A model for chromosome movement during mitosis

Forer, Arthur; Wilson, Paula J.

doi:10.1007/bf01403947

Cited by 38 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the localization of MFs in a subset of spindle MTs, fragmentation or depolymerization of MTs should have a direct consequence on the architecture of the spindle. If parallel MFs and kMTs are laterally associated along their length [Pedrotti et al, 1994], and are also attached/associated at the kinetochore [Pickett-Heaps and Carpenter, 1993;Forer and Wilson, 1994], MFs could be responsible for aligning MTs, much as they do in plant cells. Cleary [1995] has shown in vivo that the existence and alignment of MFs precede the location and alignment of MTs during the cell cycle in Tradescantia stomatal complexes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The role of filaments, or a matrix material in chromosome motions has previously been postulated [Pickett-Heaps et al, 1984. With the identification of microfilaments (MFs) in the mitotic spindle, alternative models based on an actomyosin system have been postulated [reviewed in Forer and Wilson, 1994]. The contractile properties of an actomyosin system could account for the observed tension found in the spindle by metaphase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cytochalasin J treatment significantly alters mitotic spindle microtubule organization and kinetochore structure in PtK1 cells

Wrench

Snyder

1997

Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Cytochalasin J treatment significantly alters mitotic spindle microtubule organization and kinetochore structure in PtK1 cells

Wrench

Snyder

1997

Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although the latter two examples refer to movements away from the pole, it cannot yet be excluded that polar microtubules (not attached to kinetochores) also can be involved in a poleward movement. In this respect a new model for chromosome movement during mitosis has to be mentioned, as recently proposed by Forer and Wilson (1994). This model supposes the existence of forces on chromosome arms that are separate from the pulling force at the kinetochore.…”

Section: Steric Hindrance Affects Anaphase Chromatid Re-orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Steric hindrance and its effect on chromosome movement inVicia faba somatic cells

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary. The arrangement of chromosome arms in metaphasesand anaphases has been studied in Vicia faba root meristem cells.During metaphase, the long chromosome arms are aligned parallel to fire spindle axis. As a consequence, at the onset of anaphase, one chrmnatid can move straight ahead to the spindle pole whereas the other has to invert its orientation. Specially in narrow cells it has been observed frequently that some chromatids move in a reverse orientation to the pole, i.e., they move telomere-first instead of centromere-first. This behaviour results in a chromatid which protrudes beyond the main group of late anaphase or telophase chromatids. It is dicussed that the most likely explanation for the phenomenon is that in narrow ceils chromatid behaviour is influenced by steric hindrance by the tightly packed surrounding chromatids and microtubules. When there is insufficient room, some chromatids are unable to make the required U-turn. Under such conditions the kinetochore of a non-inverted chromatid pulls the chromatid in a reverse orientation to the pole. An alternative explanation, i.e, protruding chromatids being the result of a neocentric activity at the telomere end of a reverse-directed chromatid or the lateral associations of spindle microtubules, failed to find support by electron microscopical studies.

show abstract

“…One kind of non-kinetochore force is directed poleward. It is thought to be responsible for the movement of chromosome arms ahead of kinetochores in anaphase [Fuge, 1985;Forer and Wilson, 1994]. A poleward directed force of this kind corresponds to classical ''neo-centric activity'' [Bajer and Molè-Bajer, 1972].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonrandom chromosome segregation in male meiosis of a sciarid fly: Elimination of paternal chromosomes in first division is mediated by non-kinetochore microtubules

Fuge

1997

Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mechanism of nonrandom chromosome segregation and elimination in male first meiotic division of sciarid flies is one of the enigmas of classical cytogenetics. Interpretations of the available data regarding this unusual chromosome transport are contradictory [reviewed by Gerbi, 1986: “Germline—Soma Differentiations. Results and Problems of Cell Differentiation,” Vol. 13:71–104]. In the present study of spermatogenesis in Trichosia pubescens the process is reinvestigated by indirect anti‐tubulin immunofluorescence labeling of spindle microtubules and DAPI chromosome staining, partly in combination with ultrathin sectioning and electron microscopy. While the maternal homologues and the sex‐limited (L) chromosomes seem to be transported very quickly toward the pole of the monopolar spindle, where they stay throughout first meiotic division, paternal homologues remain some distance from the pole, stick together, and, as an undifferentiated cluster of chromatin, withdraw from the pole in the course of division. Finally the paternal chromatin becomes eliminated in a cytoplasmic bud which is cast off. The different behavior of maternal homologues (and L chromosomes) and paternal homologues may be caused by differences in kinetochore structure and function. In contrast to maternal and L chromosomes, the paternal homologues do not display structurally defined kinetochore‐like regions and seem to be unable to orient poleward. During the process of elimination, a prominent bundle of pole‐oriented microtubules is associated with the paternal chromatin cluster. It is suggested that transport away from the pole is brought about by these microtubules. Thus, meiotic chromosome elimination in sciarids may be related to mechanisms involving “polar ejection forces” [Rieder et al., 1986: J. Cell Biol. 103:581–591]. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 36:84–94, 1997. © 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

show abstract

A model for chromosome movement during mitosis

Cited by 38 publications

References 67 publications

Cytochalasin J treatment significantly alters mitotic spindle microtubule organization and kinetochore structure in PtK1 cells

Cytochalasin J treatment significantly alters mitotic spindle microtubule organization and kinetochore structure in PtK1 cells

Steric hindrance and its effect on chromosome movement inVicia faba somatic cells

Nonrandom chromosome segregation in male meiosis of a sciarid fly: Elimination of paternal chromosomes in first division is mediated by non-kinetochore microtubules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About