1 Division of Molecular Medicine, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of
Health, P.O. Box 509, Albany, New York 12201-0509, USA
2 Department of Biomedical Sciences, State University of New York, Albany, New
York 12222, USA
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: Rieder{at}Wadsworth.org )
Accepted 5 May 2002
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: GFP imaging, Kinetochore, Centrosome, Spindle, Cytokinesis
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Neuroblasts are progenitor cells that give rise to the central nervous
system in metazoans. In some organisms (e.g. flies and grasshoppers), these
cells divide asymmetrically and, following mitosis, the larger of the two
daughters retains its neuroblast identity (see
Doe and Bowerman, 2001). The
other, smaller ganglion mother cell (GMC), then undergoes a single symmetrical
division to produce two daughters that ultimately differentiate into neurons
(Poulson, 1950
). In
Drosophila melanogaster, dividing neuroblasts are first found in
stage-nine embryos (Truman et al.,
1993
), and division continues throughout larval development
(Truman and Bate, 1988
).
Surprisingly, despite the fact that Drosophila neuroblasts can be
cultured (e.g. Seecof et al.,
1973; Wu et al.,
1983
; Furst and Mahowald,
1985
; Broadus and Doe,
1997
) and despite their popularity for mitotic studies, there is
only one report detailing division in living neuroblasts, and it focused on
the mechanism of asymmetric cytokinesis in embryos
(Kaltschmidt et al., 2000
). As
a result, the processes of spindle formation
(Wilson et al., 1997
;
Bonaccorsi et al., 2000
;
Giansanti et al., 2001
) and
chromosome behavior (Scaerou et al.,
1999
; Donaldson et al.,
2001
; Wojcik et al.,
2001
) in neuroblasts have been inferred instead from the
examination of fixed, and often squashed, cells. Although these approaches
have identified many proteins important to mitosis (aurora and polo-like
kinases, ZW10/rod, asp, etc.), reconstructing the various dynamic and
superimposed events that occur during mitosis from static images produces a
limited and sometimes misleading picture of the division process. Also, fixed
material provides no data on the dynamic behavior of the proteins and
organelles involved in mitosis or on how they are altered in mutants. Such
behaviors, which in mutants can be manifested as obvious or even subtle
changes in, for instance, the rate of chromosome motion (e.g.
Savoian et al., 2000
), must be
defined for a complete understanding of how a particular genetic defect
affects the division process.
Here we describe a rapid and simple method for generating short-term neuroblast cultures from Drosophila third instar larvae that allows individual cells to be followed by high-resolution time-lapse video microscopy. Using this approach we have characterized division in these cells, focusing primarily on chromosome behavior and spindle formation. Our data provide novel insights into how mitosis works in neuroblasts and also defines the control work for additional live cell studies on mutants.
![]() |
Materials and Methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Primary neuroblast cultures
Primary cultures were prepared on clean 25x25 mm glass coverslips (#)
modified as follows. First, a drop of molten VALAP (1:1:1
Vaseline:lanolin:paraffin) was placed near the edge of each corner. Next two
concentric rings of Vaseline were drawn in the center of the coverslip using a
syringe and 18-gauge needle (Fig.
1A).
|
Drosophila third instar larvae of the appropriate genotype were removed from mating vials, bathed for 20 seconds in saline (0.7% NaCl in H2O) to remove residual media, and then placed on #4 filter paper until dry.
All subsequent steps were performed on a dissecting microscope containing a mirror in its base and a transparent stage. This microscope allows the specimen to be illuminated from the side by a fiber optic system. By alteration of the incident light angle, the specimen can be viewed by dark field-like illumination (Figs. 1B-D).
After cleaning, a larva was transferred to the upper portion of the innermost Vaseline ring on the coverslip. Voltalef 10s oil (Elf Atochem; Paris, France) was then added until the larva was completely covered and the innermost ring filled. Brains were isolated by placing downward pressure on the black larval mouthparts with a no. 11 scalpel blade, while at the same time placing another blade one-third of the larval length back and pulling in a posterior direction. After separating the brain from the rest of the body (Fig. 1B arrow), adjacent tissues were then dissected away and discarded. During dissection the brain becomes surrounded by fluid released from the larva, which was removed by thin slivers of filter paper to ensure cell adherence to the coverslip. The intact, isolated, brain (Fig. 1C) was then moved to the center of the coverslip, which was free of debris.
We used brain hemispheres and the ventral ganglion. These components were severed from one another and placed in adjacent regions of the coverslip center. Cell monolayers were then produced by inserting both scalpel blades into a single piece of tissue and drawing them in opposite directions using smooth sweeping or arching motions. This process was repeated until most of the tissues were spread (Fig. 1D).
Once the cells were spread, a clean glass slide was pressed against the coverslip. As force is applied, the VALAP in each corner begins to compress and act as a spacer. Excessive compression does not generally affect karyokinesis, but in overly flattened cells cleavage furrows often regress before forming mid-bodies. Under these culture conditions, cells continue to enter and complete mitosis for over 1 hour, after which they stop dividing and ultimately become refractive under DIC optics.
Neuroblasts could be easily distinguished from other cells, including GMCs,
because they are the largest cells in the preparation
(Fig. 1E,F) (Wu et al., 1983). That we
were indeed following neuroblasts could also be verified, at the end of the
division, by the unique asymmetric cytokinesis that these cells undergo. Thus,
even though GMCs could be followed throughout mitosis in the same
preparations, we focused our study on the neuroblast.
DIC microscopy and analysis
DIC imaging was conducted on a Nikon Diaphot 200 light microscope (LM)
equipped with de Senarmont compensation and DIC optics using a 60x 1.4
Planapo objective lens and matching condenser. Cells were illuminated with
shuttered and filtered green (546 nm) light obtained from a tungsten filament.
Images were acquired at 4 second intervals with a Micromax 5 MHz cooled CCD
camera (Roper Scientific, Trenton, NJ) and captured to a PC with Image Pro
Plus (Media Cybernetics, Silver Springs, MD).
Measurements from sequential images were made as described previously
(Savoian et al., 2000).
Briefly, cursors were manually placed on the leading edge of anaphase
chromosomes and the centrosomes using Image J (Public domain software; NIH,
Bethesda, MD). After program calibration with a micrometer the distance
between the cursors was determined and exported into Excel (Microsoft,
Redmond, WA) for plotting. Anaphase chromosome velocities were determined from
the slope of the steepest 10 sequential points.
4D fluorescence microscopy and analysis
All fluorescence imaging was conducted on a Deltavision Restoration
Microscopy System, centered on an Olympus IX70 DIC inverted LM, running the
included SoftWORx software (v2.5; Applied Precision Inc., Issaquah, WA). Cells
were illuminated using the FITC filter set (excitation 490±10 nm;
emission 528±19 nm) with shuttered light generated by a Hg-arc lamp and
scrambled through a fiber optic cable. They were viewed with a 100x (NA
1.35) objective lens and the images were recorded with a Roper CM350 camera
using a 2x bin.
