Measurements of the force produced by the mitotic spindle in anaphase.

The force the spindle exerts on a single moving chromosome in anaphase was measured with a flexible glass needle calibrated in dynes per micron of tip deflection. The needle was used to produce a force on the chromosome, which opposed that produced by the spindle and was measurable from needle tip deflection. The measurements were made in intact grasshopper spermatocytes after proving that the presence of materials such as the cell surface did not interfere. The results from 12 experiments in seven cells are as follows: Chromosome velocity was not affected until the opposing force reached approximately 10(-5) dyn, and then fell rapidly with increasing force. The opposing force that caused chromosome velocity to fall to zero--the force that matched the maximum force the spindle could produce--was of order 7 X 10(-5) dyn. This directly measured maximum force potential is nearly 10,000 times greater than the calculated value of 10(-8) dyn for normal chromosome movement, in which only viscous resistance to movement must be overcome. The spindle's unexpectedly large force potential prompts a fresh look at molecular models for the mitotic motor, at velocity-limiting governors, and at the possibility that force may sometimes affect microtubule length and stability.

The motor for poleward chromosome movement in anaphase is in or near the kinetochore.

I have tested two contending views of chromosome-to-pole movement in anaphase. Chromosomes might be pulled poleward by a traction fiber consisting of the kinetochore microtubules and associated motors, or they might propel themselves by a motor in the kinetochore. I cut through the spindle of demembranated grasshopper spermatocytes between the chromosomes and one pole and swept the polar region away, removing a portion of the would-be traction fiber. Chromosome movement continued, and in the best examples, chromosomes moved to within 1 micron of the cut edge. There is nothing beyond the edge to support movement, and a push from the rear is unlikely because cuts in the interzone behind the separating chromosomes did not stop movement. Therefore, I conclude that the motor must be in the kinetochore or within 1 micron of it. Less conclusive evidence points to the kinetochore itself as the motor. The alternative is an external motor pulling on the kinetochore microtubules or directly on the kinetochore. A pulling motor would move kinetochore microtubules along with the chromosome, so that in a cut half-spindle, the microtubules should protrude from the cut edge as chromosomes move toward it. No protrusion was seen; however, the possibility that microtubules depolymerize as they are extruded, though unlikely, is not ruled out. What is certain is that the motor for poleward chromosome movement in anaphase must be in the kinetochore or very close to it.

Methods for gentle, differential heating of part of a single living cell.

The fabrication and use of resistance wire microheaters is described and the results obtainable with cells are illustrated. The microheaters permit localized warming of a small area, wherever desired, within a single living cell. This is directly shown by the production of localized structural changes in the mitotic spindle. Thus in this case, subcellular areas respond independently to the local temperature. The method is applicable to a variety of cellular processes, providing clues to cellular control mechanisms.

The impact of chromosomes and centrosomes on spindle assembly as observed in living cells.

We analyzed the role that chromosomes, kinetochores, and centrosomes play in spindle assembly in living grasshopper spermatocytes by reconstructing spindles lacking certain components. We used video-enhanced, polarization microscopy to distinguish the effect of each component on spindle microtubule dynamics and we discovered that both chromosomes and centrosomes make potent and very different contributions to the organization of the spindle. Remarkably, the position of a single chromosome can markedly affect the distribution of microtubules within a spindle or even alter the fate of spindle assembly. In an experimentally constructed spindle having only one chromosome, moving the chromosome to one of the two poles induces a dramatic assembly of microtubules at the nearer pole and a concomitant disassembly at the farther pole. So long as a spindle carries a single chromosome it will persist normally. A spindle will also persist even when all chromosomes are detached and then removed from the cell. If, however, a single chromosome remains in the cell but is detached from the spindle and kept in the cytoplasm, the spindle disassembles. One might expect the effect of chromosomes on spindle assembly to relate to a property of a specific site on each chromosome, perhaps the kinetochore. We have ruled out that possibility by showing that it is the size of chromosomes rather than the number of kinetochores that matters. Although chromosomes affect spindle assembly, they cannot organize a spindle in the absence of centrosomes. In contrast, centrosomes can organize a functional bipolar spindle in the absence of chromosomes. If both centrosomes and chromosomes are removed from the cell, the spindle quickly disappears.

