QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online October 27, 2004
doi: 10.1242/10.1242/jcs.01536

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Maiato, H. Articles by Earnshaw, W. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Maiato, H. Articles by Earnshaw, W. C.

The dynamic kinetochore-microtubule interface

¹ Laboratory of Cell Regulation, NYSDH–Division of Molecular Medicine, Wadsworth Center, Empire State Plaza, PO Box 509, Albany, NY 12201-0509, USA
² Department of Biology, CB#3280, 607 Fordham Hall, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
³ Chromosome Structure Group, Wellcome Trust Centre for Cell Biology, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JR, UK

View larger version (51K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Organization of the animal kinetochore showing the locations of some of its protein constituents [updated from Pluta et al. (Pluta et al., 1995); Rieder and Salmon (Rieder and Salmon, 1998)].

View larger version (50K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. A speculative working model showing the dependency pathways for association of components with the animal kinetochore. This interpretation of data presented previously (Fukagawa and Brown, 1997; Howman et al., 2000; Fukagawa et al., 2001; Oegema et al., 2001; Desai et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2003; Goshima et al., 2003; Cheeseman et al., 2004) should not be interpreted as showing direct physical interactions. Components shown in blue have thus far been identified only in C. elegans. Those shown in dotted boxes have been shown to form complexes.

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Kinetochore attachment error correction in mitosis. (A) Description of the most common kinetochore attachment errors, their ability to activate the checkpoint, and the consequences if they are not detected before anaphase onset. (B) Left: diagram of the composition of the chromosomal passenger complex as presently understood (subunits shown in contact have been shown to interact in vitro, and no effort has been made to show the stoichiometry of the various subunits within the complex). Right: model showing the predicted activity of aurora B at centromeres under different conditions of microtubule occupancy.

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. (A) The kinetochore acts like a slip-clutch mechanism, switching to polymerization at high tensions to prevent detachment (Maddox et al., 2003). See text for details. (B) Model for the roles played by the cast of characters involved in microtubule attachment and dynamics at the vertebrate kinetochore.

View larger version (70K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Historic and high-resolution views of the kinetochore-microtubule interface. (A) Original description of the `leitkörpen' (`the leading body') as the interface between chromosomes and the spindle in Salamander spermatocytes [adapted from the original (Metzner, 1894)]. (B) A single 16 nm thick slice from a 10-section tomographic volume reconstruction of the microtubule-kinetochore interface from PtK1 cells prepared by high-pressure freezing/freeze substitution. Note that forked microtubule plus ends are embedded in the kinetochore outer plate (arrows). (This picture was kindly provided by Bruce McEwen, Wadsworth Center, Albany, NY.) As a key to scale, the diameter of a microtubule is 25 nm.