JCB logo
Avanti Polar Lipids
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

Published 28 April 2003. doi:10.1083/jcb1612iti1
This Article
Right arrow PDF (Full Text)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Articles
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
© The Rockefeller University Press, 0021-9525/2003/4/218 $5.00
The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 161, Number 2, 218-218


In This Issue

Aurora B puts chromosomes in their place


Inhibition of Aurora B causes misalignment of chromosomes (right).

Small molecule inhibitors of Aurora B activity, characterized by Hauf et al. (page 281) and Ditchfield et al. (page 267), reveal that the mammalian kinase and its budding yeast counterpart, Ipl1, have similar functions. Without Aurora B, mistakes in kinetochore–chromosome interactions go uncorrected.

Early evidence of a function for the Aurora family in correcting syntelic attachments, those in which both chromatids are attached to the same spindle pole, was provided by the ipl1 mutant. But visualizing spindle–kinetochore attachments in yeast is difficult. The two articles in this issue examine attachments directly, by inhibiting Aurora B in mammalian cells.

The groups used different compounds, but in both cases the Aurora B inhibitors left chromosomes misaligned and compromised the spindle checkpoint, thus causing division failure and endoreduplication. Hauf et al. saw that syntelic attachments were more common in inhibitor-treated cells. They hypothesize that Aurora B senses the lack of tension between syntelic sister chromatids and destabilizes either one or both so that correct attachments can be established. If the checkpoint is activated by unattached kinetochores, its override by Aurora B inhibition may be an indirect result of stable syntelic attachments. Indeed, drugs that destabilize microtubules restored checkpoint function in the presence of the inhibitors, at least in the short term.

Aurora B may also have a more direct effect on the spindle checkpoint through BubR1 or other kinetochore proteins. Low tension between sister chromatids normally leads to recruitment of BubR1 to kinetochores. But BubR1 was absent from kinetochores in the presence of either inhibitor. Ditchfield et al. show that RNA interference of BubR1 caused a chromosome alignment defect resembling that seen in cells treated with their Aurora B inhibitor. It is possible that BubR1 not only monitors kinetochore–microtubule interactions but also regulates them in response to changes in Aurora B activity. {blacksquare}



Nicole LeBrasseur

lebrasn{at}rockefeller.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Aurora B couples chromosome alignment with anaphase by targeting BubR1, Mad2, and Cenp-E to kinetochores
Claire Ditchfield, Victoria L. Johnson, Anthony Tighe, Rebecca Ellston, Carolyn Haworth, Trevor Johnson, Andrew Mortlock, Nicholas Keen, and Stephen S. Taylor
J. Cell Biol. 2003 161: 267-280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The small molecule Hesperadin reveals a role for Aurora B in correcting kinetochore–microtubule attachment and in maintaining the spindle assembly checkpoint
Silke Hauf, Richard W. Cole, Sabrina LaTerra, Christine Zimmer, Gisela Schnapp, Rainer Walter, Armin Heckel, Jacques van Meel, Conly L. Rieder, and Jan-Michael Peters
J. Cell Biol. 2003 161: 281-294. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow PDF (Full Text)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Articles
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?


  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents