CELL CYCLE 2016, VOL. 15, NO. 4, 493–497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15384101.2015.1128596
The spindle assembly checkpoint promotes chromosome bi-orientation: A novel Mad1 role in chromosome alignment Takashi Akeray and Yoshinori Watanabe Laboratory of Chromosome Dynamics, Institute of Molecular Cellular Biosciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Faithful chromosome segregation relies on dynamic interactions between spindle microtubules and chromosomes. Especially, all chromosomes must be aligned at the equator of the spindle to establish biorientation before they start to segregate. The spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) monitors this process, inhibiting chromosome segregation until all chromosomes achieve bi-orientation. The original concept of ‘checkpoints’ was proposed as an external surveillance system that does not play an active role in the process it monitors. However, accumulating evidence from recent studies suggests that SAC components do play an active role in chromosome bi-orientation. In this review, we highlight a novel Mad1 role in chromosome alignment, which is the ﬁrst conserved mechanism that links the SAC and kinesin-mediated chromosome gliding.
Received 16 November 2015 Accepted 27 November 2015
Introduction Chromosome segregation is an essential process by which genetic information is passed to daughter cells. This process depends on the microtubule-based machine called the spindle. The spindle interacts with chromosomes mainly through kinetochores, which are formed on the centromeric DNA. Kinetochores of sister chromatids should attach to microtubules emanating from opposite spindle poles to be segregated equally to daughter cells (chromosome bi-orientation).1-3 Chromosome alignment at the spindle equator greatly promotes chromosome bi-orientation by increasing the chance of sister kinetochores being captured by microtubules from opposite poles2,4 (Fig. 1). Thus, a failure to complete chromosome alignment leads to mis-segregation in anaphase. To avoid this, cells are equipped with a system to check whether all chromosomes are fully aligned or not. This surveillance system is called the spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC). The SAC is speciﬁcally activated at unattached kinetochores of misaligned chromosomes and produces a diffusible signal, which inhibits Cdc20, an essential co-activator of the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome (APC/C).5-10 Thus, this system enables cells to delay the cell cycle until all kinetochores are attached to microtubules. Mad1, Mad2, Mad3/BubR1, Mps1, Bub1 and Bub3 are considered the core components of the SAC. SAC signaling cascade comprising Aurora B, Mps1, Bub1 and Bub3 recruits Mad1 to unattached kinetochores.11 Mad1 then recruits Mad2 and induces its conformational change to assemble the mitotic checkpoint complex (MCC), which inhibits the APC/C. The original concept of the ‘checkpoint’ was proposed as an external surveillance system that does not play an active role in
kinesin; kinetochore; mitosis; spindle assembly checkpoint
the process it monitors.12 However, there are numbers of studies reporting that SAC components actively promote chromosome bi-orientation, implying the necessity of extending the original concept of the SAC. In this review, we highlight the active roles of SAC components in chromosome bi-orientation with an especial focus on a novel role played by Mad1 in chromosome alignment.
Active roles of SAC components in chromosome bi-orientation Chromosomes achieve bi-orientation after several rounds of trial and error microtubule attachment. Erroneous attachments that do not produce tension across sister kinetochores are destabilized by the chromosome passenger complex (CPC), which contains Aurora B kinase13 (Fig. 2). This allows the kinetochores to proceed to the next round of microtubule attachment. One of the core SAC components, Bub1 kinase, phosphorylates histone H2A to recruit shugoshin, an adaptor for the CPC, to the inner-centromere where the CPC acts for error-correction3,14 (Fig. 2). Another core SAC component, BubR1 associates directly with PP2A-B56 phosphatase to counteract the Aurora B kinase activity, thereby stabilizing the kinetochore-microtubule attachment15-17 (Fig. 2). The most downstream factor in SAC signaling, Mad2, also stabilizes kinetochore-microtubule attachment by affecting the centromeric localization of the CPC18 (Fig. 2). Interestingly, this function does not depend on the kinetochore localization of Mad2. A ﬁne-tuned balance between CPC and counteracting phosphatases is known to be crucial for establishing chromosome
CONTACT Yoshinori Watanabe [email protected]
Laboratory of Chromosome Dynamics; Institute of Molecular Cellular Biosciences; University of Tokyo; Tokyo;113-0032, Japan. Color versions of one or more of the ﬁgures in this article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/kccy. y Current address: Department of Biology, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. © 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
T. AKERA AND Y. WATANABE
Figure 1. The spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) ensures the ﬁdelity of chromosome segregation. In early stage of mitosis, misaligned chromosomes activate the SAC to inhibit APC/C. This prevents premature onset of chromosome segregation. Only when all chromosomes achieve chromosome bi-orientation, the SAC will be inactivated to allow cells to start chromosome segregation.
