-segregation of sister chromatids at the first meiotic division. Review related to the 15th International Chromosome Conference (ICC XV), held in September 2004, Brunel University, London, UK     

Maternal expression of the checkpoint protein BubR1 is required for synchrony of syncytial nuclear divisions and polar body arrest in Drosophila melanogaster

The spindle checkpoint is a surveillance mechanism that regulates the metaphase-anaphase transition during somatic cell division through inhibition of the APC/C ensuring proper chromosome segregation. We show that the conserved spindle checkpoint protein BubR1 is required during early embryonic development. BubR1 is maternally provided and localises to kinetochores from prophase to metaphase during syncytial divisions similarly to somatic cells. To determine BubR1 function during embryogenesis, we generated a new hypomorphic semi-viable female sterile allele. Mutant females lay eggs containing undetectable levels of BubR1 show early developmental arrest, abnormal syncytial nuclear divisions, defects in chromosome congression, premature sister chromatids separation, irregular chromosome distribution and asynchronous divisions. Nuclei in BubR1 mutant embryos do not arrest in response to spindle damage suggesting that BubR1 performs a checkpoint function during syncytial divisions. Furthermore, we find that in wild-type embryos BubR1 localises to the kinetochores of condensed polar body chromosomes. This localisation is functional because in mutant embryos, polar body chromatin undergoes cycles of condensation-decondensation with additional rounds of DNA replication. Our results suggest that BubR1 is required for normal synchrony and progression of syncytial nuclei through mitosis and to maintain the mitotic arrest of the polar body chromosomes after completion of meiosis.     

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.     

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.     

The reduction of chromosome number in meiosis is determined by properties built into the chromosomes

In meiosis I, two chromatids move to each spindle pole. Then, in meiosis II, the two are distributed, one to each future gamete. This requires that meiosis I chromosomes attach to the spindle differently than meiosis II chromosomes and that they regulate chromosome cohesion differently. We investigated whether the information that dictates the division type of the chromosome comes from the whole cell, the spindle, or the chromosome itself. Also, we determined when chromosomes can switch from meiosis I behavior to meiosis II behavior. We used a micromanipulation needle to fuse grasshopper spermatocytes in meiosis I to spermatocytes in meiosis II, and to move chromosomes from one spindle to the other. Chromosomes placed on spindles of a different meiotic division always behaved as they would have on their native spindle; e.g., a meiosis I chromosome attached to a meiosis II spindle in its normal fashion and sister chromatids moved together to the same spindle pole. We also showed that meiosis I chromosomes become competent meiosis II chromosomes in anaphase of meiosis I, but not before. The patterns for attachment to the spindle and regulation of cohesion are built into the chromosome itself. These results suggest that regulation of chromosome cohesion may be linked to differences in the arrangement of kinetochores in the two meiotic divisions.     

A chromosome separation checkpoint

Here we discuss a “chromosome separation checkpoint” that might regulate the anaphase‐telophase transition. The concept of cell cycle checkpoints was originally proposed to account for extrinsic control mechanisms that ensure the order of cell cycle events. Several checkpoints have been shown to regulate major cell cycle transitions, namely at G1‐S and G2‐M. At the onset of mitosis, the prophase‐prometaphase transition is controlled by several potential checkpoints, including the antephase checkpoint, while the spindle assembly checkpoint guards the metaphase‐anaphase transition. Our hypothesis is based on the recently uncovered feedback control mechanism that delays chromosome decondensation and nuclear envelope reassembly until effective separation of sister chromatids during anaphase is achieved. A central player in this potential checkpoint is the establishment of a constitutive, midzone‐based Aurora B phosphorylation gradient that monitors the position of chromosomes along the spindle axis. We propose that this surveillance mechanism represents an additional step towards ensuring mitotic fidelity.