Chromosomes initiate spindle assembly upon experimental dissolution of the nuclear envelope in grasshopper spermatocytes.

Chromosomes are known to enhance spindle microtubule assembly in grasshopper spermatocytes, which suggested to us that chromosomes might play an essential role in the initiation of spindle formation. Chromosomes might, for example, activate other spindle components such as centrosomes and tubulin subunits upon the breakdown of the nuclear envelope. We tested this possibility in living grasshopper spermatocytes. We ruptured the nuclear envelope during prophase, which prematurely exposed the centrosomes to chromosomes and nuclear sap. Spindle assembly was promptly initiated. In contrast, assembly of the spindle was completely inhibited if the nucleus was mechanically removed from a late prophase cell. Other experiments showed that the trigger for spindle assembly is associated with the chromosomes; other constituents of the nucleus cannot initiate spindle assembly in the absence of the chromosomes. The initiation of spindle assembly required centrosomes as well as chromosomes. Extracting centrosomes from late prophase cells completely inhibited spindle assembly after dissolution of the nuclear envelope. We conclude that the normal formation of a bipolar spindle in grasshopper spermatocytes is regulated by chromosomes. A possible explanation is an activator, perhaps a chromosomal protein (Yeo, J.-P., F. Alderuccio, and B.-H. Toh. 1994a. Nature (Lond.). 367: 288-291), that promotes and stabilizes the assembly of astral microtubules and thus promotes assembly of the spindle.

The total length of spindle microtubules depends on the number of chromosomes present.

We extracted chromosomes by micromanipulation from Melanoplus differentialis spermatocytes, producing metaphase spindles with only one or a few chromosomes instead of the usual complement of 23. Cells with various numbers of chromosomes were prepared for electron microscopy, and spindle microtubule length was measured. A constant increment of microtubule length was lost upon the removal of each chromosome; we estimate that only approximately 40% of the original length would remain in the total absence of chromosomes. Unexpectedly, kinetochore microtubules were not the only ones affected when chromosomes were removed: nonkinetochore microtubules accounted for a substantial fraction of the total length lost. No compensatory increase in microtubule length outside the spindle was found. Studies by others show that the kinetochore microtubules of extracted chromosomes are left behind in the cell and dissassemble. The resulting increase in subunit concentration would be expected from in vitro studies to drive microtubule assembly until the original total microtubule length was restored, but that did not happen in these living cells. We conclude that the assembly of a certain, large fraction of microtubule subunits into stable microtubules is dependent on the presence of chromosomes. Possible explanations include (a) limits on microtubule length that prevent any net assembly of the subunits released after chromosomes are removed or (b) a promotion of microtubule assembly by chromosomes, which therefore is reduced in their absence. Chromosome-dependent regulation of microtubule length may account for some features of normal mitosis.

Micromanipulated bivalents can trigger mini-spindle formation in Drosophila melanogaster spermatocyte cytoplasm.

Single (individual) bivalents in cultured Drosophila melanogaster primary spermatocytes were detached from the spindle with a micromanipulation needle and placed in the cytoplasm. Such bivalents are prevented from rejoining the spindle by a natural membrane barrier that surrounds the spindle, but they quickly orient as if on a spindle of their own and the half-bivalents separate in anaphase. Serial section electron microscopy shows that a mini-spindle forms around the cytoplasmic bivalent, i.e., the microtubule density in the vicinity of the bivalent is much greater than in other cytoplasmic regions. This microtubule population cannot be accounted for solely by kinetochore nucleation and/or capture of microtubules. Furthermore, the mini-spindles frequently form at odd angles to the main spindle, so that at least one pole has no relationship to the poles of the main spindle. We conclude that a bivalent, or factors that become associated with the bivalent as a result of the manipulation, can either stabilize microtubules or promote their assembly. The bivalent activates latent microtubule organizing centers, or alternatively, polar organizing material has been passively transported from the main spindle to the cytoplasm by the micromanipulation procedure.

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.

Elements of error correction in mitosis: microtubule capture, release, and tension.