bi-orientation. These ﬁndings suggest that SAC components play important roles in actively promoting chromosome biorientation.
compared to mad3D cells.22 All these ﬁndings imply that Mad1 has a role in chromosome bi-orientation beyond the SAC at kinetochores.
A novel Mad1 role in chromosome bi-orientation beyond the SAC
Mad1 promotes chromosome alignment by anchoring Cut7/kinesin-5 to the kinetochore in ﬁssion yeast
Another core SAC component, Mad1 is also implicated in promoting chromosome bi-orientation. In ﬂy, mad1-null mutant cells show higher rate of lagging chromosomes in anaphase compared to mad2-null mutant cells.19 This indicates Mad1 has a role in chromosome bi-orientation beyond the SAC. Interestingly, this role depends on Mad2-interacting motif of Mad1, although mad2-null mutant cells undergo normal anaphase.19 Molecular mechanisms how Mad1 promotes chromosome bi-orientation remain elusive. Similarly, in ﬁssion yeast, mad1D cells show higher sensitivity to spindle drugs compared to mad2D or mad3D cells.20,21 Importantly, other SAC mutant cells that abolish Mad1 kinetochore localization also showed hypersensitivity to spindle drugs. Also in budding yeast, mad1D and other SAC mutant cells that abolish Mad1 kinetochore localization showed hypersensitivity to spindle drugs
Figure 2. The SAC components play an active role in establishing chromosome biorientation. Bub1 targets the CPC to the inner centromere through phospho-histon H2A-bound Shugoshin. BubR1 targets PP2A-B56 phosphatase, which counteracts CPC, to kinetochore. Mad2 has Mad1-independent role to affect centromeric localization of Aurora B.
A recent study revealed that Mad1 promotes chromosome alignment to establish bi-orientation in both ﬁssion yeast and human cells.21 By screening for protein-protein interactions, Cut7/kinesin-5 was identiﬁed as a novel protein that interacts with ﬁssion yeast Mad1. Through this direct association, Mad1 recruits Cut7 to unattached kinetochores of misaligned chromosomes21 (Fig. 3). Time-lapse imaging of mitotic cells has demonstrated that kinetochore-localized Cut7 drives the gliding of misaligned chromosomes toward the spindle equator. Given that kinesin-5 family members including Cut7 are essential to form the bipolar spindle, Cut7 is a dual-function kinesin required for both spindle bipolarity and chromosome bi-orientation (Fig. 3). Kinesin-5 family members form a homotetramer to crosslink and slide antiparallel microtubules to establish the bipolar spindle.23-31 On the other hand, kinetochore kinesins, which promote chromosome alignments such as CENP-E/ kinesin-7,32,33 form a homodimer.34,35 Curiously, when different Cut7 constructs are artiﬁcially anchored to kinetochores, only the dimer form could promote chromosome alignment.21 In addition, Mad1 binds to the carboxyl-terminal region of Cut7 required for its tetramerization.21 While the dimerization of endogenous Cut7 is not proven, these results suggest that Mad1 binding might convert Cut7 from a homotetramer to a homodimer to switch the function from antiparallel microtubule sliding to chromosome gliding. Further in vivo and in vitro analyses of the Mad1-Cut7 complex should help to clarify this point in the future.
Human Mad1 promotes chromosome alignment by anchoring CENP-E/kinesin-7 to the kinetochore In human cells, it was unclear whether Mad1 played an additional role in chromosome bi-orientation beyond the SAC.
Figure 3. Mad1 has a conserved role in chromosome alignment. In ﬁssion yeast, Mad1 targets both Cut7/kinesin-5 and Mad2 to unattached kinetochores to glide misaligned chromosomes and activate the SAC. In human cells, hMad1 utilizes CENP-E/kinesin-7 instead of Eg5/kinesin-5 for chromosome gliding. Both in ﬁssion yeast and in human cells, kinesin-5 motor protein plays an essential role in spindle bipolarity.
Recently, however, time-lapse imaging analysis has revealed that Mad1 is required for chromosome alignment in human cells as well.21 Curiously, in human cells, Mad1 anchors different motor protein, CENP-E/kinesin-7, to promote chromosome alignment, whereas Eg5/kinesin-5 does not localize at kinetochores.21 Thus, although Cut7/kinesin-5 functions in chromosome alignment and bipolar spindle formation in ﬁssion yeast, human cells utilize CENP-E/kinesin-7 instead of Eg5/kinesin-5 for chromosome alignment (Fig. 3).
Evolutionary conservation of Mad1-kinesin pathway Budding yeast kinesin-5 motor proteins Cin8 and Kip1 are required for chromosome alignment.36 Given that budding yeast Mad1 is implicated in chromosome bi-orientation beyond the SAC,22 the Mad1-kinesin-5 pathway might be conserved in fungi. However, in higher eukaryotes such as ﬂy, frog and humans, CENP-E/kinesin-7 homologues are known to promote chromosome alignment instead of Eg5/kinesin-5 homologues.37-40 Since both kinesin-5 and kinesin-7 are plus-end directed processive kinesins,41 and since yeasts have no CENPE/kinesin-7 homolog, CENP-E might be a specialized kinesin that evolved to replace the centromeric Eg5/kinesin-5 function in animals. Notably, recent study revealed that the unusually elongated stalk of CENP-E has an essential role in chromosome
alignment, because “Bonsai” CENP-E with a shortened stalk is unable to achieve a stable lateral attachment, a prerequisite for chromosome gliding.42 It is reasonable to speculate that the stalk of the kinetochore kinesin became longer during evolution in higher eukaryotes because their chromosomes assemble much larger kinetochores than those of yeasts.
Kinetochore kinesins at the right place at the right time It has been observed that CENP-E shows SAC component-like localization at the unattached kinetochores of misaligned chromosomes.43 This localization is quite reasonable since misaligned chromosomes have to glide to the spindle equator depending on the motor activity of CENP-E. In frog, one of the core SAC components, BubR1, has been shown to be required for CENP-E localization to the kinetochore.44 The interaction between CENP-E and BubR1 is similarly detected in human cells.45 However, because BubR1 is dispensable for recruiting CENP-E,46 the biological signiﬁcance of this interaction remains unknown. As discussed above, a recent study revealed that Mad1 is required for CENP-E localization to unaligned chromosomes in human cells. Human Mad1 associates directly with the previously identiﬁed kinetochore-binding domain of CENP-E.21,45 Taken altogether, these results resolve the question of how kinetochore kinesins are speciﬁcally targeted only to misaligned chromosomes.
Identiﬁcation of a conserved motif in Mad1 for kinesin binding
Figure 4. Conserved motif in Mad1 for kinesin binding. Domain organization of Mad1, showing that kinesin-binding motif (dark blue) locates in the unstructured amino-terminal region (light blue). Asterisks show the position of kinesin-binding motif in the sequence alignment. The kinesin-binding motif is conserved from yeasts to humans.
