scholarly journals Regulation of Mitotic Spindle Disassembly by an Environmental Stress-Sensing Pathway in Budding Yeast

Genetics ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 198 (3) ◽  
pp. 1043-1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrianne Pigula ◽  
David G. Drubin ◽  
Georjana Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Stress ◽  
Mitotic Spindle ◽  
Budding Yeast ◽  
Spindle Disassembly ◽  
Stress Sensing

scholarly journals The budding yeast Ipl1/Aurora protein kinase regulates mitotic spindle disassembly

2003 ◽  
Vol 160 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphanie Buvelot ◽  
Sean Y. Tatsutani ◽  
Danielle Vermaak ◽  
Sue Biggins
Keyword(s):  
Chromosome Segregation ◽  
Mitotic Spindle ◽  
Kinase Activity ◽  
Budding Yeast ◽  
Genomic Stability ◽  
Time Lapse ◽  
Time Lapse Microscopy ◽  
Spindle Disassembly ◽  
Spindle Midzone ◽  
Spindle Microtubules

Ipl1p is the budding yeast member of the Aurora family of protein kinases, critical regulators of genomic stability that are required for chromosome segregation, the spindle checkpoint, and cytokinesis. Using time-lapse microscopy, we found that Ipl1p also has a function in mitotic spindle disassembly that is separable from its previously identified roles. Ipl1–GFP localizes to kinetochores from G1 to metaphase, transfers to the spindle after metaphase, and accumulates at the spindle midzone late in anaphase. Ipl1p kinase activity increases at anaphase, and ipl1 mutants can stabilize fragile spindles. As the spindle disassembles, Ipl1p follows the plus ends of the depolymerizing spindle microtubules. Many Ipl1p substrates colocalize with Ipl1p to the spindle midzone, identifying additional proteins that may regulate spindle disassembly. We propose that Ipl1p regulates both the kinetochore and interpolar microtubule plus ends to regulate its various mitotic functions.

scholarly journals Genes Involved in Sister Chromatid Separation and Segregation in the Budding Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Genetics ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 159 (2) ◽  
pp. 453-470
Author(s):  
Sue Biggins ◽  
Needhi Bhalla ◽  
Amy Chang ◽  
Dana L Smith ◽  
Andrew W Murray
Keyword(s):  
Chromosome Segregation ◽  
Sister Chromatid ◽  
Mitotic Spindle ◽  
Budding Yeast ◽  
Temperature Sensitive ◽  
Chromosome Behavior ◽  
Yeast Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ◽  
Sister Chromatids ◽  
Marked Chromosome ◽  
Sister Chromatid Separation

Abstract Accurate chromosome segregation requires the precise coordination of events during the cell cycle. Replicated sister chromatids are held together while they are properly attached to and aligned by the mitotic spindle at metaphase. At anaphase, the links between sisters must be promptly dissolved to allow the mitotic spindle to rapidly separate them to opposite poles. To isolate genes involved in chromosome behavior during mitosis, we microscopically screened a temperature-sensitive collection of budding yeast mutants that contain a GFP-marked chromosome. Nine LOC (loss of cohesion) complementation groups that do not segregate sister chromatids at anaphase were identified. We cloned the corresponding genes and performed secondary tests to determine their function in chromosome behavior. We determined that three LOC genes, PDS1, ESP1, and YCS4, are required for sister chromatid separation and three other LOC genes, CSE4, IPL1, and SMT3, are required for chromosome segregation. We isolated alleles of two genes involved in splicing, PRP16 and PRP19, which impair α-tubulin synthesis thus preventing spindle assembly, as well as an allele of CDC7 that is defective in DNA replication. We also report an initial characterization of phenotypes associated with the SMT3/SUMO gene and the isolation of WSS1, a high-copy smt3 suppressor.

Environmental Stress-Sensing and Pathogenicity in Cryptococcus neoformans

2009 ◽  
pp. 191-208
Author(s):  
Man-Shun Fu ◽  
Rebecca A. Hall ◽  
Fritz A. Mühlschlegel
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Stress ◽  
Cryptococcus Neoformans ◽  
Stress Sensing

scholarly journals The environmental stress response causes ribosome loss in aneuploid yeast cells

2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (29) ◽  
pp. 17031-17040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allegra Terhorst ◽  
Arzu Sandikci ◽  
Abigail Keller ◽  
Charles A. Whittaker ◽  
Maitreya J. Dunham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Stress Response ◽  
Stationary Phase ◽  
Environmental Stress ◽  
Budding Yeast ◽  
Expression Patterns ◽  
Yeast Cells ◽  
Specific Gene ◽  
Environmental Stress Response ◽  
Cellular Stresses