The correction of certain errors in mitosis requires capture and release: new kinetochore microtubules must be captured and old, misdirected ones must be released. We studied capture and release in living grasshopper spermatocytes. Capture is remarkably efficient over a broad range in the angle at which a microtubule encounters a kinetochore. However, capture is inefficient when kinetochores point directly away from the source of properly directed microtubules. Capture in that situation is required for correction of the most common error; microtubule-kinetochore encounters are improbable and capture occurs only once every 8 min, on average. Release from the improper attachment caused by misdirected microtubules allows kinetochore movement and the completion of error correction. We tugged on kinetochores with a micromanipulation needle and found they are free to move less than one time in two. Thus error correction depends on two improbable events, capture and release, and they must happen by chance to coincide. In spermatocytes this will occur only once every 18 min, on average, but a leisurely cell cycle provides ample time. Capture and release generate only change, not perfection. Tension from mitotic forces brings change to a halt by stabilizing the one correct attachment of chromosomes to the spindle. We show that tension directly affects stability, rather than merely constraining kinetochore position. This implies that chromosomes are attached to the spindle by tension-sensitive linkers whose stability is necessary for proper chromosome distribution but whose loss is necessary for the correction of errors.

Chromosome micromanipulation. 3. Spindle fiber tension and the reorientation of mal-oriented chromosomes.

Kinetochore reorientation is the critical process ensuring normal chromosome distribution. Reorientation has been studied in living grasshopper spermatocytes, in which bivalents with both chromosomes oriented to the same pole (unipolar orientation) occur but are unstable: sooner or later one chromosome reorients, the stable, bipolar orientation results, and normal anaphase segregation to opposite poles follows. One possible source of stability in bipolar orientations is the normal spindle forces toward opposite poles, which slightly stretch the bivalent. This tension is lacking in unipolar orientations because all the chromosomal spindle fibers and spindle forces are directed toward one pole. The possible role of tension has been tested directly by micromanipulation of bivalents in unipolar orientation to artificially create the missing tension. Without exception, such bivalents never reorient before the tension is released; a total time "under tension" of over 5 hr has been accumulated in experiments on eight bivalents in eight cells. In control experiments these same bivalents reoriented from a unipolar orientation within 16 min, on the average, in the absence of tension. Controlled reorientation and chromosome segregation can be explained from the results of these and related experiments.

Spindle microtubules and their mechanical associations after micromanipulation in anaphase.

Micromanipulation of living grasshopper spermatocytes in anaphase has been combined with electron microscopy to reveal otherwise obscure features of spindle organization. A chromosome is pushed laterally outside the spindle and stretched, and the cell is fixed with a novel, agar-treated glutaraldehyde solution. Two- and three-dimensional reconstructions from serial sections of seven cells show that kinetochore microtubules of the manipulated chromosome are shifted outside the confusing thicket of spindle microtubules and mechanical associations among microtubules are revealed by bent or shifted microtubules. These are the chief results: (a) The disposition of microtubules invariably is consistent with a skeletal role for spindle microtubules. (b) The kinetochore microtubule bundle is composed of short and long microtubules, with weak but recognizable mechanical associations among them. Some kinetochore microtubules are more tightly linked to one other microtubule within the bundle. (c) Microtubules of the kinetochore microtubule bundle are firmly connected to other spindle microtubules only near the pole, although some nonkinetochore microtubules of uncertain significance enter the bundle nearer to the kinetochore. (d) The kinetochore microtubules of adjacent chromosomes are mechanically linked, which provides an explanation for interdependent chromosome movement in "hinge anaphases." In the region of the spindle open to analysis after chromosome micromanipulation, microtubules may be linked mechanically by embedment in a gel, rather than by dynein or other specific, cross-bridging molecules.

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.

Kinetochore chemistry is sensitive to tension and may link mitotic forces to a cell cycle checkpoint.