The Mad1 protein possesses a long coiled-coil domain that covers almost its entire length. Earlier biochemical analyses have shown that most of the functional domains of Mad1, such as the Bub1-binding site47 and the Mad2-interacting motif,48 locate in the carboxyl-terminal half of the protein (Fig. 4). The function of the amino-terminal half has remained elusive until recently. It has been shown that the amino-terminal half of Mad1 contains a nuclear pore binding site.49,50 Several functions are reported for Mad1 localizing at the nuclear pore: pre-mitotic anaphase inhibitor formation,49 Mad1-Mad2 proteostasis,51 and the regulation of nuclear-cytoplasmic
T. AKERA AND Y. WATANABE
transport.52 Most recently, the kinesin-binding motif was mapped at the very end of the amino-terminus, which associates directly with Cut7/kinesin-5 in ﬁssion yeast and with CENP-E/kinesin-7 in human cells21 (Fig. 4). Because the kinesin-binding motif of Mad1 is conserved between ﬁssion yeast and humans, Cut7 and CENP-E might possess an unknown common module for Mad1 binding.
would provide greater insight into the eukaryotic evolution of the SAC, kinetochores and chromosome gliding.
Disclosure of potential conﬂicts of interest No potential conﬂicts of interest were disclosed.
References Conclusions and perspectives Here, we highlight recent studies showing that SAC components are directly involved in the regulation of chromosome gliding and kinetochore-microtubule attachment to establish chromosome bi-orientation. Since many chromosomes in early mitosis are misaligned and activate the SAC, the necessity for chromosome gliding and activation of the SAC arises at the same time. Thus, it is reasonable that these 2 events are linked and controlled by a single factor, Mad1. Given that Cut7/kinesin-5 is essential for bipolar spindle formation, these ﬁndings provide new insights into the evolutionary relationship among bipolar spindle formation, chromosome alignment and SAC activation.
What is the meaning of Mad1-kinesin complex localization at the spindle pole? A study in ﬁssion yeast revealed that while Mad1 recruits Cut7 to kinetochores, Cut7 in turn acts to recruit Mad1 to the spindle pole.21 Also in mammalian cells, the SAC components and CENP-E localize to the spindle pole depending on dynein after the SAC is satisﬁed.43,53 Thus, the Mad1-kinesin complex localizes at the spindle pole after SAC silencing, although the biological signiﬁcance of this spindle pole localization remains unknown. Considering the ﬁnding that Mad1-kinesin complex functions in chromosome gliding, it is reasonable to think that the Mad1-kinesin complex that appears near the spindle pole facilitates loading of the ‘glider complex’ onto misaligned chromosomes, which often locate near the pole. Future studies to dissect the role of the Mad1-kinesin complex at kinetochores and at the spindle pole will examine this hypothesis.
Did the SAC and chromosome gliding mechanism co-evolve? Upstream factors of Mad1 in SAC signaling, such as Mps1, Bub1 and Bub3, are essential for the kinetochore localization of Mad1.11 Therefore, it is likely that all these core SAC components contribute to the chromosome gliding process through the Mad1-kinesin complex. Indeed, the chromosome bi-orientation defects of mph1D, bub1D and bub3D mutant cells in ﬁssion yeast are partly rescued by artiﬁcially tethering Cut7 to the kinetochores.21 Thus, the whole SAC signaling cascade at the kinetochore contributes to anchoring kinesin in addition to forming MCC, strengthening the notion that the SAC signaling cascade has co-evolved with a chromosome gliding mechanism. Notably, the ancient eukaryote Trypanosoma brucei, which possesses unconventional kinetochores, does not have the SAC, and the Mad2 homolog does not localize at the kinetochores.54 Studying the chromosome gliding mechanism in this organism
