Downloaded from genesdev.cshlp.org on September 30, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press PERSPECTIVE Overcoming inhibition in the spindle checkpoint Vincent Vanoosthuyse1 and Kevin G. Hardwick2 Wellcome Trust Centre for Cell Biology, Institute of Cell Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JR, United Kingdom Spindle checkpoint silencing is a critical step during checkpoint targets Cdc20, the early mitotic activator of the mitosis that initiates chromosome segregation, yet sur- APC/C. Unattached kinetochores recruit a stable Mad1/ prisingly little is known about its mechanism. Protein Mad2 complex, which catalyzes the production of Mad2– phosphatase I (PP1) was shown recently to be a key player Cdc20 complexes. This is believed to be the rate-limiting in this process, and in this issue of Genes & Deverlop- step in checkpoint activation (Simonetta et al. 2009) and, as ment, Akiyoshi and colleagues (pp. 2887–2899) identify such, is a likely target of checkpoint silencing mechanisms. budding yeast Fin1p as a kinetochore-localized regulator This complex then binds Mad3/BubR1 and Bub3 to form of PP1 activity toward checkpoint targets. Here we re- the MCC, and can then associate with mitotic APC/C to view recent mechanistic insights and propose a working form APC/CMCC (Nilsson et al. 2008; Kulukian et al. 2009). model for spindle checkpoint silencing. This has two consequences: (1) reduction of the ubiquitin ligase activity of the resulting APC/CMCC by >80% (Herzog et al. 2009), and (2) APC/C-dependent Cdc20 degradation The spindle checkpoint delays anaphase onset until (Pan and Chen 2004; Nilsson et al. 2008), both of which all chromosomes have established biorientation. When prevent polyubiquitination of securin and cyclin B. A single the checkpoint is activated, unattached kinetochores Cdc20 unattached kinetochore is sufficient to inhibit APC/C catalyze the formation of Mad2–Cdc20 and the mitotic activity, showing that the checkpoint is an extremely checkpoint complex (MCC: Mad2–Cdc20–BubR1–Bub3). sensitive and efficient signaling mechanism. The MCC blocks the activity of the anaphase-promoting Interestingly, Mad3/BubR1 does not need to be enriched complex (APC/CCdc20), the E3 ubiquitin ligase that tar- at kinetochores to be an APC/C inhibitor (Kulukian et al. gets key inhibitors of mitotic exit (securin and cyclin B) 2009; Malureanu et al. 2009; Vanoosthuyse et al. 2009), for degradation. Upon correct attachment of all kineto- showing that checkpoint-dependent inhibition of APC/ chores to microtubules, the checkpoint is satisfied and Cdc20 C can occur in the cytoplasm. It is thought that the stops producing APC/C inhibitors. However, the rate of production of APC/C inhibitors at unattached kineto- spontaneous dissociation of these inhibitors is low, and it chores is amplified in the cytoplasm, so that the whole is widely accepted that an active process, referred to here Cdc20 pool of APC/C is inhibited. To fully silence the check- as spindle checkpoint silencing, must be triggered for point upon chromosome biorientation, cells must inhibit APC/CCdc20 to be activated and for anaphase to proceed. the production of Mad2–Cdc20 and overcome the cyto- Checkpoint silencing has received much attention of plasmic amplification of APC/C inhibitors. However, how late, and several mechanisms have been proposed. Their this is achieved remains largely unclear. relative contribution to checkpoint silencing and how Understanding these mechanisms is made more diffi- their actions are coordinated remain unclear. Here we cult by the fact that, in mitosis, there can be at least three discuss the challenges that checkpoint silencing poses, APC/C ‘‘isoforms’’ in the cell: apo-APC/C (the core both to cells and to researchers, and identify major complex with no cofactor bound) (Herzog et al. 2009), obstacles that need to be overcome to improve our Cdc20 MCC APC/C , and APC/C . To date, there are no ex- understanding of these mechanisms. haustive data available that quantify the relative abun- dance of these different APC/C complexes, their respec- Checkpoint activation produces a diffusible signal tive localization in the cell, or their relative stability. The key aspects of spindle checkpoint activation can be Moreover, it is unclear whether the abundance, localiza- summarized as follows (for recent extensive reviews see tion, or activity of these APC/C isoforms is regulated, but Musacchio and Salmon 2007; Ciliberto and Shah 2009). The CDK and checkpoint kinase activity seem likely to have important roles to play in this regard. [Keywords: Kinetochore; Ipl1/Aurora B protein kinase; PP1/Glc7 protein How far from kinetochores do checkpoint phosphatase I; Fin1; 14–3–3; SILAC quantitative mass spectrometry] activation/inactivation signals travel? Correspondence. 