Some cells have a quality control checkpoint that can detect a single misattached chromosome and delay the onset of anaphase, thus allowing time for error correction. The mechanical error in attachment must somehow be linked to the chemical regulation of cell cycle progression. The 3F3 antibody detects phosphorylated kinetochore proteins that might serve as the required link (Gorbsky, G. J., and W. A. Ricketts. 1993. J. Cell Biol. 122:1311-1321). We show by direct micromanipulation experiments that tension alters the phosphorylation of kinetochore proteins. Tension, whether from a micromanipulation needle or from normal mitotic forces, causes dephosphorylation of the kinetochore proteins recognized by 3F3. If tension is absent, either naturally or as a result of chromosome detachment by micromanipulation, the proteins are phosphorylated. Equally direct experiments identify tension as the checkpoint signal: tension from a microneedle on a misattached chromosome leads to anaphase (Li, X., and R. B. Nicklas. 1995. Nature (Lond.). 373:630-632), and we show here that the absence of tension caused by detaching chromosomes from the spindle delays anaphase indefinitely. Thus, the absence of tension is linked to both kinetochore phosphorylation and delayed anaphase onset. We propose that the kinetochore protein dephosphorylation caused by tension is the all clear signal to the checkpoint. The evidence is circumstantial but rich. In any event, tension alters kinetochore chemistry. Very likely, tension affects chemistry directly, by altering the conformation of a tension-sensitive protein, which leads directly to dephosphorylation.

How cells get the right chromosomes.

When cells divide, the chromosomes must be delivered flawlessly to the daughter cells. Missing or extra chromosomes can result in birth defects and cancer. Chance events are the starting point for chromosome delivery, which makes the process prone to error. Errors are avoided by diverse uses of mechanical tension from mitotic forces. Tension stabilizes the proper chromosome configuration, controls a cell cycle checkpoint, and changes chromosome chemistry.

Mad2 binding by phosphorylated kinetochores links error detection and checkpoint action in mitosis.

The spindle checkpoint must detect the presence of unattached or improperly attached kinetochores and must then inhibit progression through the cell cycle until the offending condition is resolved. Detection probably involves attachment-sensitive kinetochore phosphorylation (reviewed in [1,2]). A key player in the checkpoint's response is the Mad2 protein, which prevents activation of the anaphase-promoting complex (APC) by the Cdc20 protein [3-8]. Microinjection of Mad2 antibodies results in premature anaphase onset [9,10], and excess Mad2 protein causes arrest in mitosis [5,11]. We have previously shown that Mad2 localizes to unattached kinetochores in vertebrate cells, and that this localization ceases as kinetochores accumulate microtubules [10,12,13]. But how is Mad2 binding limited to unattached kinetochores? Here, we used lysed PtK1 cells to study kinetochore phosphorylation and Mad2 binding. We found that Mad2 binds to phosphorylated kinetochores, but not to unphosphorylated ones. Our data suggest that it is kinetochore protein phosphorylation that promotes Mad2 binding to unattached kinetochores. Thus, we have identified a probable molecular link between attachment-sensitive kinetochore phosphorylation and the inhibition of anaphase. The complete pathway for error control in mitosis can now be outlined.

Chromosome segregation mechanisms.

Most aspects of chromosome distribution to the daughter cells in meiosis and mitosis are now understood, at the cellular level. The most striking evidence that the proposed explanation is valid is that it correctly predicts the outcome of experiments on living cells in which the experimenter (1) can determine the distribution of any chosen chromosome to a chosen daughter cell, (2) can induce a mal-orientation, and (3) can stabilize a mal-orientation, causing non-disjunction of a chosen bivalent. Recent reviews of chromosome distribution mechanisms are also considered, in an attempt to clarify the remaining unsolved problems.

Chromosome distribution: experiments on cell hybrids and in vitro.

Ostergren (1951) provided a simple explanation for both chromosome distribution in mitosis and chromosome segregation in meiosis, and more recently a molecular extension of his hypothesis has been possible. This report focuses on experimental tests of these ideas. Micromanipulation experiments on cell hybrids containing both meiotic and mitotic spindles demonstrate that differences in meiotic and mitotic chromosome behavior are determined by something intrinsic to the chromosome: meiotic chromosomes transferred to a mitotic spindle (or vice versa) behave just as they normally would. The molecular explanation postulates polarized growth or binding of microtubules at kinetochores. This has just been tested in vitro by McGill & Brinkley (1975) and by Telzer, Moses & Rosenbaum (1975), and their results are reviewed. In addition, a novel method for in vitro studies is described - mechanical demembranation of cells which is compatible with quite normal chromosome movement in anaphase. After addition of microtubule subunits to a demembranated prophase cell, chromosome orientation and movement toward an aster was observed for the first time in vitro. It is concluded that important aspects of chromosome distribution are probably understood at both the cellular and molecular levels, but final tests are still required. The outlook is hopeful indeed because the gaps in our knowledge are well known - the necessity of observations on prophase is a recurrent theme - and the means of filling the gaps are in hand.

A quantitative comparison of cellular motile systems.

Cellular motile systems as diverse as muscle and the mitotic spindle have been compared by their specific power output: the maximum power they develop per unit of engine volume. Striated muscles and flagella have high specific output; their performance is comparable to that of typical automobile engines. The cytokinetic furrow and the mitotic spindle have very much lower specific power output. The furrow's output is 7,000 times lower than muscle and the spindle's is 300,000 times lower. Different macromolecules have been used to generate power in systems with similar output (muscles and flagella) and, conversely, the same macromolecular motor has been used in systems with very different output (muscles and cytokinetic furrows). The common feature amid this diversity is adaptation to a particular biological role, which specific power output reflects very well. High values are found where a powerful, compact engine should be advantageous, while low values are found where precision, not power, matters most.

Chromosome movement and spindle birefringence in locally heated cells: interaction versus local control.

A microheater was used to produce a temperature gradient within the mitotic spindle of living cells. The slope of the temperature gradient was estimated from thermal conductivity calculations and confirmed by measurements of spindle birefringence and by experiments on striated muscle. When the microheater was placed at one spindle pole or at one group of kinetochores, the gradient was steep enough to cause a large difference in birefringence between the two half-spindles, but the velocity of chromosome movement in anaphase was nearly the same in the warmer and cooler half-spindles. When the heater was shifted from the pole toward the interzone, the average velocity of chromosome movement increased approximately two-fold but was, again, nearly uniform in the two half-spindles. The rate of spindle elongation was especially sensitive to the site of heating, increasing ten-fold when the heater was shifted from the pole to the interzone. Regardless of heater position, the rate of chromosome movement was determined largely by the temperature of the coolest spindle region--chromosomes in the warmer half-spindle moved more slowly than expected from estimates of the temperature in that region. Since the microheater produces a substantial temperature gradient within the spindle, the near uniformity of chromosome velocity in both half-spindles must be due to some biological property of the spindle. Two very different explanations for the results are considered the most likely. According to one explanation, the near uniformity of velocity in both half-spindles is determined by the structure of the interpolar spindle, while changes in velocity involve force producers located both in the half-spindles and in the interzone. On the other explanation, the velocity is nearly the same in both half-spindles because the force producers are located exclusively in the interzone (Margolis et al., 1978).

Tension, microtubule rearrangements, and the proper distribution of chromosomes in mitosis.

The basis for stable versus unstable kinetochore orientation was investigated by a correlated living-cell/ultrastructural study of grasshopper spermatocytes. Mal-oriented bivalents having both kinetochores oriented to one spindle pole were induced by micromanipulation. Such mal-orientations are stable while the bivalent is subject to tension applied by micromanipulation but unstable after tension is released. Unstable bivalents always reorient with movement of one kinetochore toward the opposite pole. Microtubules associated with stably oriented bivalents, whether they are mal-oriented or in normal bipolar orientation, are arranged in orderly parallel bundles running from each kinetochore toward the pole. Similar orderly kinetochore microtubule arrangements characterized mal-oriented bivalents fixed just after release of tension. A significantly different microtubule arrangement is found only some time after tension release, when kinetochore movement is evident. The microtubules of a reorienting kinetochore always include a small number of microtubules running toward the pole toward which the kinetochore was moving at the time of fixation. All other microtubules associated with such a moving kinetochore appear to have lost their anchorage to the original pole and to be dragged passively as the kinetochore proceeds to the other pole. Thus, the stable anchorage of kinetochore microtubules to the spindle is associated with tension force and unstable anchorage with the absence of tension. The effect of tension is readily explained if force production and anchorage are both produced by mitotic motors, which link microtubules to the spindle as they generate tension forces.