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

  • 4,383
    views
  • 797
    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. Cell Biology
    Natalia Dolgova, Eva-Maria E Uhlemann ... Oleg Y Dmitriev
    Research Article

    Mediator of ERBB2-driven Cell Motility 1 (MEMO1) is an evolutionary conserved protein implicated in many biological processes; however, its primary molecular function remains unknown. Importantly, MEMO1 is overexpressed in many types of cancer and was shown to modulate breast cancer metastasis through altered cell motility. To better understand the function of MEMO1 in cancer cells, we analyzed genetic interactions of MEMO1 using gene essentiality data from 1028 cancer cell lines and found multiple iron-related genes exhibiting genetic relationships with MEMO1. We experimentally confirmed several interactions between MEMO1 and iron-related proteins in living cells, most notably, transferrin receptor 2 (TFR2), mitoferrin-2 (SLC25A28), and the global iron response regulator IRP1 (ACO1). These interactions indicate that cells with high MEMO1 expression levels are hypersensitive to the disruptions in iron distribution. Our data also indicate that MEMO1 is involved in ferroptosis and is linked to iron supply to mitochondria. We have found that purified MEMO1 binds iron with high affinity under redox conditions mimicking intracellular environment and solved MEMO1 structures in complex with iron and copper. Our work reveals that the iron coordination mode in MEMO1 is very similar to that of iron-containing extradiol dioxygenases, which also display a similar structural fold. We conclude that MEMO1 is an iron-binding protein that modulates iron homeostasis in cancer cells.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Isabelle Petit-Hartlein, Annelise Vermot ... Franck Fieschi
    Research Article

    NADPH oxidases (NOX) are transmembrane proteins, widely spread in eukaryotes and prokaryotes, that produce reactive oxygen species (ROS). Eukaryotes use the ROS products for innate immune defense and signaling in critical (patho)physiological processes. Despite the recent structures of human NOX isoforms, the activation of electron transfer remains incompletely understood. SpNOX, a homolog from Streptococcus pneumoniae, can serves as a robust model for exploring electron transfers in the NOX family thanks to its constitutive activity. Crystal structures of SpNOX full-length and dehydrogenase (DH) domain constructs are revealed here. The isolated DH domain acts as a flavin reductase, and both constructs use either NADPH or NADH as substrate. Our findings suggest that hydride transfer from NAD(P)H to FAD is the rate-limiting step in electron transfer. We identify significance of F397 in nicotinamide access to flavin isoalloxazine and confirm flavin binding contributions from both DH and Transmembrane (TM) domains. Comparison with related enzymes suggests that distal access to heme may influence the final electron acceptor, while the relative position of DH and TM does not necessarily correlate with activity, contrary to previous suggestions. It rather suggests requirement of an internal rearrangement, within the DH domain, to switch from a resting to an active state. Thus, SpNOX appears to be a good model of active NOX2, which allows us to propose an explanation for NOX2’s requirement for activation.