Bistability of a coupled Aurora B kinase-phosphatase system in cell division

  1. Anatoly V Zaytsev
  2. Dario Segura-Peña
  3. Maxim Godzi
  4. Abram Calderon
  5. Edward R Ballister
  6. Rumen Stamatov
  7. Alyssa M Mayo
  8. Laura Peterson
  9. Ben E Black
  10. Fazly I Ataullakhanov
  11. Michael A Lampson
  12. Ekaterina L Grishchuk  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Pennsylvania, United States
  2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
  3. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

Abstract

Aurora B kinase, a key regulator of cell division, localizes to specific cellular locations, but the regulatory mechanisms responsible for phosphorylation of substrates located remotely from kinase enrichment sites are unclear. Here, we provide evidence that this activity at a distance depends on both sites of high kinase concentration and the bistability of a coupled kinase-phosphatase system. We reconstitute this bistable behavior and hysteresis using purified components to reveal co-existence of distinct high and low Aurora B activity states, sustained by a two-component kinase autoactivation mechanism. Furthermore, we demonstrate these non-linear regimes in live cells using a FRET-based phosphorylation sensor, and provide a mechanistic theoretical model for spatial regulation of Aurora B phosphorylation. We propose that bistability of an Aurora B-phosphatase system underlies formation of spatial phosphorylation patterns, which are generated and spread from sites of kinase autoactivation, thereby regulating cell division.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anatoly V Zaytsev

    Department of Physiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Dario Segura-Peña

    Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Maxim Godzi

    Department of Physiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Abram Calderon

    Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Edward R Ballister

    Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Rumen Stamatov

    Department of Physiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Alyssa M Mayo

    Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Laura Peterson

    Department of Biology, Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ben E Black

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Fazly I Ataullakhanov

    Center for Theoretical Problems of Physicochemical Pharmacology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Michael A Lampson

    Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Ekaterina L Grishchuk

    Department of Physiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    For correspondence
    gekate@mail.med.upenn.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2016, Zaytsev 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

  • 3,681
    views
  • 856
    downloads
  • 49
    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. Anatoly V Zaytsev
  2. Dario Segura-Peña
  3. Maxim Godzi
  4. Abram Calderon
  5. Edward R Ballister
  6. Rumen Stamatov
  7. Alyssa M Mayo
  8. Laura Peterson
  9. Ben E Black
  10. Fazly I Ataullakhanov
  11. Michael A Lampson
  12. Ekaterina L Grishchuk
(2016)
Bistability of a coupled Aurora B kinase-phosphatase system in cell division
eLife 5:e10644.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10644

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10644

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bhumil Patel, Maryke Grobler ... Needhi Bhalla
    Research Article

    Meiotic crossover recombination is essential for both accurate chromosome segregation and the generation of new haplotypes for natural selection to act upon. This requirement is known as crossover assurance and is one example of crossover control. While the conserved role of the ATPase, PCH-2, during meiotic prophase has been enigmatic, a universal phenotype when pch-2 or its orthologs are mutated is a change in the number and distribution of meiotic crossovers. Here, we show that PCH-2 controls the number and distribution of crossovers by antagonizing their formation. This antagonism produces different effects at different stages of meiotic prophase: early in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 prevents double-strand breaks from becoming crossover-eligible intermediates, limiting crossover formation at sites of initial double-strand break formation and homolog interactions. Later in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 winnows the number of crossover-eligible intermediates, contributing to the designation of crossovers and ultimately, crossover assurance. We also demonstrate that PCH-2 accomplishes this regulation through the meiotic HORMAD, HIM-3. Our data strongly support a model in which PCH-2’s conserved role is to remodel meiotic HORMADs throughout meiotic prophase to destabilize crossover-eligible precursors and coordinate meiotic recombination with synapsis, ensuring the progressive implementation of meiotic recombination and explaining its function in the pachytene checkpoint and crossover control.

    1. Cell Biology
    Jingjing Li, Xinyue Wang ... Vincent Archambault
    Research Article

    In animals, mitosis involves the breakdown of the nucleus. The reassembly of a nucleus after mitosis requires the reformation of the nuclear envelope around a single mass of chromosomes. This process requires Ankle2 (also known as LEM4 in humans) which interacts with PP2A and promotes the function of the Barrier-to-Autointegration Factor (BAF). Upon dephosphorylation, BAF dimers cross-bridge chromosomes and bind lamins and transmembrane proteins of the reassembling nuclear envelope. How Ankle2 functions in mitosis is incompletely understood. Using a combination of approaches in Drosophila, along with structural modeling, we provide several lines of evidence that suggest that Ankle2 is a regulatory subunit of PP2A, explaining how it promotes BAF dephosphorylation. In addition, we discovered that Ankle2 interacts with the endoplasmic reticulum protein Vap33, which is required for Ankle2 localization at the reassembling nuclear envelope during telophase. We identified the interaction sites of PP2A and Vap33 on Ankle2. Through genetic rescue experiments, we show that the Ankle2/PP2A interaction is essential for the function of Ankle2 in nuclear reassembly and that the Ankle2/Vap33 interaction also promotes this process. Our study sheds light on the molecular mechanisms of post-mitotic nuclear reassembly and suggests that the endoplasmic reticulum is not merely a source of membranes in the process, but also provides localized enzymatic activity.