View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Dispatch R883

an mTORC1 substrate that negatively regulates inhibitors. Oncogene http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ 1Department of Cancer and Cell Biology, insulin signaling. Science 332, 1322–1326. onc.2013.92. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 16. Chung, J., Kuo, C.J., Crabtree, G.R., and 19. She, Q.B., Halilovic, E., Ye, Q., Zhen, W., Cincinnati, OH 45267, USA. 2Institute for Blenis, J. (1992). Rapamycin-FKBP specifically Shirasawa, S., Sasazuki, T., Solit, D.B., and blocks growth-dependent activation of and Rosen, N. (2010). 4E-BP1 is a key effector of the Research in Immunology and Cancer (IRIC), signaling by the 70 kd S6 protein kinases. Cell oncogenic activation of the AKT and ERK Universite´ de Montre´ al, Montreal, 69, 1227–1236. signaling pathways that integrates their Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada. 3Department of 17. Zhang, Y., and Zheng, X.F. (2012). function in tumors. Cancer Cell 18, Pathology and Cell Biology, Faculty of mTOR-independent 4E-BP1 phosphorylation is 39–51. Medicine, Universite´ de Montre´ al, Montreal, associated with cancer resistance to mTOR 20. Shin, S., Wolgamott, L., Tcherkezian, J., kinase inhibitors. Cell Cycle 11, 594–603. Vallabhapurapu, S., Yu, Y., Roux, P.P., and Quebec, H3C 3J7, Canada. 18. Ducker, G.S., Atreya, C.E., Simko, J.P., Yoon, S.O. (2013). Glycogen synthase E-mail: [email protected], philippe. Hom, Y.K., Matli, M.R., Benes, C.H., Hann, B., kinase-3beta positively regulates protein [email protected] Nakakura, E.K., Bergsland, E.K., Donner, D.B., synthesis and cell proliferation through the et al. (2013). Incomplete inhibition of regulation of translation initiation factor phosphorylation of 4E-BP1 as a mechanism of 4E-binding protein 1. Oncogene http:// primary resistance to ATP-competitive mTOR dx.doi.org/10.1038/onc.2013.113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.030

Chromosome Segregation: Learning only when chromosomes are correctly bi-oriented and microtubules exert to Let Go tension across sister kinetochores [6]. How this relocation of Sgo1 is controlled, however, has been To ensure accurate chromosome segregation, cohesion between sister unknown. chromatids must be released in a controlled manner during mitosis. A new A number of ways to recruit Sgo1 study reveals how distinct centromere populations of the cohesin protector to centromeres have been reported, Sgo1 are regulated by microtubule attachments, cyclin-dependent kinases, but the relative contributions of these and the kinetochore kinase Bub1. pathways are debated. It is widely accepted that Sgo1 is brought to Jonathan M.G. Higgins and Sororin [3–5]. To fully separate centromeres when histone H2A is chromatids at anaphase, the remaining phosphorylated at Thr-120 Dividing cells must convey the correct cohesin is cleaved by the protease (H2AT120ph) by the kinetochore kinase complement of chromosomes to their Separase [2]. This raises the question Bub1 [9,10], though the structural basis offspring. Eukaryotes accomplish this of how cleavage of centromeric for this recruitment is unknown. Sgo1 by maintaining cohesion between cohesin is limited to anaphase. A can also bind to the heterochromatin replicated sister chromatids until simple possibility is that Separase only protein HP1, which itself binds chromosomes are bi-oriented on the becomes active at anaphase, and that chromatin by recognizing histone H3 mitotic spindle. Only once this has Sgo1 does not protect cohesin from trimethylated on Lys-9 (H3K9me3) [11]. been accomplished are the cleavage in mitosis. However, it has Although most HP1 is removed from attachments between chromatids been reported that Sgo1, when chromosomes during mitosis, a released, allowing them to be sorted inappropriately maintained at inner small population remains at