Aneuploidy, a condition characterized by whole chromosome gains and losses, is often associated with significant cellular stress and decreased fitness. However, how cells respond to the aneuploid state has remained controversial. In aneuploid budding yeast, two opposing gene-expression patterns have been reported: the “environmental stress response” (ESR) and the “common aneuploidy gene-expression” (CAGE) signature, in which many ESR genes are oppositely regulated. Here, we investigate this controversy. We show that the CAGE signature is not an aneuploidy-specific gene-expression signature but the result of normalizing the gene-expression profile of actively proliferating aneuploid cells to that of euploid cells grown into stationary phase. Because growth into stationary phase is among the strongest inducers of the ESR, the ESR in aneuploid cells was masked when stationary phase euploid cells were used for normalization in transcriptomic studies. When exponentially growing euploid cells are used in gene-expression comparisons with aneuploid cells, the CAGE signature is no longer evident in aneuploid cells. Instead, aneuploid cells exhibit the ESR. We further show that the ESR causes selective ribosome loss in aneuploid cells, providing an explanation for the decreased cellular density of aneuploid cells. We conclude that aneuploid budding yeast cells mount the ESR, rather than the CAGE signature, in response to aneuploidy-induced cellular stresses, resulting in selective ribosome loss. We propose that the ESR serves two purposes in aneuploid cells: protecting cells from aneuploidy-induced cellular stresses and preventing excessive cellular enlargement during slowed cell cycles by down-regulating translation capacity.

scholarly journals Mitotic spindle disassembly occurs via distinct subprocesses driven by the anaphase-promoting complex, Aurora B kinase, and kinesin-8

2010 ◽  
Vol 191 (4) ◽  
pp. 795-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey B. Woodruff ◽  
David G. Drubin ◽  
Georjana Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Mitotic Spindle ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Dynamic Structure ◽  
Aurora B ◽  
Anaphase Promoting Complex ◽  
Microtubule Depolymerization ◽  
Aurora B Kinase ◽  
Synthetic Lethal ◽  
Spindle Disassembly ◽  
Spindle Elongation

The mitotic spindle is a complex and dynamic structure. Although much has been learned about how spindles assemble and mediate chromosome segregation, how spindles rapidly and irreversibly disassemble during telophase is less clear. We used synthetic lethal screens in budding yeast to identify mutants defective in spindle disassembly. Real-time, live cell imaging analysis of spindle disassembly was performed on nine mutants defective in this process. Results of this analysis suggest that spindle disassembly is achieved by mechanistically distinct but functionally overlapping subprocesses: disengagement of the spindle halves, arrest of spindle elongation, and initiation of interpolar microtubule depolymerization. These subprocesses are largely governed by the anaphase-promoting complex, Aurora B kinase, and kinesin-8. Combinatorial inhibition of these subprocesses yielded cells with hyperstable spindle remnants and dramatic defects in cell cycle progression, establishing that rapid spindle disassembly is crucial for cell proliferation.

scholarly journals Budding Yeast Bub2 Is Localized at Spindle Pole Bodies and Activates the Mitotic Checkpoint via a Different Pathway from Mad2

1999 ◽  
Vol 145 (5) ◽  
pp. 979-991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta Fraschini ◽  
Elisa Formenti ◽  
Giovanna Lucchini ◽  
Simonetta Piatti
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Mitotic Spindle ◽  
Cell Cycle Progression ◽  
Budding Yeast ◽  
Spindle Pole Body ◽  
Mitotic Checkpoint ◽  
Spindle Pole ◽  
Cycle Progression ◽  
Spindle Pole Bodies

The mitotic checkpoint blocks cell cycle progression before anaphase in case of mistakes in the alignment of chromosomes on the mitotic spindle. In budding yeast, the Mad1, 2, 3, and Bub1, 2, 3 proteins mediate this arrest. Vertebrate homologues of Mad1, 2, 3, and Bub1, 3 bind to unattached kinetochores and prevent progression through mitosis by inhibiting Cdc20/APC-mediated proteolysis of anaphase inhibitors, like Pds1 and B-type cyclins. We investigated the role of Bub2 in budding yeast mitotic checkpoint. The following observations indicate that Bub2 and Mad1, 2 probably activate the checkpoint via different pathways: (a) unlike the other Mad and Bub proteins, Bub2 localizes at the spindle pole body (SPB) throughout the cell cycle; (b) the effect of concomitant lack of Mad1 or Mad2 and Bub2 is additive, since nocodazole-treated mad1 bub2 and mad2 bub2 double mutants rereplicate DNA more rapidly and efficiently than either single mutant; (c) cell cycle progression of bub2 cells in the presence of nocodazole requires the Cdc26 APC subunit, which, conversely, is not required for mad2 cells in the same conditions. Altogether, our data suggest that activation of the mitotic checkpoint blocks progression through mitosis by independent and partially redundant mechanisms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document