1991
DOI: 10.1016/0092-8674(81)90015-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Feedback control of mitosis in budding yeast

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

29
814
0
2

Year Published

1996
1996
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,109 publications
(845 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
29
814
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Our studies show that either Mad2⌬C or GST-Mad1F10 can overcome the checkpoint in nocodazole-treated PtK1 cells where kinetochores lack both tension as well as attached microtubules. This result indicates that BubR1 is not able to maintain the spindle checkpoint independently of Mad2 function, a conclusion supported by other studies where Mad2 function was inhibited with antibodies or deleted by genetic manipulations [Canman et al, 2000;Dobles et al, 2000;Gorbsky et al, 1998;Hoyt, 2001;Kitagawa and Rose, 1999;Li and Murray, 1991;Li and Benezra, 1996;Michel et al, 2001;Waters et al, 1998]. How the kinetochore mediates inhibition of APC/C by Cdc20 via Mad2, BubR1, or a direct effect on APC/C remains an important unresolved issue [Gillett and Sorger, 2001;Hoyt, 2001;Sudakin et al, 2001].…”
Section: Comments and Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Our studies show that either Mad2⌬C or GST-Mad1F10 can overcome the checkpoint in nocodazole-treated PtK1 cells where kinetochores lack both tension as well as attached microtubules. This result indicates that BubR1 is not able to maintain the spindle checkpoint independently of Mad2 function, a conclusion supported by other studies where Mad2 function was inhibited with antibodies or deleted by genetic manipulations [Canman et al, 2000;Dobles et al, 2000;Gorbsky et al, 1998;Hoyt, 2001;Kitagawa and Rose, 1999;Li and Murray, 1991;Li and Benezra, 1996;Michel et al, 2001;Waters et al, 1998]. How the kinetochore mediates inhibition of APC/C by Cdc20 via Mad2, BubR1, or a direct effect on APC/C remains an important unresolved issue [Gillett and Sorger, 2001;Hoyt, 2001;Sudakin et al, 2001].…”
Section: Comments and Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…This can be accomplished by physical manipulation of chromosomes [reviewed in McIntosh et al, 2002; reviewed in Nicklas, 1997], by drug-induced destabilization of spindle microtubules Hoyt et al, 1991;Li and Murray 1991], or by alteration of kinetochore structure Pangilinan and Spencer, 1996].…”
Section: Identification Of Spindle Checkpoint Mutants In Yeast and Himentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two independent screens in Saccharomyces cerevisiae identified the first SAC genes [mitotic arrest deficient (MAD1-3) and budding uninhibited by benzimidazole (BUB1-3)] based on the sensitivity of strains harboring mutations in these genes to spindle disruption (see Table I for summary of SAC component nomenclature and function) [Hoyt et al, 1991;Li and Murray 1991]. Slowing down or blocking mitosis decreases the sensitivity of these mutants to microtubule-destabilizing drugs, indicating that they mis-segregate chromosomes and lose viability because they fail to arrest the cell cycle long enough to repair spindle damage.…”
Section: Budding Yeastmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kinetochores form on the centromere DNAs of condensed chromosomes, interact with microtubules, and are pulled toward the two ends of the spindle in anaphase (Hyman & Mitchison 1991;Mitchison & Salmon 1992). A mechanism called spindle checkpoint control ensures that sister chromatid separation is prolonged when spindle formation is inhibited (Li & Murray 1991;Hoyt et al 1991). Another mechanism, metaphase checkpoint control, delays anaphase when any one of the chromosomes fails to properly situate in the metaphase spindle (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%