Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Signalling dynamics in the spindle checkpoint response

Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology volume 15, pages 736–748 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Key Points

  • The spindle checkpoint signalling cascade prevents anaphase onset until all chromosomes are correctly attached, through their kinetochores, to spindle microtubules.

  • Molecular interactions between kinetochore and spindle checkpoint proteins have been defined and characterized.

  • There have been significant advances in understanding the molecular details of phosphoregulation and checkpoint scaffolding.

  • Monopolar spindle protein 1 (MPS1) has emerged as a direct activating kinase of the checkpoint.

  • The checkpoint response strength is variable and corresponds with the number of unattached kinetochores.

  • Inactivation of cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (CDK1) by cyclin B degradation is a basis for checkpoint inactivation during anaphase.

  • Nuclear pore complexes, in addition to kinetochores, signal the checkpoint.

Abstract

The spindle checkpoint ensures proper chromosome segregation during cell division. Unravelling checkpoint signalling has been a long-standing challenge owing to the complexity of the structures and forces that regulate chromosome segregation. New reports have now substantially advanced our understanding of checkpoint signalling mechanisms at the kinetochore, the structure that connects microtubules and chromatin. In contrast to the traditional view of a binary checkpoint response — either completely on or off — new findings indicate that the checkpoint response strength is variable. This revised perspective provides insight into how checkpoint bypass can lead to aneuploidy and informs strategies to exploit these errors for cancer treatments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Kinetochore–microtubule attachment states on the mitotic spindle.
Figure 2: Kinetochore activation of the checkpoint through hierarchical checkpoint protein recruitment.
Figure 3: Checkpoint protein regions and interactions.
Figure 4: Possible spindle checkpoint silencing mechanisms at the kinetochore.
Figure 5: The graded checkpoint response.
Figure 6: Control of the timing of checkpoint signalling.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gordon, D. J., Resio, B. & Pellman, D. Causes and consequences of aneuploidy in cancer. Nature Rev. Genet. 13, 189–203 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ricke, R. M. & van Deursen, J. M. Aneuploidy in health, disease, and aging. J. Cell Biol. 201, 11–21 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. McIntosh, J. R. Motors or dynamics: What really moves chromosomes? Nature Cell Biol. 14, 1234–1234 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Maresca, T. J. & Salmon, E. D. Welcome to a new kind of tension: translating kinetochore mechanics into a wait-anaphase signal. J. Cell Sci. 123, 825–835 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hoyt, M. A., Totis, L. & Roberts, B. T. S. cerevisiae genes required for cell cycle arrest in response to loss of microtubule function. Cell 66, 507–517 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Li, R. & Murray, A. W. Feedback control of mitosis in budding yeast. Cell 66, 519–531 (1991). References 5 and 6 established the existence of the spindle checkpoint and identified upstream checkpoint signalling genes through genetic screens.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nicklas, R. B., Ward, S. C. & Gorbsky, G. J. Kinetochore chemistry is sensitive to tension and may link mitotic forces to a cell cycle checkpoint. J. Cell Biol. 130, 929–939 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Minshull, J., S. H., Tonks, N. K. & Murray, A. W. A. MAP kinase-dependent spindle assembly checkpoint in Xenopus egg extracts. 79, 475–486 (1994).