 Tanaka TU, Stark MJ, Tanaka K. Kinetochore capture and bi-orientation on the mitotic spindle. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2005; 6:929-42; PMID:16341079; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm1764.  Walczak CE, Cai S, Khodjakov A. Mechanisms of chromosome behaviour during mitosis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2010; 11:91-102; PMID:20068571.  Watanabe Y. Geometry and force behind kinetochore orientation: lessons from meiosis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2012; 13:370-82; PMID:22588367; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm3349.  Kapoor TM, Lampson MA, Hergert P, Cameron L, Cimini D, Salmon ED, McEwen BF, Khodjakov A. Chromosomes can congress to the metaphase plate before biorientation. Science 2006; 311:38891; PMID:16424343; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1122142.  Musacchio A, Salmon ED. The spindle-assembly checkpoint in space and time. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2007; 8:379-93; PMID:17426725; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm2163.  Sacristan C, Kops GJ. Joined at the hip: kinetochores, microtubules, and spindle assembly checkpoint signaling. Trends Cell Biol 2015; 25:21-8; PMID:25220181; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2014.08.006.  Foley EA, Kapoor TM. Microtubule attachment and spindle assembly checkpoint signalling at the kinetochore. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2013; 14:25-37; PMID:23258294; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm3494.  Murray AW. A brief history of error. Nat Cell Biol 2011; 13:1178-82; PMID:21968991; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncb2348.  Pines J. Cubism and the cell cycle: the many faces of the APC/C. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2011; 12:427-38; PMID:21633387; http://dx.doi. org/10.1038/nrm3132.  London N, Biggins S. Signalling dynamics in the spindle checkpoint response. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2014; 15:736-47; PMID:25303117; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm3888.  Heinrich S, Windecker H, Hustedt N, Hauf S. Mph1 kinetochore localization is crucial and upstream in the hierarchy of spindle assembly checkpoint protein recruitment to kinetochores. J Cell Sci 2012; 125:4720-7; PMID:22825872; http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jcs.110387.  Hartwell LH, Weinert TA. Checkpoints: controls that ensure the order of cell cycle events. Science 1989; 246:629-34; PMID:2683079; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.2683079.  Carmena M, Wheelock M, Funabiki H, Earnshaw WC. The chromosomal passenger complex (CPC): from easy rider to the godfather of mitosis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2012; 13:789-803; PMID:23175282; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm3474.  Kawashima SA, Yamagishi Y, Honda T, Ishiguro K, Watanabe Y. Phosphorylation of H2A by Bub1 prevents chromosomal instability through localizing shugoshin. Science 2010; 327:172-7; PMID: 19965387; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1180189.  Foley EA, Maldonado M, Kapoor TM. Formation of stable attachments between kinetochores and microtubules depends on the B56PP2A phosphatase. Nat Cell Biol 2011; 13:1265-71; PMID:21874008; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncb2327.  Suijkerbuijk SJ, Vleugel M, Teixeira A, Kops GJ. Integration of kinase and phosphatase activities by BUBR1 ensures formation of stable kinetochore-microtubule attachments. Dev Cell 2012; 23:745-55; PMID:23079597; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2012.09.005.  Kruse T, Zhang G, Larsen MS, Lischetti T, Streicher W, Kragh Nielsen T, Bjørn SP, Nilsson J. Direct binding between BubR1 and B56PP2A phosphatase complexes regulate mitotic progression. J Cell Sci 2013; 126:1086-92; PMID:23345399; http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/ jcs.122481.  Kabeche L, Compton DA. Checkpoint-independent stabilization of kinetochore-microtubule attachments by Mad2 in human cells. Curr