1E-MAIL [email protected]; FAX 44-131-6507037. 2E-MAIL [email protected]; FAX 44-131-6507037. To address this issue, Rieder et al. (1997) fused cells to Article is online at http://www.genesdev.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gad.1882109. produce heterokaryons containing two separate mitotic GENES & DEVELOPMENT 23:2799–2805 Ó 2009 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press ISSN 0890-9369/09; www.genesdev.org 2799 Downloaded from genesdev.cshlp.org on September 30, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Vanoosthuyse and Hardwick spindles (spindles 1 and 2). Unattached kinetochores on Checkpoint silencing: a difficult problem to tackle spindle 1 did not prevent spindle 2 from initiating Identifying components specifically involved in check- anaphase (Rieder et al. 1997), showing that APC/C in- point silencing is difficult for several reasons. hibitors could not diffuse effectively from one spindle to (1) Mutants unable to silence the checkpoint (through the next. On the other hand, once spindle 2 had com- their failure to disassemble APC/C inhibitors) exhibit the mitted to anaphase, spindle 1 soon followed, despite still same ‘‘arrest’’ phenotype as mutants that continuously having unattached kinetochores. This suggested that the activate the checkpoint because of kinetochore–microtu- APC/C-activating signals (checkpoint silencing) could bule attachment defects. Both classes of mutants exhibit readily diffuse from one spindle to the next. Cyclin B is a checkpoint-dependent metaphase delay. In theory, first degraded on chromosomes and spindle poles (Clute and Pines 1999; Huang and Raff 1999), suggesting that the these two classes of mutants can be distinguished: A APC/C is first activated near chromosomes and spindles ‘‘silencing’’ mutant should establish a metaphase plate upon chromosome biorientation. CDK activity is impor- normally but fail to commit to anaphase, while an tant to maintain a spindle checkpoint arrest (Li and Cai ‘‘attachment’’ mutant should fail to establish a normal 1997; Kitazono et al. 2003), so, potentially, the localized metaphase plate. In practice, however, even if cells degradation of Cyclin B and the resulting localized loss of form a normal-looking metaphase plate, it is difficult to CDK activity could precipitate spindle checkpoint in- rule out that minor kinetochore–microtubule attach- activation. In summary, checkpoint-dependent APC/C ment defects remain, which the checkpoint, but not inhibition is first overcome around chromosomes and current techniques, can detect. For example, recent spindle poles, and checkpoint silencing signals are then studies characterized the Ska3 kinetochore component amplified to diffuse throughout the cytoplasm. in vertebrates. While four studies (Gaitanos et al. 2009; There is a caveat with this model. If checkpoint silenc- Raaijmakers et al. 2009; Theis et al. 2009; Welburn ing signals were amplified and totally free to diffuse, then et al. 2009) concluded that Ska3 is required for stable it would be unlikely that a single unattached kinetochore kinetochore–microtubule interactions, a fifth study could block anaphase onset. Indeed, one would predict (Daum et al. 2009) concluded that Ska3 was dispensable that the silencing signals sent by all correctly attached ki- to form a proper metaphase plate, but was required for netochores would overwhelm the checkpoint-activating checkpoint silencing. All studies agree that Ska3 is re- signal sent by the single unattached kinetochore. Alterna- quired to establish the mature kinetochore–microtubule tively, some mechanisms might limit the amplification/ attachments that will eventually satisfy the checkpoint, diffusion of checkpoint-inactivating signals. Consistent probably placing Ska3 upstream of the machinery that with this idea, Bub1 kinase activity is required to disassembles the anaphase inhibitors rather than as part block anaphase onset in response to a few unattached of it. kinetochores (low concentration of the microtubule- (2) As activation and silencing of the checkpoint are depolymerizing drug nocodazole), but not when all intimately linked to the attachment of kinetochores to kinetochores are unattached (high concentration of noco- microtubules, it is likely that certain players will regulate dazole) (Chen 2004). Bub1 kinase activity might help gen- both processes simultaneously. To specifically study the erate a more potent MCC (Tang et al. 2004; Vanoosthuyse role of such components in checkpoint inactivation re- and Hardwick 2005); alternatively, it might limit the quires separation-of-function alleles, which can be difficult spread of checkpoint silencing signals. to generate. Recently, such a separation-of-function allele was described