  9. Funabiki, H. & Wynne, D. J. Making an effective switch at the kinetochore by phosphorylation and dephosphorylation. Chromosoma 122, 135–158 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Li, X. & Nicklas, R. B. Tension-sensitive kinetochore phosphorylation and the chromosome distribution checkpoint in praying mantid spermatocytes. J. Cell Sci. 110, 537–545 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nicklas, R. B., Campbell, M. S., Ward, S. C. & Gorbsky, G. J. Tension-sensitive kinetochore phosphorylation in vitro. J. Cell Sci. 111, 3189–3196 (1998). This classic study used innovative biophysical methods to conclusively demonstrate a role for tension in checkpoint satisfaction.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gorbsky, G. J. & Ricketts, W. A. Differential expression of a phosphoepitope at the kinetochores of moving chromosomes. J. Cell Biol. 122, 1311–1321 (1993).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Maresca, T. J. & Salmon, E. D. Intrakinetochore stretch is associated with changes in kinetochore phosphorylation and spindle assembly checkpoint activity. J. Cell Biol. 184, 373–381 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Foley, E. A. & Kapoor, T. M. Microtubule attachment and spindle assembly checkpoint signalling at the kinetochore. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14, 25–37 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Vader, G., Maia, A. F. & Lens, S. M. A. The chromosomal passenger complex and the spindle assembly checkpoint: kinetochore-microtubule error correction and beyond. Cell Division 3, 10 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Cheeseman, I. M., Chappie, J. S., Wilson-Kubalek, E. M. & Desai, A. The conserved KMN network constitutes the core microtubule-binding site of the kinetochore. Cell 127, 983–997 (2006). This study identified of the KMN network as a key microtubule-binding kinetochore element through biochemical reconstitution.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Varma, D. & Salmon, E. D. The KMN protein network — chief conductors of the kinetochore orchestra. J. Cell Sci. 125, 5927–5936 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen, R. H., Waters, J. C., Salmon, E. D. & Murray, A. W. Association of spindle assembly checkpoint component XMAD2 with unattached kinetochores. Science 274, 242–246 (1996). This is the first demonstration that a checkpoint protein localizes to the kinetochores, supporting the idea that the kinetochore generates the checkpoint signal.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Li, X. & Nicklas, R. B. Mitotic forces control a cell-cycle checkpoint. Nature 373, 630–632 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rieder, C. L., Cole, R. W., Khodjakov, A. & Sluder, G. The checkpoint delaying anaphase in response to chromosome monoorientation is mediated by an inhibitory signal produced by unattached kinetochores. J. Cell Biol. 130, 941–948 (1995). This seminal study, along with reference 19, established the kinetochore as central to the spindle checkpoint.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weaver, B. A. A. Centromere-associated protein-E is essential for the mammalian mitotic checkpoint to prevent aneuploidy due to single chromosome loss. J. Cell Biol. 162, 551–563 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Rieder, C. L. & Maiato, H. Stuck in division or passing through: what happens when cells cannot satisfy the spindle assembly checkpoint. Dev. Cell 7, 637–651 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dick, A. E. & Gerlich, D. W. Kinetic framework of spindle assembly checkpoint signalling. Nature Cell Biol. 15, 1370–1377 (2013). This is a clever application of established optical methods to gain unprecedented time-resolution on specific checkpoint silencing events and measure the strength of the checkpoint response.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Collin, P., Nashchekina, O., Walker, R. & Pines, J. The spindle assembly checkpoint works like a rheostat rather than a toggle switch. Nature Cell Biol. 15, 1378–1385 (2013). Along with references 23 and 25, this study quantitatively established the variable limits of checkpoint kinetics and duration in response to different stimuli.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kamenz, J. & Hauf, S. Slow checkpoint activation kinetics as a safety device in anaphase. Curr. Biol. 24, 646–651 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vázquez-Novelle, María, D. et al. Cdk1 inactivation terminates mitotic checkpoint surveillance and stabilizes kinetochore attachments in anaphase. Curr. Biol. 24, 638–645 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rattani, A. et al. Dependency of the spindle assembly checkpoint on Cdk1 renders the anaphase transition irreversible. Curr. Biol. 24, 630–637 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Clijsters, L. et al. Inefficient degradation of cyclin B1 re-activates the spindle checkpoint right after sister chromatid disjunction. Cell Cycle 13, 2370–2378 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Oliveira, R. A., Hamilton, R. S., Pauli, A., Davis, I. & Nasmyth, K. Cohesin cleavage and Cdk inhibition trigger formation of daughter nuclei. Nature Cell Biol. 12, 185–192 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sudakin, V. Checkpoint inhibition of the APC/C in HeLa cells is mediated by a complex of BUBR1, BUB3, CDC20, and MAD2. J. Cell Biol. 154, 925–936 (2001). This is the original biochemical identification of the MCC.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Burton, J. L. & Solomon, M. J. Mad3p, a pseudosubstrate inhibitor of APCCdc20 in the spindle assembly checkpoint. Genes Dev. 21, 655–667 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Chao, W. C. H., Kulkarni, K., Zhang, Z., Kong, E. H. & Barford, D. Structure of the mitotic checkpoint complex. Nature 484, 208–213 (2012). This study demonstrated the structural basis for CDC20 inactivation by the MCC.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Han, Joo, S. et al. Catalytic assembly of the mitotic checkpoint inhibitor BubR1-Cdc20 by a Mad2-induced functional switch in Cdc20. Mol. Cell 51, 92–104 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Izawa, D. & Pines, J. Mad2 and the APC/C compete for the same site on Cdc20 to ensure proper chromosome segregation. J. Cell Biol. 199, 27–37 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Lau, Derek, T. C. & Murray, Andrew, W. Mad2 and Mad3 cooperate to arrest budding yeast in mitosis. Curr. Biol. 22, 180–190 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Luo, X. & Yu, H. Protein metamorphosis: the two-state behavior of Mad2. Structure 16, 1616–1625 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Skinner, J. J., Wood, S., Shorter, J., Englander, S. W. & Black, B. E. The Mad2 partial unfolding model: regulating mitosis through Mad2 conformational switching. J. Cell Biol. 183, 761–768 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Howell, B. J., Hoffman, D. B., Fang, G., Murray, A. W. & Salmon, E. D. Visualization of Mad2 dynamics at kinetochores, along spindle fibers, and at spindle poles in living cells. J. Cell Biol. 150, 1233–1250 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Howell, B. J. et al. Spindle checkpoint protein dynamics at kinetochores in living cells. Curr. Biol. 14, 953–964 (2004). This paper describes in vivo analysis of checkpoint protein dynamics at kinetochores by FRAP. This analysis, together with those in references 38 and 40, was instrumental in revealing how the kinetochore works as a catalytic scaffold.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shah, J. V. et al. Dynamics of centromere and kinetochore proteins: implications for checkpoint signaling and silencing. Curr. Biol. 14, 942–952 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Chen, R. H. BubR1 is essential for kinetochore localization of other spindle checkpoint proteins and its phosphorylation requires Mad1. J. Cell Biol. 158, 487–496 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Gillett, E. S. Spindle checkpoint proteins and chromosome-microtubule attachment in budding yeast. J. Cell Biol. 164, 535–546 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Heinrich, S., Windecker, H., Hustedt, N. & Hauf, S. Mph1 kinetochore localization is crucial and upstream in the hierarchy of spindle assembly checkpoint protein recruitment to kinetochores. J. Cell Sci. 125, 4720–4727 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sharp-Baker, H. & Chen, R.-H. Spindle checkpoint protein Bub1 is required for kinetochore localization of Mad1, Mad2, Bub3, and CENP-E, independently of its kinase activity. J. Cell Biol. 153, 1239–1250 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Vigneron, S. et al. Kinetochore localization of spindle checkpoint proteins: who controls whom? Mol. Biol. Cell 15, 4584–4596 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Kiyomitsu, T., Obuse, C. & Yanagida, M. Human Blinkin/AF15q14 is required for chromosome alignment and the mitotic checkpoint through direct interaction with Bub1 and BubR1. Dev. Cell 13, 663–676 (2007). This is the initial identification of KNL1 as the BUB1 and BUBR1 kinetochore receptor. This study established that KNL1 is an essential component of the spindle checkpoint.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kiyomitsu, T., Murakami, H. & Yanagida, M. Protein interaction domain mapping of human kinetochore protein Blinkin reveals a consensus motif for binding of spindle assembly checkpoint proteins Bub1 and BubR1. Mol. Cell. Biol. 31, 998–1011 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. London, N., Ceto, S., Ranish, Jeffrey, A. & Biggins, S. Phosphoregulation of Spc105 by Mps1 and PP1 regulates Bub1 localization to kinetochores. Curr. Biol. 22, 900–906 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Shepperd, Lindsey, A. et al. Phosphodependent recruitment of Bub1 and Bub3 to Spc7/KNL1 by Mph1 kinase maintains the spindle checkpoint. Curr. Biol. 22, 891–899 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Yamagishi, Y., Yang, C.-H., Tanno, Y. & Watanabe, Y. MPS1/Mph1 phosphorylates the kinetochore protein KNL1/Spc7 to recruit SAC components. Nature Cell Biol. 14, 746–752 (2012). Along with references 48, 49 and 51, this study established the molecular basis for BUB1 and BUB3 localization to kinetochores, identifying a crucial kinetochore phosphorylation event in the checkpoint.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Primorac, I. et al. Bub3 reads phosphorylated MELT repeats to promote spindle assembly checkpoint signaling. eLife 2, e01030 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Campbell, L. Analysis of Bub3 spindle checkpoint function in Xenopus egg extracts. J. Cell Sci. 116, 617–628 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Suijkerbuijk, Saskia, J. E. et al. The vertebrate mitotic checkpoint protein BUBR1 is an unusual pseudokinase. Dev. Cell 22, 1321–1329 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Elowe, S. Bub1 and BubR1: at the interface between chromosome attachment and the spindle checkpoint. Mol. Cell. Biol. 31, 3085–3093 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Fernius, J. & Hardwick, K. G. Bub1 kinase targets Sgo1 to ensure efficient chromosome biorientation in budding yeast mitosis. PLoS Genet. 3, e213 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Kawashima, S. A., Yamagishi, Y., Honda, T., Ishiguro, K.i. & Watanabe, Y. Phosphorylation of H2A by Bub1 prevents chromosomal instability through localizing shugoshin. Science 327, 172–177 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Vleugel, M., Hoogendoorn, E., Snel, B. & Kops, Geert, J. P. L. Evolution and function of the mitotic checkpoint. Dev. Cell 23, 239–250 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Larsen, N. A., Al-Bassam, J., Wei, R. R. & Harrison, S. C. Structural analysis of Bub3 interactions in the mitotic spindle checkpoint. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 1201–1206 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Caldas, G. V. & DeLuca, J. G. KNL1: bringing order to the kinetochore. Chromosoma 123, 169–181 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Ghongane, P., Kapanidou, M., Asghar, A., Elowe, S. & Bolanos-Garcia, V. M. The dynamic protein Knl1 — a kinetochore rendezvous. J. Cell Sci. 127, 1–9 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Krenn, V., Wehenkel, A., Li, X., Santaguida, S. & Musacchio, A. Structural analysis reveals features of the spindle checkpoint kinase Bub1-kinetochore subunit Knl1 interaction. J. Cell Biol. 196, 451–467 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Ito, D., Saito, Y. & Matsumoto, T. Centromere-tethered Mps1 pombe homolog (Mph1) kinase is a sufficient marker for recruitment of the spindle checkpoint protein Bub1, but not Mad1. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 209–214 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Krenn, V., Overlack, K., Primorac, I., van Gerwen, S. & Musacchio, A. KI motifs of human Knl1 enhance assembly of comprehensive spindle checkpoint complexes around MELT Repeats. Curr. Biol. 24, 29–39 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Vanoosthuyse, V., Valsdottir, R., Javerzat, J. P. & Hardwick, K. G. Kinetochore targeting of fission yeast Mad and Bub proteins is essential for spindle checkpoint function but not for all chromosome segregation roles of Bub1p. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24, 9786–9801 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Johnson, V. L. Bub1 is required for kinetochore localization of BubR1, Cenp-E, Cenp-F and Mad2, and chromosome congression. J. Cell Sci. 117, 1577–1589 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Kadura, S., He, X., Vanoosthuyse, V., Hardwick, K. G. & Sazer, S. The A78V mutation in the Mad3-like domain of Schizosaccharomyces pombe Bub1p perturbs nuclear accumulation and kinetochore targeting of Bub1p, Bub3p, and Mad3p and spindle assembly checkpoint function. Mol. Biol. Cell 16, 385–395 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Millband, D. N. & Hardwick, K. G. Fission yeast Mad3p is required for Mad2p to inhibit the anaphase-promoting complex and localizes to kinetochores in a Bub1p-, Bub3p-, and Mph1p-dependent manner. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 2728–2742 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. D'Arcy, S., Davies, O. R., Blundell, T. L. & Bolanos-Garcia, V. M. Defining the molecular basis of BubR1 kinetochore interactions and APC/C-CDC20 inhibition. J. Biol. Chem. 285, 14764–14776 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Rischitor, P. E., May, K. M. & Hardwick, K. G. Bub1 is a fission yeast kinetochore scaffold protein, and is sufficient to recruit other spindle checkpoint proteins to ectopic sites on chromosomes. PLoS ONE 2, e1342 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Vleugel, M. et al. Arrayed BUB recruitment modules in the kinetochore scaffold KNL1 promote accurate chromosome segregation. J. Cell Biol. 203, 943–955 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Zhang, G., Lischetti, T. & Nilsson, J. A minimal number of MELT repeats supports all functions of KNL1 in chromosome segregation. J. Cell Sci. 127, 871–884 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Bolanos-Garcia, Victor, M. et al. Structure of a Blinkin-BUBR1 complex reveals an interaction crucial for kinetochore-mitotic checkpoint regulation via an unanticipated binding site. Structure 19, 1691–1700 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Jablonski, S. A., Chan, G. K., Cooke, C. A., Earnshaw, W. C. & Yen, T. J. The