Biol 2012; 22:638-44; PMID:22405866; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. cub.2012.02.030. Emre D, Terracol R, Poncet A, Rahmani Z, Karess RE. A mitotic role for Mad1 beyond the spindle checkpoint. J Cell Sci 2011; 124:166471; PMID:21511728; http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jcs.081216. Vanoosthuyse V, Valsdottir R, Javerzat JP, Hardwick KG. Kinetochore targeting of ﬁssion yeast Mad and Bub proteins is essential for spindle checkpoint function but not for all chromosome segregation roles of Bub1p. Mol Cell Biol 2004; 24:9786-01; PMID:15509783; http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/MCB.24.22.9786-9801.2004. Akera T, Goto Y, Sato M, Yamamoto M, Watanabe Y. Mad1 promotes chromosome congression by anchoring a kinesin motor to the kinetochore. Nat Cell Biol 2015; 17:1124-33; PMID:26258632; http:// dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncb3219. Fernius J, Hardwick KG. Bub1 kinase targets Sgo1 to ensure efﬁcient chromosome biorientation in budding yeast mitosis. PLoS Genet 2007; 3:e213; PMID:18081426; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal. pgen.0030213. Sawin KE, LeGuellec K, Philippe M, Mitchison TJ. Mitotic spindle organization by a plus-end-directed microtubule motor. Nature 1992; 359:540-3; PMID:1406972; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/359540a0. Ferenz NP, Gable A, Wadsworth P. Mitotic functions of kinesin-5. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2010; 21:255-9; PMID:20109572; http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2010.01.019. Hagan I, Yanagida M. Novel potential mitotic motor protein encoded by the ﬁssion yeast cut7C gene. Nature 1990; 347:563-6; PMID:2145514; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/347563a0. Hagan I, Yanagida M. Kinesin-related cut7 protein associates with mitotic and meiotic spindles in ﬁssion yeast. Nature 1992; 356:74-6; PMID:1538784; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/356074a0. Tanenbaum ME, Medema RH. Mechanisms of centrosome separation and bipolar spindle assembly. Dev Cell 2010; 19:797-806; PMID:21145497; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2010.11.011. Kashina AS, Baskin RJ, Cole DG, Wedaman KP, Saxton WM, Scholey JM. A bipolar kinesin. Nature 1996; 379:270-2; PMID:8538794; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/379270a0. Kapitein LC, Peterman EJ, Kwok BH, Kim JH, Kapoor TM, Schmidt CF. The bipolar mitotic kinesin Eg5 moves on both microtubules that it crosslinks. Nature 2005; 435:114-8; PMID:15875026; http:// dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03503. Van den Wildenberg SM, Tao L, Kapitein LC, Schmidt CF, Scholey JM, Peterman EJ. The homotetrameric kinesin-5 KLP61F preferentially crosslinks microtubules into antiparallel orientations. Curr Biol 2008; 18:1860-4; PMID:19062285; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.10.026. Hildebrandt ER, Gheber L, Kingsbury T, Hoyt MA. Homotetrameric form of Cin8p, a Saccharomyces cerevisiae kinesin-5 motor, is essential for its in vivo function. J Biol Chem 2006; 281:26004-13; PMID:16829678; http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M604817200. Barisic M, Aguiar P, Geley S, Maiato H. Kinetochore motors drive congression of peripheral polar chromosomes by overcoming random arm-ejection forces. Nat Cell Biol 2014; 16:1249-56; PMID:25383660; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncb3060. Yao X, Anderson KL, Cleveland DW. The microtubule-dependent motor centromere-associated protein E (CENP-E) is an integral component of kinetochore corona ﬁbers that link centromeres to spindle microtubules. J Cell Biol 1997; 139:435-47; PMID:9334346; http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.139.2.435. Hertzer KM, Ems-McClung SC, Kline-Smith SL, Lipkin TG, Gilbert SP, Walczak CE. Full-length dimeric MCAK is a more efﬁcient microtubule depolymerase than minimal domain monomeric MCAK. Mol Biol Cell 2006; 17:700-10; PMID:16291860; http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E05-08-0821. Espeut J, Gaussen A, Bieling P, Morin V, Prieto S, Fesquet D, Surrey T, Abrieu A. Phosphorylation relieves autoinhibition of the kinetochore motor Cenp-E. Mol Cell 2008; 29:637-43; PMID:18342609; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2008.01.004. Gardner MK, Bouck DC, Paliulis LV, Meehl JB, O’Toole ET, Haase J, Soubry A, Joglekar AP, Winey M, Salmon ED, et al. Chromosome congression by Kinesin-5 motor-mediated disassembly of longer kinetochore microtubules. Cell 2008; 135:894-906; PMID:19041752; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.046.
 Barisic M, Silva e Sousa R, Tripathy SK, Magiera MM, Zaytsev AV, Pereira AL, Janke C, Grishchuk EL, Maiato H. Mitosis. Microtubule detyrosination guides chromosomes during mitosis. Science 2015; 348: 799-803; PMID:25908662; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa5175.  Cai S, O’Connell CB, Khodjakov A, Walczak CE. Chromosome congression in the absence of kinetochore ﬁbres. Nat Cell Biol 2009; 11:832-8; PMID:19525938; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncb1890.  Wood KW, Sakowicz R, Goldstein LS, Cleveland DW. CENP-E is a plus end-directed kinetochore motor required for metaphase chromosome alignment. Cell 1997; 91:357-66; PMID:9363944; http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80419-5.  Yucel JK, Marszalek JD, McIntosh JR, Goldstein LS, Cleveland DW, Philp AV. CENP-meta, an essential kinetochore kinesin required for the maintenance of metaphase chromosome alignment in Drosophila. J Cell Biol 2000; 150:1-11; PMID:10893249; http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.150.1.1.  Cross RA, McAinsh A. Prime movers: the mechanochemistry of mitotic kinesins. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2014; 15:257-71; PMID:24651543; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm3768.  Vitre B, Gudimchuk N, Borda R, Kim Y, Heuser JE, Cleveland DW, Grishchuk EL. Kinetochore-microtubule attachment throughout mitosis potentiated by the elongated stalk of the kinetochore kinesin CENP-E. Mol Biol Cell 2014; 25:2272-81; PMID:24920822; http://dx. doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E14-01-0698.  Howell BJ, McEwen BF, Canman JC, Hoffman DB, Farrar EM, Rieder CL, Salmon ED. Cytoplasmic dynein/dynactin drives kinetochore protein transport to the spindle poles and has a role in mitotic spindle checkpoint inactivation. J Cell Biol 2001; 155:1159-72; PMID:11756470; http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200105093.  Chen RH. BubR1 is essential for kinetochore localization of other spindle checkpoint proteins and its phosphorylation requires Mad1. J Cell Biol 2002; 158:487-96; PMID:12163471; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1083/jcb.200204048.  Chan GK, Schaar BT, Yen TJ. Characterization of the kinetochore binding domain of CENP-E reveals interactions with the kinetochore proteins CENP-F and hBUBR1. J Cell Biol 1998; 143:49-63; PMID:9763420; http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.143.1.49.  Lampson MA, Kapoor TM. The human mitotic checkpoint protein BubR1 regulates chromosome-spindle attachments. Nat Cell Biol 2005; 7:93-8; PMID:15592459; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncb1208.  London N, Biggins S. Mad1 kinetochore recruitment by Mps1-mediated phosphorylation of Bub1 signals the spindle checkpoint. Genes Dev 2014; 28:140-52; PMID:24402315; http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gad.233700.113.  Luo X, Tang Z, Rizo J, Yu H. The Mad2 spindle checkpoint protein undergoes similar major conformational changes upon binding to either Mad1 or Cdc20. Mol Cell 2002; 9:59-71; PMID:11804586; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1097-2765(01)00435-X.  Rodriguez-Bravo V, Maciejowski J, Corona J, Buch HK, Collin P, Kanemaki MT, Shah JV, Jallepalli PV. Nuclear pores protect genome integrity by assembling a premitotic and Mad1-dependent anaphase inhibitor. Cell 2014; 156:1017-31; PMID:24581499; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cell.2014.01.010.  Scott RJ, Lusk CP, Dilworth DJ, Aitchison JD, Wozniak RW. Interactions between Mad1p and the nuclear transport machinery in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Biol Cell 2005; 16:4362-74; PMID:16000377; http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E05-01-0011.  Schweizer N, Ferras C, Kern DM, Logarinho E, Cheeseman IM, Maiato H. Spindle assembly checkpoint robustness requires Tprmediated regulation of Mad1/Mad2 proteostasis. J Cell Biol 2013; 203(6):883-93; PMID:24344181.  Cairo LV, Ptak C, Wozniak RW. Mitosis-speciﬁc regulation of nuclear transport by the spindle assembly checkpoint protein Mad1p. Mol Cell 2013; 49:109-20;PMID:23177738;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2012.10.017.  Silva PM, Reis RM, Bolanos-Garcia VM, Florindo C, Tavares AA, Bousbaa H. Dynein-dependent transport of spindle assembly checkpoint proteins off kinetochores toward spindle poles. FEBS Lett 2014; 588:3265-73; PMID:25064841; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. febslet.2014.07.011.  Akiyoshi B, Gull K. Evolutionary cell biology of chromosome segregation: insights from trypanosomes. Open Biol 2013; 3:130023; PMID:23635522; http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsob.130023.