inner accurately to opposite poles of the centromeres, prevents centromeres that could recruit Sgo1. dividing cell. Clearly then, although Separase-mediated cohesin cleavage However, other studies have found that sister chromatids may be inseparable [6]. Also, at least in budding yeast, key H3K9 methyltransferases are not at first, they must learn to let go when Sgo1–PP2A complexes may inhibit required for HP1 or Sgo1 localization in the time comes. A report from Liu, Jia Separase more directly [7]. Therefore, mitosis [12,13], and that HP1 binds to and Yu in this issue of Current Biology it is important to understand how the mitotic centromeres via the [1] provides new insight into this localization and activity of Sgo1 are chromosomal passenger complex process that may have broader regulated. (CPC) in a manner that excludes HP1 implications for our understanding of During prophase in mammalian cells, binding to Sgo1 [14]. An alternative inner centromere function. Sgo1 is found at inner centromeres potential contribution to inner Cohesion between sister chromatids (defined here as the area between the centromere Sgo1 localization is binding is maintained by cohesin complexes, chromatin regions that contain to cohesin itself, an interaction that together with regulators such as centromeric histone CENP-A; Figure 1). depends on phosphorylation of Sgo1 at Sororin [2]. In vertebrate mitosis, As chromosomes become bi-oriented, Thr-346 by cyclin-dependent kinases cohesin is removed from Sgo1 appears to move outwards, (Cdk) [5]. How do these proposed chromosomes in two steps. In relocating to two regions roughly mechanisms act together to control prophase, a mechanism involving coinciding with CENP-A-containing Sgo1 function? phosphorylation of cohesin and Sororin chromatin underlying kinetochores Although the dependency of Sgo1 by mitotic kinases removes the bulk of [1,6,8]. This movement of Sgo1 away localization on Bub1 activity is largely cohesin from chromosome arms from cohesin complexes located at unquestioned, the reason that (Figure 1). Cohesin at centromeres, inner centromeres might render centromeric cohesion depends on however, is protected by Sgo1–PP2A cohesin susceptible to cleavage by Bub1 is less clear [15,16]. Bub1 is a phosphatase complexes that Separase, and would provide a way to mitotic checkpoint protein, and counteract phosphorylation of cohesin make removal of cohesin favorable lowering Bub1 levels might lead to Current Biology Vol 23 No 19 R884

Prophase Prometaphase Metaphase Early anaphase to bind and protect cohesin at inner centromeres. Bi-orientation of chromosomes in metaphase leads to dephosphorylation of Thr-346, loss of P Release of P Sgo1 arm cohesin Sgo1 Bi-orientation Separase cohesin binding, and redistribution of

P P Sgo1 toward H2AT120ph at inner Sgo1 Sgo1 Sgo1 Sgo1 Sgo1 Sgo1 kinetochores, where it cannot prevent cleavage of inner centromeric cohesin by Separase (Figure 1). Thus, microtubule attachment imposes Inner centromere an orchestrated change in the Kinetochore H2AT120ph Cohesin phosphorylation and binding partners Microtubules CENP-A-containing centromeric chromatin of Sgo1 to bring about its relocalization and to regulate cohesion. Current Biology The findings raise a number of questions. The model provides a Figure 1. Model for regulation of Sgo1 localization during mitosis. mechanism for Sgo1 regulation by During prophase, Sgo1 (green) is phosphorylated at Thr-346 and binds to cohesin complexes tension across bi-oriented (red) at the inner centromere between sister chromatids (pale blue). This inner centromeric chromosomes, but is it really tension accumulation of Sgo1 requires Bub1 and binding to H2AT120ph in an as yet undetermined that triggers Sgo1 relocation, or is manner (curved arrows). Cohesin on chromosome arms is released through the action of mitotic stable microtubule attachment to kinases, but Sgo1 protects inner centromere cohesin. Once the chromosomes become kinetochores sufficient? What makes bi-oriented, Sgo1 is dephosphosphorylated at Thr-346 and Sgo1 no longer binds to cohesin. Cdk-dependent phosphorylation of Instead, Sgo1 redistributes towards H2AT120ph (dark blue), in regions approximately coinciding with centromeric chromatin containing CENP-A (yellow). Once the mitotic Sgo1 responsive to attachment status checkpoint is satisfied, Separase is activated and cleaves the now unprotected cohesin at inner and could kinetochore-bound cyclin B centromeres. In anaphase, H2AT120ph begins to decline, and Sgo1 is eventually released. [6,17] play a role? Do these studies imply that HP1 has no role in Sgo1 recruitment? Not necessarily. One cohesion loss because the checkpoint H2AT120ph but was unable to bind possibility is that HP1 is important for is compromised and anaphase is cohesin was found at kinetochores, but Sgo1 localization prior to, but not initiated, rather than because Bub1 and was unable to localize to inner during, mitosis [13,14]. Alternatively, H2AT120ph are required for Sgo1 centromeres. Therefore, H2AT120ph ongoing work suggests that Sgo1 can localization [15]. In their new study, Liu binding appears important for all be retained at inner centromeres in et al. acknowledge that inactivation of centromeric enrichment of Sgo1, while mitosis by HP1, but that this system is Bub1 causes a weaker cohesion cohesin binding is important compromised in a wide range of cancer phenotype than loss of Sgo1 but argue specifically for the accumulation of cells (Y. Tanno and Y. Watanabe, that centromeric cohesion is flawed Sgo1 at inner centromeres. Notably, personal communication). The when Bub1 is depleted, even when Sgo1-T346A (which cannot bind possibility that commonly studied cell the checkpoint remains active [1]. cohesin) was unable to restore lines are defective in certain aspects of However, they also find that Sgo1 cohesion in Sgo1-depleted cells. cohesion regulation could underlie does not always co-localize with In contrast, Sgo1-K492A (which retains other conflicting observations in the H2AT120ph, particularly on cohesin binding) was largely, though field, including those regarding the role chromosomes that lack microtubule not fully, able to support cohesion. of Bub1 in cohesion regulation. attachments. On such chromosomes, The authors propose that these two A significant unresolved issue is why H2AT120ph largely overlaps with different binding modes underlie the inner centromeric localization of Sgo1 CENP-A-containing chromatin at redistribution of Sgo1 observed during depends on the Bub1–H2AT120ph kinetochores whereas Sgo1 is found at mitosis. When microtubules were pathway. Recruitment by H2AT120ph inner centromeres (Figure 1). These depolymerized with nocodazole, the might increase the local concentration results are consistent with an inner centromere localization and of Sgo1 and make binding to nearby additional contribution to Sgo1 phosphorylation of Sgo1 at Thr-346 cohesin (or HP1) more likely. However, localization and function beyond that of were increased, and Sgo1 interaction Liu et al. find that Sgo1 does not the Bub1–H2AT120ph pathway. with H2AT120ph was decreased. interact detectably with H2AT120ph in To determine the relative roles Furthermore, a phospho-mimicking nocodazole-treated cells even though, of the Bub1–H2AT120ph and Sgo1-T346D mutant was partially based on results with the K492A cohesin-dependent pathways, Liu et al. retained at inner centromeres, even mutant, the ability to interact with examined separation-of-function when chromosomes were bi-oriented. H2AT120ph is required for Sgo1 to mutants of Sgo1. A mutant (K492A) that Cells expressing this mutant had accumulate at inner centromeres in could not co-immunoprecipitate increased numbers of lagging similar conditions [1]. Perhaps H2AT120ph, but still bound cohesin, chromosomes in anaphase, consistent transient association with H2AT120ph was no longer enriched at centromeres. with failure to fully remove cohesin allows Sgo1 to pick up a binding Instead, it was found on chromosome from centromeres. partner or modification (such as arms, consistent with the effects of These results led to a model in which Thr-346 phosphorylation) that is depleting Bub1. In contrast, a mutant Cdk-dependent phosphorylation at needed to then bind at inner (T346A) that could interact with Thr-346 in prophase allows Sgo1 centromeres. Dispatch R885

Bub1 appears to be a major conduit (2006). Protein phosphatase 2A protects protection mechanism in G2 before subsequent centromeric sister chromatid cohesion during Bub1-dependent recruitment in mitosis. J. Cell for ‘outside-in’ signals from the meiosis I. Nature 441, 53–61. Sci. 123, 653–659. kinetochore to the inner centromere 4. Kitajima, T.S., Sakuno, T., Ishiguro, K., 14. Kang, J., Chaudhary, J., Dong, H., Kim, S., [18], so these studies are likely to have Iemura, S., Natsume, T., Kawashima, S.A., and Brautigam, C.A., and Yu, H. (2011). Mitotic Watanabe, Y. (2006). Shugoshin collaborates centromeric targeting of HP1 and its binding implications beyond cohesion. In with protein phosphatase 2A to protect to Sgo1 are dispensable for sister-chromatid particular, H2AT120ph generated by cohesin. Nature 441, 46–52. cohesion in human cells. Mol. Biol. Cell 22, 5. Liu, H., Rankin, S., and Yu, H. (2013). 1181–1190. Bub1 co-operates with another histone Phosphorylation-enabled binding of 15. Perera, D., Tilston, V., Hopwood, J.A., modification, H3T3ph generated by SGO1-PP2A to cohesin protects sororin and Barchi, M., Boot-Handford, R.P., and Haspin, to specify the inner centromere centromeric cohesion during mitosis. Nat. Cell Taylor, S.S. (2007). Bub1 maintains centromeric Biol. 15, 40–49. cohesion by activation of the spindle localization of the CPC [10,19]. The 6. Lee, J., Kitajima, T.S., Tanno, Y., Yoshida, K., checkpoint. Dev. Cell 13, 566–579. mechanism of this co-operation, Morita, T., Miyano, T., Miyake, M., and 16. Ricke, R.M., Jeganathan, K.B., Malureanu, L., Watanabe, Y. (2008). Unified mode of Harrison, A.M., and van Deursen, J.M. (2012). however, is incompletely defined. The centromeric protection by shugoshin in Bub1 kinase activity drives error correction new results from Liu et al. imply that mammalian oocytes and somatic cells. Nat. and mitotic checkpoint control but not tumor Bub1 and H2AT120ph indirectly Cell Biol. 10, 42–52. suppression. J. Cell Biol. 199, 7. Clift, D., Bizzari, F., and Marston, A.L. (2009). 931–949. enhance Sgo1 binding to inner Shugoshin prevents cohesin cleavage 17. Bentley, A.M., Normand, G., Hoyt, J., and centromeres. Inner centromeric Sgo1 by PP2A(Cdc55)-dependent inhibition King, R.W. (2007). Distinct sequence elements of separase. Genes Dev. 23, of cyclin B1 promote localization to chromatin, might then provide direct binding sites 766–780. centrosomes, and kinetochores during mitosis. for the CPC and/or protect cohesin to 8. McGuinness, B.E., Hirota, T., Kudo, N.R., Mol. Biol. Cell 18, 4847–4858. provide binding sites for Haspin [10], Peters, J.M., and Nasmyth, K. (2005). 18. Boyarchuk, Y., Salic, A., Dasso, M., and Shugoshin prevents dissociation of cohesin Arnaoutov, A. (2007). Bub1 is essential for and could therefore help make from centromeres during mitosis in vertebrate assembly of the functional inner centromere. CPC localization sensitive to cells. PLoS Biol. 3, e86. J. Cell Biol. 176, 919–928. 9. Kawashima, S.A., Yamagishi, Y., Honda, T., 19. Wang, F., Ulyanova, N.P., van der Waal, M.S., kinetochore–microtubule attachments Ishiguro, K., and Watanabe, Y. (2010). Patnaik, D., Lens, S.M.A., and Higgins, J.M.G. [20]. Further work to fully understand Phosphorylation of H2A by Bub1 (2011). A positive feedback loop involving how Bub1 activity enhances the inner prevents chromosomal instability through Haspin and Aurora B promotes CPC localizing shugoshin. Science 327, accumulation at centromeres in mitosis. Curr. centromeric localization of Sgo1 is likely 172–177. Biol. 21, 1061–1069. to provide insight into multiple aspects 10. Yamagishi, Y., Honda, T., Tanno, Y., and 20. Salimian, K.J., Ballister, E.R., Smoak, E.M., Watanabe, Y. (2010). Two histone marks Wood, S., Panchenko, T., Lampson, M.A., and of inner centromere function and establish the inner centromere and Black, B.E. (2011). Feedback control in sensing chromosome segregation in mitosis. chromosome bi-orientation. Science 330, chromosome biorientation by the Aurora B 239–243. kinase. Curr. Biol. 21, 1158–1165. References 11. Yamagishi, Y., Sakuno, T., Shimura, M., and 1. Liu, H., Jia, L., and Yu, H. (2013). Watanabe, Y. (2008). Heterochromatin links Phospho-H2A and cohesin specify distinct to centromeric protection by recruiting Division of Rheumatology, Immunology and tension-regulated Sgo1 pools at kinetochores shugoshin. Nature 455, 251–255. Allergy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and inner centromeres. Curr. Biol. 23, 12. Koch, B., Kueng, S., Ruckenbauer, C., Harvard Medical School, Smith Building 1927–1933. Wendt, K.S., and Peters, J.M. (2008). The Room 538A, 1 Jimmy Fund Way, Boston, 2. Nasmyth, K., and Haering, C.H. (2009). Cohesin: Suv39h-HP1 histone methylation pathway is its roles and mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Genet. dispensable for enrichment and protection of MA 02115, USA. 43, 525–558. cohesin at centromeres in mammalian cells. E-mail: [email protected] 3. Riedel, C.G., Katis, V.L., Katou, Y., Mori, S., Chromosoma 117, 199–210. Itoh, T., Helmhart, W., Galova, M., 13. Perera, D., and Taylor, S.S. (2010). Sgo1 Petronczki, M., Gregan, J., Cetin, B., et al. establishes the centromeric cohesion http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.026

Evolution: Sperm, Cryptic Choice, and opportunities inside her reproductive tract. In sperm competition, the the Origin of Species conspecific male tends to hold a fertilization advantage, irrespective of mating order, whereas in sperm In two fruit fly species, in vivo observations of competing sperm reveal how competition between two conspecific differences in sperm size, female behavior and reproductive architecture males, mating order matters. This promote retention of same-species sperm. Sexual selection continues after home court advantage in the mating and may play an important role in speciation. interspecific love triangle, called conspecific sperm precedence, Adam K. Chippindale habitat use, the timing of reproduction suggests a complicated interaction and mating preferences that favour like between the two different males’ Populations may diverge into separate breeding with like are factors that may ejaculates and the female reproductive species when they become physically promote speciation. In some species, a tract in which they compete. Such isolated, each adapting to different female can successfully mate and postcopulatory sexual selection is environments and genetically drifting produce offspring with a male from her among the most cryptic of biological apart for long periods of time. But own species (a ‘conspecific’ male) or processes known, yet is important when there isn’t complete physical with a male from a closely related because it influences paternity and isolation, the probability of speciation species (a ‘heterospecific’ male). If she can promote the evolution of isolation, will be greater if there are mechanisms were to mate with both types of male driving populations towards new that inhibit gene flow between within a short time period, their sperm species [1]. In this issue of Current diverging populations. Differences in would compete for fertilization Biology, Mollie Manier, Scott