hBUB1 and hBUBR1 kinases sequentially assemble onto kinetochores during prophase with hBUBR1 concentrating at the kinetochore plates in mitosis. Chromosoma 107, 386–396 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Shimogawa, M. M., Wargacki, M. M., Muller, E. & Davis, T. Laterally attached kinetochores recruit the checkpoint protein Bub1, but satisfy the spindle checkpoint. Cell Cycle 9, 3619–3628 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Kuijt, T. E. F., Omerzu, M., Saurin, A. T. & Kops, G. J. P. L. Conditional targeting of MAD1 to kinetochores is sufficient to reactivate the spindle assembly checkpoint in metaphase. Chromosoma 123, 471–480 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Maldonado, M. & Kapoor, T. M. Constitutive Mad1 targeting to kinetochores uncouples checkpoint signalling from chromosome biorientation. Nature Cell Biol. 13, 475–482 (2011). This elegant fusion study demonstrated the pivotal role of MAD1 kinetochore localization in the checkpoint.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Brady, D. M. & Hardwick, K. G. Complex formation between Mad1p, Bub1p and Bub3p is crucial for spindle checkpoint function. Curr. Biol. 10, 675–678 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. London, N. & Biggins, S. Mad1 kinetochore recruitment by Mps1-mediated phosphorylation of Bub1 signals the spindle checkpoint. Genes Dev. 28, 140–152 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Moyle, M. W. et al. A Bub1-Mad1 interaction targets the Mad1-Mad2 complex to unattached kinetochores to initiate the spindle checkpoint. J. Cell Biol. 204, 647–657 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Kim, S., Sun, H., Tomchick, D. R., Yu, H. & Luo, X. Structure of human Mad1 C-terminal domain reveals its involvement in kinetochore targeting. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 6549–6554 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Kops, G. J. P. L. ZW10 links mitotic checkpoint signaling to the structural kinetochore. J. Cell Biol. 169, 49–60 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Varma, D. et al. Spindle assembly checkpoint proteins are positioned close to core microtubule attachment sites at kinetochores. J. Cell Biol. 202, 735–746 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Kasuboski, J. M. et al. Zwint-1 is a novel Aurora B substrate required for the assembly of a dynein-binding platform on kinetochores. Mol. Biol. Cell 22, 3318–3330 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Yamamoto, T. G., Watanabe, S., Essex, A. & Kitagawa, R. SPDL-1 functions as a kinetochore receptor for MDF-1 in Caenorhabditis elegans. J. Cell Biol. 183, 187–194 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Jia, L., Kim, S. & Yu, H. Tracking spindle checkpoint signals from kinetochores to APC/C. Trends Biochem. Sci. 38, 302–311 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Brady, D. M., Hardwick, K. G. Complex formation between Mad1p, Bub1p and Bub3p is crucial for spindle checkpoint function. Curr. Biol. 10, 675–678 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Vink, M. et al. In vitro FRAP identifies the minimal requirements for Mad2 kinetochore dynamics. Curr. Biol. 16, 755–766 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Yang, M. et al. Insights into Mad2 regulation in the spindle checkpoint revealed by the crystal structure of the symmetric Mad2 dimer. PLoS Biol. 6, e50 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Chen, R.-H., Brady, D. M., Smith, D., Murray, A. W. & Hardwick, K. G. The spindle checkpoint of budding yeast depends on a tight complex between the Mad1 and Mad2 proteins. Mol. Biol. Cell 10, 2607–2618 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Heinrich, S. et al. Mad1 contribution to spindle assembly checkpoint signalling goes beyond presenting Mad2 at kinetochores. EMBO Rep. 15, 291–298 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Kruse, T. et al. A direct role of Mad1 in the spindle assembly checkpoint beyond Mad2 kinetochore recruitment. EMBO Rep. 15, 282–290 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Ballister, E. R., Riegman, M. & Lampson, M. A. Recruitment of Mad1 to metaphase kinetochores is sufficient to reactivate the mitotic checkpoint. J. Cell Biol. 204, 901–908 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Klebig, C., Korinth, D. & Meraldi, P. Bub1 regulates chromosome segregation in a kinetochore-independent manner. J. Cell Biol. 185, 841–858 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Kops, G. J. P. L. & Shah, J. V. Connecting up and clearing out: how kinetochore attachment silences the spindle assembly checkpoint. Chromosoma 121, 509–525 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Jin, F. & Wang, Y. The signaling network that silences the spindle assembly checkpoint upon the establishment of chromosome bipolar attachment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 21036–21041 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Wang, Y., Jin, F., Higgins, R. & McKnight, K. The current view for the silencing of the spindle assembly checkpoint. Cell Cycle 13, 1694–1701 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Howell, B. J. Cytoplasmic