Molecular basis of outer kinetochoreassembly on CENP-T

  1. Pim J Huis in 't Veld  Is a corresponding author
  2. Sadasivam Jeganathan
  3. Arsen Petrovic
  4. Priyanka Singh
  5. Juliane John
  6. Veronica Krenn
  7. Florian Weissmann
  8. Tanja Bange
  9. Andrea Musacchio  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Germany
  2. Chemical Genomics Centre of the Max Planck Society, Germany
  3. Vienna Biocenter, Austria
  4. Vienna Biocenter, Germany

Abstract

Stable kinetochore-microtubule attachment is essential for cell division. It requires recruitment of outer kinetochore microtubule binders by centromere proteins C and T (CENP-C and CENP-T). To study the molecular requirements of kinetochore formation, we reconstituted the binding of the MIS12 and NDC80 outer kinetochore subcomplexes to CENP-C and CENP-T. Whereas CENP-C recruits a single MIS12:NDC80 complex, we show here that CENP-T binds one MIS12:NDC80 and two NDC80 complexes upon phosphorylation by the mitotic CDK1:Cyclin B complex at three distinct CENP-T sites. Visualization of reconstituted complexes by electron microscopy supports this model. Binding of CENP-C and CENP-T to MIS12 is competitive, and therefore CENP-C and CENP-T act in parallel to recruit two MIS12 and up to four NDC80 complexes. Our observations provide a molecular explanation for the stoichiometry of kinetochore components and its cell cycle regulation, and highlight how outer kinetochore modules bridge distances of well over 100 nm.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Pim J Huis in 't Veld

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    For correspondence
    pim.huis@mpi-dortmund.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0234-6390
  2. Sadasivam Jeganathan

    Chemical Genomics Centre of the Max Planck Society, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Arsen Petrovic

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Priyanka Singh

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Juliane John

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Veronica Krenn

    Institute of Molecular Biotechnology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna Biocenter, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Florian Weissmann

    Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna Biocenter, Vienna, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Tanja Bange

    Department of Mechanistic Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Dortmund, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. 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
    Andrea Musacchio, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2362-8784

Funding

European Research Council (AdG 669686 RECEPIANCE)

  • Andrea Musacchio

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (CRC1093)

  • Andrea Musacchio

European Molecular Biology Organization (ALTF 262-2009)

  • Sadasivam Jeganathan

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2016, Huis in 't Veld 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

  • 3,647
    views
  • 901
    downloads
  • 114
    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. Pim J Huis in 't Veld
  2. Sadasivam Jeganathan
  3. Arsen Petrovic
  4. Priyanka Singh
  5. Juliane John
  6. Veronica Krenn
  7. Florian Weissmann
  8. Tanja Bange
  9. Andrea Musacchio
(2016)
Molecular basis of outer kinetochoreassembly on CENP-T
eLife 5:e21007.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21007

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21007

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Shraddha KC, Kenny H Nguyen ... Thomas C Boothby
    Research Article

    The conformational ensemble and function of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are sensitive to their solution environment. The inherent malleability of disordered proteins, combined with the exposure of their residues, accounts for this sensitivity. One context in which IDPs play important roles that are concomitant with massive changes to the intracellular environment is during desiccation (extreme drying). The ability of organisms to survive desiccation has long been linked to the accumulation of high levels of cosolutes such as trehalose or sucrose as well as the enrichment of IDPs, such as late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins or cytoplasmic abundant heat-soluble (CAHS) proteins. Despite knowing that IDPs play important roles and are co-enriched alongside endogenous, species-specific cosolutes during desiccation, little is known mechanistically about how IDP-cosolute interactions influence desiccation tolerance. Here, we test the notion that the protective function of desiccation-related IDPs is enhanced through conformational changes induced by endogenous cosolutes. We find that desiccation-related IDPs derived from four different organisms spanning two LEA protein families and the CAHS protein family synergize best with endogenous cosolutes during drying to promote desiccation protection. Yet the structural parameters of protective IDPs do not correlate with synergy for either CAHS or LEA proteins. We further demonstrate that for CAHS, but not LEA proteins, synergy is related to self-assembly and the formation of a gel. Our results suggest that functional synergy between IDPs and endogenous cosolutes is a convergent desiccation protection strategy seen among different IDP families and organisms, yet the mechanisms underlying this synergy differ between IDP families.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Alejandro J Brenes, Eva Griesser ... Angus I Lamond
    Research Article

    Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) have great potential to be used as alternatives to embryonic stem cells (hESCs) in regenerative medicine and disease modelling. In this study, we characterise the proteomes of multiple hiPSC and hESC lines derived from independent donors and find that while they express a near-identical set of proteins, they show consistent quantitative differences in the abundance of a subset of proteins. hiPSCs have increased total protein content, while maintaining a comparable cell cycle profile to hESCs, with increased abundance of cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins required to sustain high growth rates, including nutrient transporters and metabolic proteins. Prominent changes detected in proteins involved in mitochondrial metabolism correlated with enhanced mitochondrial potential, shown using high-resolution respirometry. hiPSCs also produced higher levels of secreted proteins, including growth factors and proteins involved in the inhibition of the immune system. The data indicate that reprogramming of fibroblasts to hiPSCs produces important differences in cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins compared to hESCs, with consequences affecting growth and metabolism. This study improves our understanding of the molecular differences between hiPSCs and hESCs, with implications for potential risks and benefits for their use in future disease modelling and therapeutic applications.