Live cell 4D (3D over time) fluorescence studies are subject to two constraints. First, the fluorescence intensity often varies among different GFP-expressing strains. As a result, to record 4D sequences with useful temporal resolution, the exposure times were kept to a minimum, and even with binning some images had a sub-optimal signal-to-noise ratio. Second, despite minimal exposure times, photobleaching still occurs, and the severity of its impact varies with the strains and recording conditions used. We therefore used different parameters to study each of the GFP-expressing strains. However, regardless of the strain used, the radiation levels required for time-lapse 4D imaging did not harm the cells, as revealed by the fact that they entered and completed karyokinesis, and often cytokinesis, with the same kinetics as those recorded by DIC LM.
During our studies we used 4D LM to follow the behavior either of the
chromosomes, the centrosomes and kinetochores or Mts. Chromosomes were
directly labeled using His2AvDGFP. For this strain, a z-series composed of
eight optical sections, recorded with a step size of 0.6 µm, was collected
at 7 second intervals. Because the two spindle poles were often in different
planes, z-series of kinetochore and centrosome interactions in
GFP-fzy/GFP-fzr expressing cells consisted of 10 optical
sections, each of which had a step size of 0.6 µm. These were collected
every 8 seconds. To minimize photobleaching during studies on spindle
formation, z-series in GFP--tubulin-expressing cells were collected
every 15 seconds, and each series consisted of eight optical sections captured
at 0.5 µm step intervals. 4D data sets were then iteratively deconvoluted
using the SoftWORx program.
Measurements on neuroblasts expressing GFP-fzy/GFP-fzr were made with the measure/distance function in the SoftWORx software package. The distances between the two centrosomes, or between the centrosome and kinetochores, were calculated by two methods. First we measured the distance in the maximum intensity projection for each time point by manually placing the cursors on the brightest central portion of each object of interest. For the second method, the same objects were followed in 4D space, which allowed the contribution of z-axis displacement to be included in distance calculations. Optical sections were selected in which the objects of interest displayed their maximum brightness. Cursors were then placed on the central portions of each object, and the resulting distances exported to Excel. These two techniques could give slightly differing results that were significant only in cells where the spindles rotated, so that the centrosomes became non-coplanar. When analyzed in maximum intensity projections, such spindles appeared to shorten as they rotated out of the z-plane. By contrast, because attached kinetochores tend to be in the central portion of the cell volume, both measuring methods gave similar results for kinetochore-to-centrosome distances.
Figures for illustration were compiled from selected recordings and contrast enhanced using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, Mountain View, CA). Each GFP panel is the z-series maximum intensity projection.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
At anaphase onset (Fig. 2D, Fig. 3D), spindle rocking decreases, the chromosomes disjoin synchronously and move poleward (Fig. 2D-E, Fig. 3D-E) at 3.2±0.1 µm/minute (n=10 in four cells; range 2.9-3.7 µm/minute). Spindle elongation (anaphase B) starts concurrently with this chromosome-to-pole (anaphase A) motion (see below). Chromosomes decondense and form karyomeres near the spindle poles 2.5±0.1 minutes (n=10; range 120-208 seconds) after anaphase onset (Fig. 2F, Fig. 3F). Near the onset of telophase, the elongating spindle undergoes a sudden, but slight, positional shift, which moves it closer to that region of the cortex destined to become incorporated into the GMC (see below). As anaphase B continues, the future GMC becomes visible as a deformation and protrusion of the cell membrane (Fig. 2F, Fig. 3F). The cleavage furrow then begins to constrict the cell at the junction between the protrusion and major cell body, and continues to ingress until a midbody forms between the small GMC and the larger neuroblast (Fig. 2G-H, arrows, Fig. 3G-H, arrows).
In culture, cytokinesis can either go to completion or the furrow can relax before bisecting the cell. Since binucleated cells are rare in neuroblast cultures, this variation is caused by the culture conditions and appears related to the degree of cell flattening.
Chromosome behavior and kinetochore/centrosome interactions
The continuous changes in spindle positioning made it difficult to follow
selected components and their interaction, over an extended period by DIC. To
more thoroughly characterize these interactions we therefore followed cells
expressing various GFP-tagged proteins using 3D fluorescence LM. We began our
analysis using a GFP-tagged histone variant, which revealed that the
chromosomes were paired by late prophase, when they were well condensed
(Fig. 4A). With 4D imaging, we
could readily define when the chromatids disjoined to initiate anaphase, which
occurred relatively synchronously. In 40% of the cells, the small #4
chromosomes lead the motion during anaphase (insets in
Fig. 4D-H), and chromosome
decondensation occurred 2.7±0.1 minutes (n=11) after anaphase
onset (essentially the same timing as obtained from DIC observations; see
above).
|
To follow kinetochore behavior relative to the centrosomes, we used larvae
expressing two different GFP tags (Fig.
5). Kinetochores were labeled with GFP-fizzy (GFP-fzy), the
Drosophila homologue of Cdc20
(Dawson et al., 1995;
Lorca et al., 1998
).
Similarly, centrosomes were labeled with a GFP-fizzy-related fusion (GFP-fzr)
(Sigrist and Lehner, 1997
).
During prophase, GFP-fzy is excluded from the nucleus (data not shown) until
it first becomes permeable, after which it rapidly localizes to kinetochores.
It then remains on kinetochores throughout spindle formation, but is only
weakly visible after anaphase. The nuclear infusion of GFP-fzy provides a
reliable marker for NEB, whereas the separation of GFP-fzy-tagged kinetochores
provides a similar marker for anaphase onset. Using these criteria the
duration of prometaphase, at 24°C, is 7.0±0.5 minutes
(n=13; range 282-578 seconds).
|
The timing of centrosome separation, relative to NEB, is highly variable: in some neuroblasts the centrosomes are already positioned on opposite sides of the nucleus at NEB, whereas in others they separate after NEB as the kinetochores attach to the asters (see, however, exceptions in next section). During prometaphase, sister kinetochores exhibit various behaviors and sometimes they undergo a sudden displacement towards one pole (Fig. 5A,B, gray arrows and large arrowheads; Fig. 5G, closed circles). We interpret this as a monopolar attachment (mono-orientation). Unfortunately, the temporal resolution of our data (z-series every 8 seconds) was insufficient to determine the duration, and thus the absolute magnitude, of these rapid motions. In other cases the sister kinetochores appear to attach simultaneously (Fig. 5A-C, small white and gray arrowheads; Fig. 5G, open and filled triangles) and rapidly establish a stable metaphase position with very little motion.
Sister kinetochores that undergo a sudden poleward motion during attachment can subsequently make several motions towards the spindle equator during congression, after which they become stably positioned (data not shown). However, they may also move away from the proximal pole along a vector that does not intercept the opposing centrosome (Fig. 5B,C white and gray arrows; Fig. 5G open and filled circles). Sister kinetochores positioned in this manner usually exhibit a subsequent lateral motion towards the interpolar axis, which brings them into alignment with the other metaphase kinetochores (Fig. 5C,D, white and gray arrows; Fig. 5G open and filled circles). After reaching the spindle equator, the kinetochores do not exhibit notable oscillations (Fig. 5A-F, arrows and small arrowheads; Fig. 5G, open and closed triangles and circles).
One explanation for why chromosomes do not oscillate during congression and
metaphase in neuroblasts, as they do in vertebrate somatic cells
(Skibbens et al., 1993;
Khodjakov and Rieder, 1996
),
is that opposing poleward forces are constantly acting on the sister
kinetochores. We attempted to evaluate this by measuring the distance between
sister kinetochores before attachment, as well as during congression and
metaphase. Our rationale was that, if sister kinetochores behave
independently, then the inter-kinetochore distance should vary with time.
However, although our impression from time-lapse sequences is that the
inter-kinetochore distance increased during chromosome attachment, and became
maximal at metaphase, the temporal (8 second) resolution and noise in our data
made it impossible to demonstrate this with certainty.
Once a chromosome achieves a position on the spindle equator, the intensity of the GFP-fzy tag on its sister kinetochores is attenuated (Fig. 5). This is not caused by global changes in the cell, because the GFP-fzy label does not decrease simultaneously on all kinetochores, and kinetochores on late congressing chromosomes consistently display a brighter signal (Fig. 5A-F). As a result, with this marker it was not possible to reliably track kinetochores beyond mid-metaphase. By contrast, GFP-fzr remains at spindle poles throughout mitosis, which allowed us to continuously monitor centrosome behavior during spindle formation (e.g., Fig. 5 large arrowheads) and anaphase. During prometaphase, after the centrosomes have achieved a maximum separation distance, this distance is either maintained or, in some cases, the spindle shortens during metaphase. In all cases, anaphase B spindle elongation begins immediately following chromatid disjunction at anaphase onset (data not shown). During this time the rate that centrosomes move apart is relatively constant at 1.6±0.1 µm/minute (n=4; range 1.3-1.9 µm/minutes).
Spindle formation and microtubule distribution during anaphase and
telophase
We used 4D LM to study spindle formation and maturation in neuroblasts
cultured from GFP--tubulin-expressing larvae. Our goal was to detail
these processes in vitro as a prelude to future mutational analyses.
In GFP--tubulin-expressing neuroblasts, the centrosomes appear
during prophase as two similarly sized intense spots from which Mts radiate
(Fig. 6,
Fig. 8A,
Fig. 9A). In cells where the
centrosomes are well separated by late prophase (e.g.
Fig. 6) numerous centrosomal
Mts are seen to invade the area of the former nucleus during NEB
(Fig. 6B, Fig. 8A). These Mts appear to
arise from that portion of the centrosome facing the chromosomes, and at this
time their associated `astral' Mt arrays become greatly attenuated
(Fig. 6B, Fig. 8B). As prometaphase
progresses, many of the Mts between the two centrosomes become organized into
discreet bundles that terminate in a non-fluorescing band at the spindle
equator (Fig. 6C, arrowheads).
Co-labeling with Hoechst 33342 confirms that this region corresponds to the
chromosomes (data not shown) and that these bundles are therefore kinetochore
fibers (k-fibers). By metaphase, k-fibers are the most conspicuous components
of the spindle (Fig. 6C).
|
|
|
At anaphase onset, the k-fibers begin to shorten (Fig. 6D, arrowheads), and the spindle begins to disassemble. Spindle elongation starts as soon as the chromatids disjoin, and during this time astral Mts again begin to grow from each centrosome (Fig. 6D arrows). These rapidly elongate until reaching the cell cortex and often continue to grow along this boundary (Fig. 6D,E, arrows). As anaphase B progresses, the opposing arrays of centrosome-derived overlapping Mts (Fig. 6E,F gray arrowheads) form a `cage' around the elongating spindle (Fig. 6E,F, Fig. 7A,B).
|
Shortly after this cage forms, one of the centrosomes suddenly moves
towards the cell cortex, which induces the whole spindle to shift position
(Fig. 6E,F;
Fig. 7A-C). This shift occurs
quickly (over 30 seconds), while the spindle is elongating. It is readily
evident in larger cells where it covers several µm (see
Fig. 7B,C), but less so in
smaller cells in which spindle elongation has already positioned the
centrosomes adjacent to the cortex by mid-anaphase.
After the spindle changes its position, a robust Mt array forms in association with the more centrally located centrosome (Fig. 6F-H, Fig. 7C-F), which will become incorporated into the new neuroblast. By contrast, the Mt-nucleating ability of the cortical centrosome, which is incorporated into the GMC, is attenuated. At this time the centrally located centrosome stops moving (Fig. 7C-F), and the spindle continues to elongate primarily by movement of the cortical (GMC) centrosome away from the more stationary, centrally positioned neuroblast centrosome (arrows, Fig. 7). During the elongation process, the cortical centrosome impacts and appears to `push' against the cell membrane. This, in turn, correlates with the formation of a progressive bulge in the membrane into which the centrosome and its associated nucleus continue to move (Fig. 2E,F, Fig. 6F,G, Fig. 7). Concurrently, the Mt cage surrounding the spindle aggregates into multiple bundles (Fig. 6F,G; Fig. 7A-D) that coalesce during cytokinesis into one large bundle (mid-body) between the centrosomes (Fig. 6G,H; Fig. 7E-F).
The formation of acentrosomal spindle poles
As described above, in 83% of the GFP--tubulin-labeled neuroblasts,
bipolar spindles formed between two separating centrosomes. However, in 17%
(12/70) of these cells the spindles formed via a different pathway that could
be further sub-divided into two distinct routes. In the majority (8/12), an
additional half-spindle-shaped Mt array suddenly formed in association with
one of the centrosomes (Fig.
8). This additional half-spindle was first detected as Mts began
to emanate from one of the centrosomes towards a defined region of the cell
(Fig. 8B), after which they
became organized into bundles (Fig.
8C). Over time, these Mt bundles elongated and interacted along
their length to form a spindle-shaped structure, one end of which contained a
blunt acentrosomal polar region (Fig.
8C,D). Like the primary spindle
(Fig. 8C,D white arrowheads),
these spindles displayed a central band of decreased fluorescence (black
arrowheads in Fig. 8C,D), which
indicates the presence of one or more chromosomes. In all of these cells, the
secondary spindle ultimately became incorporated into the primary spindle
prior to anaphase (Fig. 8D,E),
which then proceeded normally (Fig.
8E,F).
The second unusual route of spindle formation was less common (4/12 cells) and occurred after a failure in centrosome separation. In two of these cells, a bipolar spindle was formed using the replicated centrosome as one of the spindle poles. In the other two, Mts emanating from the non-separated asters became bundled over time into two half-spindles, joined at one apex, that were directed to different regions of the cell (Fig. 9A-F). Over time these half-spindles elongated into normal fusiform-shaped structures, even while the two centrosomes remained adjacent to one another (Fig. 9E,F). The net result was the formation of a `V'-shaped metaphase spindle that contained three poles, two of which were acentrosomal (Fig. 9). Both of these `joined' spindles contained chromosomes, as revealed by the attenuated fluorescence at the spindle equators (arrowheads in Fig. 9E,F). In these cases the spindle remained tri-polar throughout the ensuing anaphase (Fig. 9G,H).
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
At 24°C, mitosis in wild-type neuroblasts takes 15 minutes. During
this time the condensing chromosomes are visible
2 minutes before NEB;
spindle formation (prometaphase to anaphase onset) requires
7 minutes;
anaphase (chromatid disjunction until chromosome fusion) requires
3
minutes; and telophase/cytokinesis requires
3 minutes. Therefore, of the
mitotic cells in a fixed population of wild-type neuroblasts,
15% should
be in prophase,
45% in prometaphase/metaphase,
20% in anaphase and
the remainder (
20%) in various stages of telophase/cytokinesis. Indeed,
in fixed wild-type populations, the percentage of neuroblasts in anaphase,
relative to all mitotic cells, is
20% (e.g.
Wilson et al., 1997
;
Cullen et al., 1999
;
Lemos et al., 2000
;
Giansanti et al., 2001
).
Although it is sometimes reported that 75-80% of the dividing cells in such
preparations are in `metaphase' (e.g.
Sunkel et al., 1995
;
Inoue et al., 2000
), our
analyses suggest that this proportion is really only 45-50%. This discrepancy
probably arises from the fact that after fixation and squashing, prophase
cells are difficult to distinguish from those in prometaphase/metaphase. Also,
telophase cells, in which the chromosomes have reformed nuclei, may not be
scored as mitotic (as we do), which would lead to an enhanced percentage of
prometaphase/metaphase cells in the mitotic population.
In wildtype, the mitotic index in fixed/squashed brains can vary two-fold
from larvae-to-larvae (Gatti and Baker,
1989). By contrast, the duration of mitosis is considerably less
variable, and as noted above, anaphase cells constitute
20% of the
mitotic figures. This being the case, the percentage of mitotic cells in
anaphase, or the ratio of prometaphase/metaphase to anaphase cells (see
Wojcik et al., 2000
), provides
a more accurate description of mitotic progression than the total mitotic
index. In some cases the mitotic index may vary only by a factor of two
between wild-type and mutants, whereas the number of anaphase cells varies
ten-fold (e.g. Cullen et al.,
1999
).
In the appropirate media, neuroblasts isolated from gastrulastage embryos
(e.g. Seecof et al., 1973;
Furst and Mahowald, 1985
;
Broadus and Doe, 1997
) and even
third instar larvae (Wu et al.,
1983
) can be cultured for several days during which they undergo
multiple mitoses. By contrast, our larval neuroblast cultures begin to
deteriorate after
1 hour. Our intent, however, was not to maintain the
cells for extended periods but rather to establish a rapid and simple
procedure that allows for short-term high-resolution LM studies. We used
halocarbon oil because it produces a much crisper DIC image than media does,
and replacing this oil with growth medium does not substantially prolong the
life span of our cultures. This is because high-resolution transmitted LM
requires that the viewing chamber be extremely thin, which severely limits the
amount of fluid bathing the cells (Rieder
and Cole, 1998
). We designed our approach around that used by many
to study meiosis by high-resolution LM in insect spermatocytes (e.g.
Nicklas and Staehly, 1967
;
LaFountain, 1982
;
Savoian et al., 2000
), where
long-term viability is also sacrificed for resolution. Regardless, considering
that mitosis requires only 15 minutes, and that neuroblasts remain viable for
>1 hour, our approach provides ample time to locate and follow one or two
divisions in each culture.
Ninety-seven percent (68/70) of the cells we followed through mitosis
formed bipolar spindles, entered anaphase, completed telophase and initiated
(if not completed) cytokinesis. However, we did observe abnormally high
numbers of tri-polar spindles (2/70 cells or 3%) and cells containing spindle
poles lacking centrosomes (4/70 cells or 6% versus <1% in controls) (see
Wilson et al., 1997). Although
it is formally possible that these represent sick cells, strong arguments can
be made that this is not the case. All of these cells entered anaphase,
completed karyokinesis and at least attempted cytokinesis. Two of the most
sensitive stages of the cell cycle include entry into and exit from, mitosis
(Mazia, 1961
). These
transitions are both guarded by pathways that rapidly arrest mitotic
progression when triggered in response to various stresses (reviewed in
Pearce and Humphrey, 2002
).
For example, in addition to DNA damage, the G2/M transition is (reversibly)
inhibited by anoxia, hypothermia/hypothermia, elevated CO2, changes
in pH and changes in tonicity, etc.
(Rieder and Khodjakov, 1997
;
Mikhailov and Rieder, 2002
).
As a result, sick or stressed cells do not enter mitosis, yet alone form
spindles, disjoin chromosomes, exit mitosis or initiate cytokinesis.
Spindle formation
Neuroblasts in urchin-mutant larvae, in which the kinesin-like
protein KLP61F is non-functional, often (60%) form spindles in which one of
the poles lacks a centrosome. Although the route by which these `monastral
bipolar' spindles are generated remains to be defined
(Wilson et al., 1997), at
least some are likely to arise from the organization of an acentrosomal
half-spindle in the presence of non-separated centrosomes. [In mammals,
inhibiting Eg5, the homologue of KLP61F, prevents centrosome separation but
produces monopolar spindles (Kapoor et
al., 2000
).] Although rare (<1%), bipolar spindles lacking
centrosomes at both poles (i.e. anastral spindles) are also observed during
mitosis in wild-type and urchin mutant Drosophila neuroblasts as well
as in gonial cells (Wilson et al.,
1997
). Finally, bipolar spindles are also reported to be organized
in neuroblasts when the formation of astral (centrosomal) Mt arrays is
compromised, as in asterless
(Bonaccorsi et al., 2000
;
Giansanti et al., 2001
) and
centrosomin (Megraw et al.,
2001
) mutants. Together these data from fixed cells imply that
neuroblasts (and probably other cells in Drosophila) normally have a
route for organizing half-spindles independently from the centrosome and its
astral Mt array. Our live cell data directly confirm this conclusion: in 17%
of our cells a bipolar spindle formed in association with one or more
chromosomes when they were attached to only a single centrosome (Figs
8 and
9).
We observed a higher incidence of cells containing both centrosomes in one
spindle pole (6%) than reported for wild-type neuroblasts fixed in situ
(<1%) (Wilson et al.,
1997). We attribute this to excessive cell flattening during
culture preparation which, relative the more rounded condition seen in situ,
would be expected to enhance the frequency with which chromosomes are not
readily positioned to interact with both asters at NEB. Indeed, these are the
chromosomes that organize a half-spindle lacking a centrosome. However,
regardless of the extent that this acentrosomal pathway normally contributes
to spindle formation in neuroblasts, our data not only demonstrate that it
exists, but also that it can lead to the formation of functional bipolar
spindles that are not retarded from entering anaphase. The ability of
Drosophila neuroblasts to organize a functional bipolar spindle when
the centrosomes fail to separate offers an explanation for why monopolar
spindles are seldom seen in wild-type cells (e.g.
Heck et al., 1993
;
Wilson et al., 1997
;
Inoue et al., 2000
), and it
provides a ready (although yet to be proven) mechanism for forming monastral
bipolar spindles in mutants lacking a functional KLP61F (and even wild-type
neuroblasts) (Wilson et al.,
1997
). Together our data and those of others demonstrate that
neuroblasts contain a constitutive pathway for forming an acentrosomal
half-spindle that is manifested when one or more chromosomes are delayed in
becoming bioriented between two separated centrosomes.
Given what we know about spindle formation, it is doubtful that the
secondary spindles that we observed are an artifact of -tubulin-GFP
expression. These cells were obtained from a strain of flies that
constitutively express the probe without any apparent detrimental effects. We
also saw what we interpret to be a similar pattern in our DIC recordings of
wild-type cells and those expressing GFP-fzy and GFP-fzr
(Fig. 5): sister kinetochores
positioned off the axis between the two centrosomes move laterally into the
metaphase plate, as occurs when a secondary spindle fuses with the major
centrosomal spindle (Fig. 5).
Furthermore, although the presence of secondary spindles has not been
described previously in wild-type Drosophila neuroblasts fixed in
situ, a low frequency of monastral bipolar structures (and even anastral
spindles) are seen in larval brains of wild-type animals
(Wilson et al., 1997
). As
argued above, it is likely that the formation of secondary spindles via the
acentrosomal pathway is manifested only when the formation of a bipolar
attachment between two asters is delayed, as occurs more frequently when the
cells are flattened.
When present during mitosis or meiosis, centrosomes are thought to suppress
the formation and organization of Mts around chromosomes and thus dominate as
sites of Mt nucleation (Heald et al.,
1997; Hyman and Karsenti,
1998
). However, we find that the presence of two functional
centrosomes in Drosophila neuroblasts does not preclude the formation
of Mts near the chromosomes (Figs
8 and
9). Although the mechanism for
forming these Mts is unknown, it is interesting that relatively normal looking
bipolar spindles are formed during mitosis in Drosophila neuroblasts
lacking functional
-tubulin (Sunkel
et al., 1995
). As in Xenopus oocyte extracts
(Walczak et al., 1998
), once
generated near the chromosomes (perhaps by the Ran/GTP pathway) (see
Dasso, 2001
), Mts in
neuroblasts are presumably organized into stable and functional half-spindles
via the action of Mt motors and other chromatin-associated proteins.
In orbit/mast (Inoue et al.,
2000; Lemos et al.,
2000
) and aurora
(Glover et al., 1995
) mutants,
the centrosomes generate asters during prometaphase that fail to separate. As
a result, monopolar spindles are formed at NEB in which the chromosomes are
grouped around a single pole containing multiple asters. How does the
monopolar mutant phenotypes arise given the above evidence that, in
neuroblasts, the chromosomes can direct the organization of a functional
half-spindle in the absence of a second centrosomal region? One interesting
possibility is that the monopolar phenotype (see also mgr)
(Gonzalez et al., 1988
) is not
caused simply by a defect in centrosome separation, but that it arises instead
because the mutant protein normally participates, for example, in generating
or stabilizing Mts in the vicinity of the chromosomes. Indeed, orbit/mast is a
Mt-associated protein, which is proposed to play an important role in
regulating spindle Mt behavior (Inoue et
al., 2000
; Lemos et al.,
2000
), and the kinase activity of aurora A is similarly required
for spindle Mt stabilization (Giet et al.,
2002
) as well as in activating KLP61F (Eg5) (reviewed in
Giet and Prigent, 1999
).
Spindles formed around individual chromosomes in Drosophila
neuroblasts usually associate laterally into a common bipolar array by
anaphase onset (Fig. 8).
Although the mechanisms responsible for this fusion remain unclear, it appears
to be retarded in mini-spindle
(Cullen et al., 1999) and
asp (Avides and Glover,
1999
; Wakefield et al.,
2000
) mutants, both of which encode for Mt-associated proteins.
The progressive coalescence of multiple spindles into a single functional
bipolar unit may explain why neuroblasts entering mitosis in the presence of
multiple (separated) centrosomes form mostly bipolar spindles, as for example,
in Slimb mutants (Wojcik et al.,
2000
).
The only metazoan cell line lacking centrioles/centrosomes is derived from
Drosophila, and in fixed preparations 40% of the mitotic cells in
this line are reported to contain multipolar `metaphase' spindles
(Debec et al., 1995). Our data
suggest that these figures are generated as spindles form around individual
chromosomes or groups of chromosomes. It also suggests that if given time
(i.e. if not fixed) most or all of these individual spindles would ultimately
fuse into a common bipolar array. However, neuroblasts can clearly enter
anaphase before this fusion process is complete
(Fig. 9). Thus, although
centrosomes are not needed to form spindles, the presence of two separated
centrosomes appears to ensure (and enhance) the fidelity of bipolar spindle
formation.
Chromosome behavior
During early prometaphase, chromosomes in Drosophila neuroblasts
can exhibit a rapid motion towards one of the centrosomes. This probably
reflects the sudden attachment of one sister kinetochore to an aster, which
induces the chromosome to mono-orient and move towards the now forming spindle
pole. The rapid poleward motion of a mono-orienting chromosome is a common
feature of mitosis in a wide variety of higher eukaryotes
(Rieder and Salmon, 1998), and
in Drosophila spermatocytes it appears to be mediated by
kinetochore-associated cytoplasmic dynein
(Savoian et al., 2000
).
We find that the metaphase plate in Drosophila neuroblasts can be generated via two routes. In most cells it forms through the traditional pathway, in which the sister kinetochores on each chromosome become attached to the opposing astral Mt arrays as they separate. After bi-orientation, the chromosome then quickly moves in one or several smooth motions to the metaphase plate where it remains static until anaphase. In the other route, which is seen only after a chromosome has already become attached to one of the centrosomes, a second opposing half-spindle and pole is organized around the chromosome without reference to an existing astral Mt array. This results in the transient formation of two or more spindles that share a single common pole (e.g. Fig. 8). In these cells all of the chromosome(s) become aligned on a common metaphase plate as these secondary spindles fuse laterally with the primary spindle.
Unlike in many animal cells (Rieder and
Salmon, 1994), in neuroblasts the centromere region on congressed
chromosomes does not move continuously back and forth, or oscillate, across
the metaphase plate, that is, the sister kinetochores do not exhibit
directional instability. The stationary behavior resembles that seen in plants
(Khodjakov et al., 1996
),
insect spermatocytes [grasshopper (Hays
and Salmon, 1990
); Drosophila
(Savoian et al., 2000
); crane
fly, (LaFountain et al., 2001
)
and Xenopus oocytes (Funabiki and
Murray, 2000
)].
We found that the arms of the larger chromosomes were often directed
towards a spindle pole prior to anaphase. This behavior is also seen in plants
(Khodjakov et al., 1996) and
some insect spermatocytes containing large chromosomes
(Adames and Forer, 1996
), where
it has been shown by microsurgery to be mediated by pole-directed forces that
act continuously along the chromosome. It is also seen in Xenopus
oocyte extracts (Funabiki and Murray,
2000
) and in vertebrate somatic cells
(Levesque and Compton, 2001
),
after depleting the chromosome-associated kinesin-like protein kid. In insect
spermatocytes, this poleward force is produced within each half-spindle by the
continuous flux of tubulin subunits from the spindle equator towards the pole.
During anaphase in crane fly spermatocytes
(LaFountain et al., 2001
) and
Xenopus spindles (Murray et al.,
1996
), the flux rate is equal to the rate of poleward chromosome
motion, suggesting that flux drives chromosome movement
(Waters et al., 1996
;
Desai et al., 1998
). Flux also
appears to be involved in anaphase chromosome movement in Drosophila
embryos, although a consensus has yet to be reached regarding its total
contribution. The fact that the arms of long chromosomes point poleward during
spindle formation in neuroblasts suggests that flux is a component of these
spindles as well.
Asymmetric cytokinesis
Asymmetric cytokinesis in Drosophila neuroblasts has been detailed
by indirect immunofluorescence LM
(Bonaccorsi et al., 2000;
Giansanti et al., 2001
) and
also by vital fluorescence imaging of embryos expressing GFP-tau (which labels
Mts) (Kaltschmidt et al.,
2000
). The former studies provided no data on the dynamics of this
process, whereas the latter focused on spindle rotation and positioning. All
report that the astral Mt array associated with the centrosome that is
destined to be incorporated into the GMC is greatly attenuated during
anaphase, whereas the aster associated with the more centrally located
neuroblast centrosome grows.
Our work provides some novel insight into the process of cytokinesis in
larval neuroblasts. First, we find that both asters grow to an equal extent
during early anaphase and that during this growth the opposing astral Mt
arrays overlap to form a `cage' around the spindle (Figs
6 and
7). As anaphase continues, the
spindle suddenly moves closer to one side of the cell, with the centrosome
destined to be incorporated into the GMC leading. This shift, which has not
been reported previously for Drosophila neuroblasts, asymmetrically
positions the elongating spindle within the cell. It is distinct from the
spindle rotations described in embryo neuroblasts
(Kaltschmidt et al., 2000),
which occur during metaphase and define the future orientation of the cleavage
plane. The positional shift of the mid-anaphase spindle in Drosophila
neuroblasts is similar to that described during anaphase in Caenorhabditis
elegans embryos (Doe and Bowerman,
2001
), which also leads to an asymmetric cytokinesis.
Spindle displacement in the worm is mediated by an imbalance of pulling
forces acting on the Mts of each aster
(Grill et al., 2001), and
Drosophila neuroblasts probably use this same mechanism to reposition
the spindle during late anaphase. As a result of this positional change, the
central spindle mid-zone, which ultimately defines the sight through which the
furrow will pass, becomes positioned off-center within the cell. In the
asterless mutant, neuroblasts still divide to produce different-sized
daughter cells (Giansanti et al.,
2001
), which implies that asters are not required for asymmetric
cytokinesis in this system. However, it is possible that these mutants possess
enough astral Mts to effect spindle repositioning. Alternatively, spindle
repositioning may not be an absolute requisite for asymmetric cytokinesis in
Drosophila neuroblasts, which are extremely small relative to the
large C. elegans embryo. Indeed, we found that small neuroblasts also
undergo an asymmetric cytokinesis even when there is little room in the cell
for the spindle to shift position. In this context, it is noteworthy that, in
contrast to what has been reported in embryonic cells
(Kaltschmidt et al., 2000
), we
find that in larval neuroblasts the more centrally located centrosome (which
is destined to be incorporated into the new neuroblast) generates a robust
aster and preferentially stops moving during the early stages of spindle
elongation (Figs 6 and
7). As a result, as the spindle
continues to elongate, the centrosome destined for the GMC impacts the cell
cortex where it appears to induce a bulge in the membrane. Thus, the
asymmetric cytokinesis in larval neuroblasts arises from two sequential
processes, including a sudden shift in spindle position towards a point on the
cell cortex followed by a growth and immobilization of the centrally located
aster, whereas the spindle continues to elongate. Both of these pathways lead
to the required off-center positioning of the spindle midbody.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Adames, K. A. and Forer, A. (1996). Evidence for poleward forces on chromosome arms during anaphase. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 34,13 -25.[Medline]
Avides, M. C. and Glover, D. M. (1999).
Abnormal spindle protein, Asp, and the integrity of mitotic centrosomal
microtubule organizing centers. Science
283,1733
-1735.
Bonaccorsi, S., Giansanti, M. G. and Gatti, M. (2000). Spindle assembly in Drosophila neuroblasts and ganglion mother cells. Nat. Cell Biol. 2, 54-56.[Medline]
Brand, A. H. and Perrimon, N. (1993). Targeting
gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant
phenotypes. Development
118,401
-415.
Broadus, J. and Doe, C. Q. (1997). Extrinsic cues, intrinsic cues and microfilaments regulate asymmetric protein localization in Drosophila neuroblasts. Curr. Biol. 7,827 -835.[Medline]
Clarkson, M. and Saint, R. B. (1999). A His2AvDGFP fusion gene complements a lethal His2AvD mutant allele and provides an in vivo marker for Drosophila chromosomes. DNA Cell Biol. 18,457 -462.[Medline]
Cullen, C. F., Deak, P., Glover, D. M. and Ohkura, H.
(1999). mini spindles: A gene encoding a conserved
microtubule-associated protein required for the integrity of the mitotic
spindle in Drosophila. J. Cell Biol.
146,1005
-1018.
Dasso, M. (2001). Running on Ran: nuclear transport and the mitotic spindle. Cell 104,321 -324.[Medline]
Dawson, I. A., Roth, S. and Artavanis-Tsakonas, S. (1995). The Drosophila cell cycle gene fizzy is required for normal degradation of cyclins A and B during mitosis and has homology to the CDC20 gene of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Cell Biol. 129,725 -737.[Abstract]
Debec, A., Detraves, C., Montmory, C., Geraud, G. and Wright,
M. (1995). Polar organization of gamma-tubulin in acentriolar
mitotic spindles of Drosophila melanogaster cells. J. Cell
Sci. 108,2645
-2653.
Desai, A., Maddox, P. S., Mitchison, T. J. and Salmon, E. D.
(1998). Anaphase A chromosome movement and poleward spindle
microtubule flux occur at similar rates in Xenopus extract spindles.
J. Cell Biol. 141,703
-713.
Doe, C. Q. and Bowerman, B. (2001). Asymmetric cell division: fly neuroblast meets worm zygote. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 13,68 -75.[Medline]
Donaldson, M. M., Tavares, A. A. M., Ohkura, H., Deak, P. and
Glover, D. M. (2001). Metaphase arrest with centromere
separation in polo mutants of Drosophila. J. Cell
Biol. 153,663
-675.
Funabiki, H. and Murray, A. W. (2000). The Xenopus chromokinesin Xkid is essential for metaphase chromosome alignment and must be degraded to allow anaphase chromosome movement. Cell 102,425 -435.[Medline]
Furst, A. and Mahowald, A. P. (1985). Cell division cycle of cultured neural precursor cells from Drosophila.Dev. Biol. 112,467 -476.[Medline]
Gatti, M. and Baker, B. S. (1989). Genes controlling essential cell-cycle functions in Drosophila melanogaster.Genes Dev. 3,438 -453.[Abstract]
Giansanti, M. G., Gatti, M. and Bonaccorsi, S.
(2001). The role of centrosomes and astral microtubules during
asymmetric division of Drosophila neuroblasts.
Development 128,1137
-1145.
Giet, R., McLean, D., Descamps, S., Lee, M. J., Raff, J. W.,
Prigent, C. and Glover, D. M. (2002). Drosophila
aurora A kinase is required to localize D-TACC to centrosomes and to regulate
astral microtubules. J. Cell Biol.
156,437
-451.
Giet, R. and Prigent, C. (1999).
Aurora/Ip11p-related kinases, a new oncogenic family of mitotic
serine-threonine kinases. J. Cell Sci.
112,3591
-3601.
Glover, D. M., Leibowitz, M. H., McLean, D. A. and Parry, H. (1995). Mutations in aurora prevent centrosome separation leading to the formation of monopolar spindles. Cell 81, 95-105.[Medline]
Gonzalez, C., Case, R. B. and Ripoll, P. (1988). Functional monopolar spindles caused by mutation in mgr, a cell division gene of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Cell Sci. 89,39 -47.[Abstract]
Grieder, N. C., de Cuevas, M. and Spradling, A. C. (2000). The fusome organizes the microtubule network during oocyte differentiation in Drosophila. Development 127,4523 -4564.
Grill, S. W., Gonczy, P., Stelzer, E. H. K. and Hyman, A. A. (2001). Polarity controls forces governing asymmetric spindle positioning in the Caenorhabditis elegans embryo. Nature 409,630 -633.[Medline]
Hays, T. S. and Salmon, E. D. (1990). Poleward force at the kinetochore in metaphase depends on the number of kinetochore microtubules. J. Cell Biol. 110,391 -404.[Abstract]
Heald, R., Tournebize, R., Habermann, A., Karsenti, E. and
Hyman, A. (1997). Spindle assembly in Xenopus egg
extracts: respective roles of centrosomes and microtubule self-organization.
J. Cell Biol. 138,615
-628.
Heck, M. M. S., Pereira, A., Pesavento, P., Yannoni, Y., Spradling, A. C. and Goldstein, L. S. B. (1993). The kinesin-like protein KLP61F is essential for mitosis in Drosophila.J. Cell Biol. 123,665 -679.[Abstract]
Hyman, A. and Karsenti, E. (1998). The role of
nucleation in patterning microtubule networks. J. Cell
Sci. 111,2077
-2083.
Inoue, Y. H., do Carmos Avides, M., Shiraki, M., Deak, P.,
Yamaguchi, M., Nishimoto, Y., Matsukage, A. and Glover, D. M.
(2000). Orbit, a novel microtubule-associated protein essential
for mitosis in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Cell Biol.
149,153
-165.
Kaltschmidt, J. A., Davidson, C. M., Brown, N. H. and Brandt, R. (2000). Rotation and asymmetry of the mitotic spindle direct asymmetric cell division in the developing central nervous system. Nat. Cell Biol. 2,7 -12.[Medline]
Kapoor, T. M., Mayer, T. U., Coughlin, M. L. and Mitchison, T.
J. (2000). Probing spindle assembly mechanisms with
monastrol, a small molecule inhibitor of the mitotic kinesin, Eg5.
J. Cell Biol. 150,975
-988.
Khodjakov, A., Cole, R. W., Bajer, A. S. and Rieder, C. L. (1996). The force for poleward chromosome motion in Haemanthus cells acts along the length of the chromosome during metaphase but only at the kinetochore during anaphase. J. Cell Biol. 132,1093 -1104.[Abstract]
Khodjakov, A. and Rieder, C. L. (1996). Kinetochores moving away from their associated pole do not exert a significant pushing force on the chromosome. J. Cell Biol. 135,315 -327.[Abstract]
LaFountain, J. R. (1982). Chromosome movement during meiotic prophase in crane-fly spermatocytes. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 2,183 -195.
LaFountain, J. R., Oldenbourg, R., Cole, R. W. and Rieder, C.
L. (2001). Microtubule flux mediates poleward motion of
acentric chromosome fragments during meiosis in insect spermatocytes.
Mol. Biol. Cell 12,4054
-4065.
Lemos, C. L., Sampaio, P., Maiato, H., Costa, M., Omel'yanchuk,
L. V., Liberal, V. and Sunkel, C. E. (2000). Mast, a
conserved microtubule-associated protein required for bipolar mitotic spindle
organization. EMBO J.
19,3668
-3682.
Levesque, A. A. and Compton, D. A. (2001). The
chromokinesin Kid is necessary for chromosome arm orientation and oscillation,
but not congression, on mitotic spindles. J. Cell
Biol. 154,1135
-1146.
Lorca, T., Castro, A., Martinez, A. M., Vigneron, S., Morin, N.,
Sigrist, S. J., Lehner, C., Doree, M. and Labbe, J. C.
(1998). Fizzy is required for activation of the APC/cyclosome in
Xenopus egg extracts. EMBO J.
17,3565
-3575.
Mazia, D. (1961). Mitosis and the physiology of cell division. In The Cell Vol.3 (eds J. Brachet and A. E. Mirsky), pp.77 -412. New York: Academic Press.
Megraw, T. L., Kao, L.-R. and Kaufman, T. C. (2001). Zygotic development without functional mitotic centrosomes. Curr. Biol. 11,116 -120.[Medline]
Mikhailov, A. and Rieder, C. L. (2002). Stressed out of mitosis. Curr. Biol. 12,R331 -R333.[Medline]
Murray, A. W., Desai, A. B. and Salmon, E. D.
(1996). Real time observation of anaphase in vitro.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
93,12327
-12332.
Nicklas, R. B. and Staehly, C. A. (1967). Chromosome micromanipulation. 1. The mechanics of chromosome attachment to the spindle. Chromosoma 21,1 -16.[Medline]
Pearce, A. K. and Humphrey, T. C. (2002). Integrating stress-response and cell-cycle checkpoint pathways. Trends Cell Biol. 11,426 -433.
Poulson, D. F. (1950). Biology of Drosophila (ed. M. Demerec), pp.168 -274. New York: Hafner.
Rieder, C. L. and Salmon, E. D. (1994). Motile kinetochores and polar ejection forces dictate chromosome position on the vertebrate mitotic spindle. J. Cell Biol. 124,223 -233.[Abstract]
Rieder, C. L. and Khodjakov, A. (1997). Mitosis and checkpoints that control progression through mitosis in vertebrate somatic cells. In Progress in Cell Cycle Research Vol.3 (eds L. Meijer, S. Guidet and M. Philipe), pp.301 -312. New York: Plenum Pub. Co.[Medline]
Rieder, C. L. and Cole, R. W. (1998). Perfusion chambers for high resolution video-light microscopic studies of vertebrate cell monolayers: some considerations and a design. Methods Cell Biol. 56,253 -275.[Medline]
Rieder, C. L. and Salmon, E. D. (1998). The vertebrate kinetochore and its roles during mitosis. Trends Cell Biol. 8,310 -318.[Medline]
Ripoll, P., Casal, J. and Gonzalez, C. (1987). Towards the genetic dissection of mitosis in Drosophila.BioEssays 7,204 -210.
Salmon, E. D. and Tran, P. T. (1998). High resolution video-enhanced differential interference contrast (VE-DIC) light microscopy. Methods Cell Biol. 56,153 -184.[Medline]
Savoian, M. S., Goldberg, M. L. and Rieder, C. (2000). The rate of chromosome poleward motion is attenuated in Drosophila zw10 and rod mutants. Nat. Cell Biol. 2,948 -952.[Medline]
Scaerou, F., Aguilera, I., Saunders, R., Kane, N. and Blottiere,
L. (1999). The rough deal protein is a new
kinetochore component required for accurate chromosome segregation in
Drosophila. J. Cell Sci.
112,3757
-3768.
Seecof, R. L., Donady, J. J. and Teplitz, R. L. (1973). Differentiation of Drosophila neuroblasts to form ganglion-like clusters of neurons in vitro. Cell Death Diff. 2,143 -149.
Sigrist, S. J. and Lehner, C. F. (1997). Drosophila fizzy-related down-regulates mitotic cyclins and is required for cell proliferation arrest and entry into endocycles. Cell 90,671 -681.[Medline]
Skibbens, R. V., Rieder, C. L. and Salmon, E. D. (1993). Directional instability of kinetochore motility during chromosome congression and segregation in mitotic newt lung cells: a push-pull mechanism. J. Cell Biol. 122,859 -875.[Abstract]
Sunkel, C. E., Gomes, R., Sampaio, P., Perdigao, J. and
Gonzalez, C. (1995). -tubulin is required for the
structure and function of the microtubule organizing center in
Drosophila neuroblasts. EMBO J.
14, 28-36.[Abstract]
Theurkauf, W. E. and Heck, M. M. (1999). Identification and characterization of mitotic mutations in Drosophila.Methods Cell Biol. 61,317 -346.[Medline]
Truman, J. W. and Bate, M. (1988). Spatial and temporal patterns of neurogenesis in the central nervous system of Drosophila melanogaster. Dev. Biol. 128,145 -157.
Truman, J. W., Taylor, B. T. and Awad, T. A. (1993). The Development of Drosophila melanogaser (eds M. Bate and A. Martinez), pp.1245 -1394. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories.
Wakefield, J. G., Huang, J. and Raff, J. W. (2000). Centrosomes have a role in regulating the destruction of cyclin B in early Drosophila embryos. Curr. Biol. 10,1367 -1370.[Medline]
Walczak, C. E., Vernos, I., Mitchison, T. J., Karsenti, E. and Heald, R. (1998). A model for the proposed roles of different microtubule-based motor proteins in establishing spindle bipolarity. Curr. Biol. 8,903 -913.[Medline]
Waters, J. C., Mitchison, T. J., Rieder, C. L. and Salmon, E. D. (1996). The kinetochore microtubule minus-end disassembly associated with poleward flux produces a force that can do work. Mol. Biol. Cell 7,1547 -1558.[Abstract]
Wilson, P. G., Fuller, M. T. and Borisy, G. G.
(1997). Monastral bipolar spindles: implications for dynamic
centrosome organization. J. Cell Sci.
110,451
-464.
Wojcik, E. J., Glover, D. M. and Hays, T. S. (2000). The SCF ubiquitin ligase proteins Slimb regulates centrosome duplication in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 10,1131 -1134.[Medline]
Wojcik, E. J., Basto, R., Serr, M., Scaerou, F., Karess, R. E. and Hays, T. S. (2001). Kinetochore dynein: its dynamics and role in the transport of the rough deal checkpoint protein. Nat. Cell Biol. 3,1001 -1007.[Medline]
Wu, C.-F., Suzuki, N. and Poo, M.-M. (1983). Dissociated neurons from normal and mutant Drosophila larval central nervous system in cell culture. J. Neurosci. 3,1888 -1899.[Abstract]
Yucel, J. K., Marszalek, J. D., McIntosh, J. R., Goldstein, L.
S. B., Cleveland, D. W. and Philp, A. V. (2000).
CENP-meta, an essential kinetochore kinesin required for the
maintenance of metaphase chromosome alignment in Drosophila. J.
Cell Biol. 150,1
-11.