dynein/dynactin drives kinetochore protein transport to the spindle poles and has a role in mitotic spindle checkpoint inactivation. J. Cell Biol. 155, 1159–1172 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Barisic, M. & Geley, S. Spindly switch controls anaphase: Spindly and RZZ functions in chromosome attachment and mitotic checkpoint control. Cell Cycle 10, 449–456 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Gassmann, R. et al. A new mechanism controlling kinetochore-microtubule interactions revealed by comparison of two dynein-targeting components: SPDL-1 and the Rod/Zwilch/Zw10 complex. Genes Dev. 22, 2385–2399 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Gassmann, R. et al. Removal of Spindly from microtubule-attached kinetochores controls spindle checkpoint silencing in human cells. Genes Dev. 24, 957–971 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Matson, D. R., Demirel, P. B., Stukenberg, P. T. & Burke, D. J. A conserved role for COMA/CENP-H/I/N kinetochore proteins in the spindle checkpoint. Genes Dev. 26, 542–547 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Matson, D. R. & Stukenberg, P. T. CENP-I and Aurora B act as a molecular switch that ties RZZ/Mad1 recruitment to kinetochore attachment status. J. Cell Biol. 205, 541–554 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Jelluma, N., Dansen, T. B., Sliedrecht, T., Kwiatkowski, N. P. & Kops, G. J. P. L. Release of Mps1 from kinetochores is crucial for timely anaphase onset. J. Cell Biol. 191, 281–290 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Cairo, Lucas, V., Ptak, C. & Wozniak, R. W. Mitosis-specific regulation of nuclear transport by the spindle assembly checkpoint protein Mad1p. Mol. Cell 49, 109–120 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Pinsky, B. A., Nelson, C. R. & Biggins, S. Protein Phosphatase 1 regulates exit from the spindle checkpoint in budding yeast. Curr. Biol. 19, 1182–1187 (2009). Along with reference 106, this study showed that PP1 activity is essential for checkpoint silencing.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Vanoosthuyse, V. & Hardwick, K. G. A novel Protein Phosphatase 1-dependent spindle checkpoint silencing mechanism. Curr. Biol. 19, 1176–1181 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Rosenberg, Jessica, S., Cross, Frederick, R. & Funabiki, H. KNL1/Spc105 recruits PP1 to silence the spindle assembly checkpoint. Curr. Biol. 21, 942–947 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Meadows, John, C. et al. Spindle checkpoint silencing requires association of PP1 to both Spc7 and Kinesin-8 motors. Dev. Cell 20, 739–750 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Wei, R., Ngo, B., Wu, G. & Lee, W.-H. Phosphorylation of the Ndc80 complex protein, HEC1, by Nek2 kinase modulates chromosome alignment and signaling of the spindle assembly checkpoint. Mol. Biol. Cell 22, 3584–3594 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Liu, D. et al. Regulated targeting of protein phosphatase 1 to the outer kinetochore by KNL1 opposes Aurora B kinase. J. Cell Biol. 188, 809–820 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Mirchenko, L. & Uhlmann, F. Sli15/INCENP dephosphorylation prevents mitotic checkpoint reengagement due to loss of tension at anaphase onset. Curr. Biol. 20, 1396–1401 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Vázquez-Novelle, María, D., Mirchenko, L., Uhlmann, F. & Petronczki, M. The 'anaphase problem': how to disable the mitotic checkpoint when sisters split. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 38, 1660–1666 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Palframan, W. J. Anaphase inactivation of the spindle checkpoint. Science 313, 680–684 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Hewitt, L. et al. Sustained Mps1 activity is required in mitosis to recruit O-Mad2 to the Mad1-C-Mad2 core complex. J. Cell Biol. 190, 25–34 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Santaguida, S., Tighe, A., D'Alise, A. M., Taylor, S. S. & Musacchio, A. Dissecting the role of MPS1 in chromosome biorientation and the spindle checkpoint through the small molecule inhibitor reversine. J. Cell Biol. 190, 73–87 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Saurin, A. T., van der Waal, M. S., Medema, R. H., Lens, S. M. A. & Kops, G. J. P. L. Aurora B potentiates Mps1 activation to ensure rapid checkpoint establishment at the onset of mitosis. Nature Commun. 2, 316 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Nijenhuis, W. et al. A TPR domain-containing N-terminal module of MPS1 is required for its kinetochore localization by Aurora B. J. Cell Biol. 201, 217–231 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Zhu, T. et al. Phosphorylation of microtubule-binding protein Hec1 by mitotic kinase Aurora B specifies spindle checkpoint kinase Mps1 signaling at the kinetochore. J. Biol. Chem. 288, 36149–36159 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Espeut, J., Cheerambathur, D. K., Krenning, L., Oegema, K. & Desai, A. Microtubule binding by KNL-1 contributes to spindle checkpoint silencing at the kinetochore. J. Cell Biol. 196, 469–482 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Qi, W. & Yu, H. KEN-Box-dependent degradation of the Bub1 spindle checkpoint kinase by the Anaphase-promoting Complex/Cyclosome. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 3672–3679 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Rodriguez-Bravo, V. et al. Nuclear pores protect genome integrity by assembling a premitotic and Mad1-dependent anaphase inhibitor. Cell 156, 1017–1031 (2014). This study identified nuclear pore-associated MAD1 as the source of the kinetochore-independent mitotic timer.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Maciejowski, J. et al. Mps1 directs the assembly of Cdc20 inhibitory complexes during interphase and mitosis to control M phase timing and spindle checkpoint signaling. J. Cell Biol. 190, 89–100 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Malureanu, L. A. et al. BubR1 N terminus acts as a soluble inhibitor of Cyclin B degradation by APC/CCdc20 in interphase. Dev. Cell 16, 118–131 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Meraldi, P., Draviam, V. M. & Sorger, P. K. Timing and checkpoints in the regulation of mitotic progression. Dev. Cell 7, 45–60 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Schweizer, N. et al. Spindle assembly checkpoint robustness requires Tpr-mediated regulation of Mad1/Mad2 proteostasis. J. Cell Biol. 203, 883–893 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Cairo, L. V., Ptak, C. & Wozniak, R. W. Dual personality of Mad1: Regulation of nuclear import by a spindle assembly checkpoint protein. Nucleus 4, 367–373 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Kops, G. J. P. L., Weaver, B. A. A. & Cleveland, D. W. On the road to cancer: aneuploidy and the mitotic checkpoint. Nature Rev. Cancer 5, 773–785 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Manchado, E., Guillamot, M. & Malumbres, M. Killing cells by targeting mitosis. Cell Death Differ. 19, 369–377 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Heinrich, S. et al. Determinants of robustness in spindle assembly checkpoint signalling. Nature Cell Biol. 15, 1328–1339 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Di Fiore, B. & Pines, J. How cyclin A destruction escapes the spindle assembly checkpoint. J. Cell Biol. 190, 501–509 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Asbury, C. L., Tien, J. F. & Davis, T. N. Kinetochores' gripping feat: conformational wave or biased diffusion? Trends Cell Biol. 21, 38–46 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Tanaka, T. U. Kinetochore–microtubule interactions: steps towards bi-orientation. EMBO J. 29, 4070–4082 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Lesage, B., Qian, J. & Bollen, M. Spindle checkpoint silencing: PP1 rips the balance. Curr. Biol. 21, R898–R903 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Musacchio, A. & Salmon, E. D. The spindle-assembly checkpoint in space and time. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 8, 379–393 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. Clute, P. & Pines, J. Temporal and spatial control of cyclin B1 destruction in metaphase. Nature Cell Biol. 1, 82–87 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Rieder, C. L. et al. Mitosis in vertebrate somatic cells with two spindles: implications for the metaphase/anaphase transition checkpoint and cleavage. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 5107–5112 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Parry, D. H., Hickson, G. R. X. & O'Farrell, P. H. Cyclin B destruction triggers changes in kinetochore behavior essential for successful anaphase. Curr. Biol. 13, 647–653 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. Jeganathan, K. B., Malureanu, L. & van Deursen, J. M. The Rae1–Nup98 complex prevents aneuploidy by inhibiting securin degradation. Nature 438, 1036–1039 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Schuyler, S. C., Wu, Y. F. & Kuan, V. J. W. The Mad1-Mad2 balancing act — a damaged spindle checkpoint in chromosome instability and cancer. J. Cell Sci. 125, 4197–4206 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Miniowitz-Shemtov, S. et al. Role of phosphorylation of Cdc20 in p31comet-stimulated disassembly of the mitotic checkpoint complex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8056–8060 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Pinsky, B. A., Kung, C., Shokat, K. M. & Biggins, S. The Ipl1-Aurora protein kinase activates the spindle checkpoint by creating unattached kinetochores. Nature Cell Biol. 8, 78–83 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. van der Waal, M. S. et al. Mps1 promotes rapid centromere accumulation of Aurora B. EMBO Rep. 13, 847–854 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. Liu, X. & Winey, M. The MPS1 family of protein kinases. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 81, 561–585 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. Hardwick, K. G., Weiss, E., Luca, F. C., Winey, M. & Murray, A. W. Activation of the budding yeast spindle assembly checkpoint without mitotic spindle disruption. 273, 953–956 (1996). This study demonstrated that MPS1 kinase activity is sufficient for checkpoint activation, indicating that it is the pivotal kinase in the signalling cascade.

