A molecular basis for the differential roles of Bub1 and BubR1 in the spindle assembly checkpoint

  1. Katharina Overlack
  2. Ivana Primorac
  3. Mathijs Vleugel
  4. Veronica Krenn
  5. Stefano Maffini
  6. Ingrid Hoffmann
  7. Geert J P L Kops
  8. Andrea Musacchio  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Germany
  2. University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands Antilles
  3. University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands

Abstract

The spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) monitors and promotes kinetochore-microtubule attachment during mitosis. Bub1 and BubR1, SAC components, originated from duplication of an ancestor gene. Subsequent sub-functionalization established subordination: Bub1, recruited first to kinetochores, promotes successive BubR1 recruitment. Because both Bub1 and BubR1 hetero-dimerize with Bub3, a targeting adaptor for phosphorylated kinetochores, the molecular basis for such sub-functionalization is unclear. We demonstrate that Bub1, but not BubR1, enhances binding of Bub3 to phosphorylated kinetochores. Grafting a short motif of Bub1 onto BubR1 promotes Bub1-independent kinetochore recruitment of BubR1. Such gain-of-function BubR1 mutant cannot sustain a functional checkpoint. We demonstrate that kinetochore localization of BubR1 relies on direct hetero-dimerization with Bub1 at a pseudo-symmetric interface. Such pseudo-symmetric interaction underpins a template-copy relationship crucial for kinetochore-microtubule attachment and SAC signaling. Our results illustrate how gene duplication and sub-functionalization shape the workings of an essential molecular network.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Katharina Overlack

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ivana Primorac

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Mathijs Vleugel

    Molecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands Antilles
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Veronica Krenn

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Stefano Maffini

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ingrid Hoffmann

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Geert J P L Kops

    Molecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Andrea Musacchio

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    For correspondence
    andrea.musacchio@mpi-dortmund.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Stephen C Harrison, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, United States

Version history

  1. Received: October 21, 2014
  2. Accepted: January 21, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 22, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 18, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Overlack et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,404
    views
  • 798
    downloads
  • 133
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Katharina Overlack
  2. Ivana Primorac
  3. Mathijs Vleugel
  4. Veronica Krenn
  5. Stefano Maffini
  6. Ingrid Hoffmann
  7. Geert J P L Kops
  8. Andrea Musacchio
(2015)
A molecular basis for the differential roles of Bub1 and BubR1 in the spindle assembly checkpoint
eLife 4:e05269.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05269

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05269

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Maximilian Nagel, Marco Niestroj ... Marc Spehr
    Research Article

    In most mammals, conspecific chemosensory communication relies on semiochemical release within complex bodily secretions and subsequent stimulus detection by the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Urine, a rich source of ethologically relevant chemosignals, conveys detailed information about sex, social hierarchy, health, and reproductive state, which becomes accessible to a conspecific via vomeronasal sampling. So far, however, numerous aspects of social chemosignaling along the vomeronasal pathway remain unclear. Moreover, since virtually all research on vomeronasal physiology is based on secretions derived from inbred laboratory mice, it remains uncertain whether such stimuli provide a true representation of potentially more relevant cues found in the wild. Here, we combine a robust low-noise VNO activity assay with comparative molecular profiling of sex- and strain-specific mouse urine samples from two inbred laboratory strains as well as from wild mice. With comprehensive molecular portraits of these secretions, VNO activity analysis now enables us to (i) assess whether and, if so, how much sex/strain-selective ‘raw’ chemical information in urine is accessible via vomeronasal sampling; (ii) identify which chemicals exhibit sufficient discriminatory power to signal an animal’s sex, strain, or both; (iii) determine the extent to which wild mouse secretions are unique; and (iv) analyze whether vomeronasal response profiles differ between strains. We report both sex- and, in particular, strain-selective VNO representations of chemical information. Within the urinary ‘secretome’, both volatile compounds and proteins exhibit sufficient discriminative power to provide sex- and strain-specific molecular fingerprints. While total protein amount is substantially enriched in male urine, females secrete a larger variety at overall comparatively low concentrations. Surprisingly, the molecular spectrum of wild mouse urine does not dramatically exceed that of inbred strains. Finally, vomeronasal response profiles differ between C57BL/6 and BALB/c animals, with particularly disparate representations of female semiochemicals.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Claudia D Consalvo, Adedeji M Aderounmu ... Brenda L Bass
    Research Article

    Invertebrates use the endoribonuclease Dicer to cleave viral dsRNA during antiviral defense, while vertebrates use RIG-I-like Receptors (RLRs), which bind viral dsRNA to trigger an interferon response. While some invertebrate Dicers act alone during antiviral defense, Caenorhabditis elegans Dicer acts in a complex with a dsRNA binding protein called RDE-4, and an RLR ortholog called DRH-1. We used biochemical and structural techniques to provide mechanistic insight into how these proteins function together. We found RDE-4 is important for ATP-independent and ATP-dependent cleavage reactions, while helicase domains of both DCR-1 and DRH-1 contribute to ATP-dependent cleavage. DRH-1 plays the dominant role in ATP hydrolysis, and like mammalian RLRs, has an N-terminal domain that functions in autoinhibition. A cryo-EM structure indicates DRH-1 interacts with DCR-1’s helicase domain, suggesting this interaction relieves autoinhibition. Our study unravels the mechanistic basis of the collaboration between two helicases from typically distinct innate immune defense pathways.