  145. Maure, J.-F., Kitamura, E. & Tanaka, T. U. Mps1 kinase promotes sister-kinetochore bi-orientation by a tension-dependent mechanism. Curr. Biol. 17, 2175–2182 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Tipton, A. R. et al. Monopolar Spindle 1 (MPS1) kinase promotes production of closed MAD2 (C-MAD2) conformer and assembly of the mitotic checkpoint complex. J. Biol. Chem. 288, 35149–35158 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. Zich, J. et al. Kinase activity of fission yeast Mph1 is required for Mad2 and Mad3 to stably bind the Anaphase Promoting Complex. Curr. Biol. 22, 296–301 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. Tipton, A. R. et al. BUBR1 and Closed MAD2 (C-MAD2) interact directly to assemble a functional mitotic checkpoint complex. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 21173–21179 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Sironi, L. et al. Crystal structure of the tetrameric Mad1-Mad2 core complex: implications of a 'safety belt' binding mechanism for the spindle checkpoint. EMBO J. 21, 2496–2506 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Petsalaki, E. & Zachos, G. Chk2 prevents mitotic exit when the majority of kinetochores are unattached. J. Cell Biol. 205, 339–356 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. Yeh, C. W., Yu, Z. C., Chen, P. H., Cheng, Y. C. & Shieh, S. Y. Phosphorylation at threonine 288 by cell cycle checkpoint kinase 2 (CHK2) controls human monopolar spindle 1 (Mps1) kinetochore localization. J. Biol. Chem. 289, 15319–15327 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the reviewers and M. Miller for thoughtful comments on the manuscript and apologize to those who were not cited owing to space limitations. N.L. was supported by a US National Institutes of Health (NIH) centre interdisciplinary training grant (T32 CA080416), and work in the Biggins laboratory is supported by NIH grants GM064386 and GM078069 to S.B.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N., PO Box 19024, Seattle, 98109, Washington, USA

    Nitobe London & Sue Biggins

  2. Molecular and Cellular Biology Program, University of Washington/Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, 98109, Washington, USA

    Nitobe London

Authors
  1. Nitobe London
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sue Biggins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sue Biggins.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

PowerPoint slides

Glossary

Bi-oriented

The kinetochore–microtubule attachment state where sister kinetochores are attached exclusively to opposite spindle poles by similar numbers of microtubules.

Cohesin complex

A protein complex that physically links DNA on sister or homologous chromosomes following S-phase and that must be cleaved for mitotic progression.

E3 ubiquitin ligase

Enzyme responsible for transfer of ubiquitin to substrates, often targeting them for degradation by the proteasome. E3 ligases transfer ubiquitin from E2 enzymes to their substrates.

Pseudokinase

A protein that is evolutionarily derived from an active kinase that has lost catalytic activity.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

London, N., Biggins, S. Signalling dynamics in the spindle checkpoint response. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 15, 736–748 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3888

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3888

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing