Protoplasma

pp 1–11 | Cite as

Precocious cleavage furrows simultaneously move and ingress when kinetochore microtubules are depolymerized in Mesostoma ehrenbergii spermatocytes

Original Article

Abstract

A “precocious” cleavage furrow develops and ingresses during early prometaphase in Mesostoma ehrenbergii spermatocytes (Forer and Pickett-Heaps Eur J Cell Biol 89:607-618, 2010). In response to chromosome movements which regularly occur during prometaphase and that alter the balance of chromosomes in the two half-spindles, the precocious furrow shifts its position along the cell, moving 2–3 μm towards the half cell with fewer chromosomes (Ferraro-Gideon et al. Cell Biol Int 37:892-898, 2013). This process continues until proper segregation is achieved and the cell enters anaphase with the cleavage furrow again in the middle of the cell. At anaphase, the furrow recommences ingression. Spindle microtubules (MTs) are implicated in various furrow positioning models, and our experiments studied the responses of the precocious furrows to the absence of spindle MTs. We depolymerized spindle MTs during prometaphase using various concentrations of nocodazole (NOC) and colcemid. The expected result is that the furrow should regress and chromosomes remain in the midzone of the cell (Cassimeris et al. J Cell Sci 96:9-15, 1990). Instead, the furrows commenced ingression and all three bivalent chromosomes moved to one pole while the univalent chromosomes, that usually reside at the two poles, either remained at their poles or moved to the opposite pole along with the bivalents, as described elsewhere (Fegaras and Forer 2018). The microtubules were completely depolymerized by the drugs, as indicated by immunofluorescence staining of treated cells (Fegaras and Forer 2018), and in the absence of microtubules, the furrows often ingressed (in 33/61 cells) at a rate similar to normal anaphase ingression (~ 1 μm/min), while often simultaneously moving toward one pole. Thus, these results indicate that in the absence of anaphase and of spindle microtubules, cleavage furrows resume ingression.

Keywords

Meiosis Cytokinesis Cleavage furrow Microtubules Nocodazole 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by research grants to AF from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

709_2018_1239_MOESM1_ESM.mov (6.7 mb)
Supplementary video 1 cell treated with 20 μM NOC between 1259:54 and 13:00:01, when the images become out of focus. The bivalents oscillated up and back to the two spindle poles initially. After NOC was added, the oscillations ceased as the bivalents stretched out. The bivalent kinetochores facing the upper pole detached at around 13:01:16 and moved into the bottom half-spindle, leaving the univalents behind at the top pole. After these movements the cleavage furrow slowly ingressed and simultaneously moved towards the upper pole, forming a cell with two unequal parts, that looks like a ‘shmoo’. (MOV 6899 kb)
709_2018_1239_MOESM2_ESM.mov (5.4 mb)
Supplementary video 2 cell treated with 20 μM NOC between frames 91–95, when the image was out of focus. [The time between each frame is 2 s.] As in video 1, after NOC the chromosomes stretched out; all bivalent kinetochores detached from the upper pole, starting at about frame 115, and moved to the bottom half-spindle together with the univalent from the upper pole. Subsequent to the chromosome movements the cleavage furrow ingressed and moved towards the upper pole, ending up at the cell periphery. (MOV 5514 kb)

References

  1. Alsop GB, Zhang D (2003) Microtubules are the only structural constituent of the spindle apparatus required for induction of cell cleavage. J Cell Biol 162:383–390CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Barr FA, Gruneberg U (2007) Cytokinesis: placing and making the final cut. Cell 131:847–860CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonaccorsi S, Giansanti MG, Gatti M (1998) Spindle self-organization and cytokinesis during male meiosis in asterless mutants of Drosophila melanogaster. J Cell Biol 142:571–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capp A (1948) The life and times of the Shmoo. Pocket Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cassimeris L, Rieder C, Rupp G, Salmon ED (1990) Stability of microtubule attachment to metaphase kinetochores in PtK1 cells. J Cell Sci 96:9–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi HJ, Fukui M, Zhu BT (2011) Role of cyclin B1/Cdc2 up-regulation in the development of mitotic prometaphase arrest in human breast cancer cells treated with nocodazole. PLoS One 6(8):e24312.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024312 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Cytrynbaum EN, Sommi P, Brust-Mascher I, Scholey JM, Mogilner A (2005) Early spindle assembly in Drosophila embryos: role of a force balance involving cytoskeletal dynamics and nuclear mechanics. Mol Biol Cell 16:4967–4981CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Eggert US, Mitchison TJ, Field CM (2006) Animal cytokinesis: from parts list to mechanisms. Annu Rev Biochem 75:543–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fabian L, Xia X, Venkitaramani DV, Johansen KM, Johansen J, Andrew DJ, Forer A (2007) Titin in insect spermatocyte spindle fibers associates with microtubules, actin, myosin and the matrix proteins skeletor, megator and chromator. J Cell Sci 120:2190–2204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fegaras E, Forer A (2018) Chromosomes selectively detach at one pole and quickly move towards the opposite pole when kinetochore microtubules are depolymerized in Mesostoma ehrenbergii spermatocytes. Protoplasma.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-018-1214-4
  11. Ferraro-Gideon J, Hoang C, Forer A (2014) Meiosis-I in Mesostoma ehrenbergii spermatocytes includes distance segregation and inter-polar movements of univalent, and vigorous oscillations of bivalents. Protoplasma 251:127–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferraro-Gideon J, Hoang C, Forer A (2013) Mesostoma ehrenbergii spermatocytes–a unique and advantageous cell for studying meiosis. Cell Biol Int 37(9):892–898CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Forer A, Spurck T, Pickett-Heaps J, Wilson P (2003) Structure of kinetochore fibres in crane-fly spermatocytes after irradiation with an ultraviolet microbeam: neither microtubules nor actin filaments remain in the irradiated region. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton 56:173–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Forer A, Pickett-Heaps J (2005) Fibrin clots keep non-adhering living cells in place on glass for perfusion or fixation. Cell Biol Int 29:721–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Forer A, Pickett-Heaps J (2010) Precocious (pre-anaphase) cleavage furrows in Mesostoma spermatocytes. Eur J Cell Biol 89:607–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuge H (1989) Rapid kinetochore movements in Mesostoma ehrenbergii spermatocytes: action of antagonistic chromosome fibres. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton 13:212–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuge H (1987) Oscillatory movements of bipolar-oriented bivalent kinetochroes and spindle forces in male meiosis of Mesostoma ehrenbergii. Eur J Cell Biol 44:294–298Google Scholar
  18. Glotzer M (2004) Cleavage furrow positioning. J Cell Biol 164(3):347–351CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Gonczy P (2008) Mechanisms of asymmetric cell division: flies and worms pave the way. Nat Rev 9:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grill SW, Goènczy P, Stelzer EHK (2001) Polarity controls forces governing asymmetric spindle positioning in the Caenorhabditis elegans embryo. Nature 409:630–633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hiramoto Y (1975) Force exerted by the cleavage furrow of sea urchin eggs. Develop Growth Differ 17(1):27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoang C, Ferraro-Gideon J, Gauthier K, Forer A (2013) Methods for rearing Mesostoma ehrenbergii in the laboratory for cell biology experiments, including identification of factors that influence production of different egg types. Cell Biol Int 37(10):1089–1105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Husted L, Ruebush TK (1940) A comparative cytological and morphological study of Mesostoma ehrenbergii and Mesostoma ehrenbergii wardii. J Morphol 67:387–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ingber DE (1991) Integrins as mechanochemical transducers. Curr Biol 3:841–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ingber DE (1993) Cellular tensegrity: defining new rules of biological design that govern the cytoskeleton. J Cell Sci 104:613–627PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ingber DE (2003a) Tensegrity I. Cell structure and hierarchical systems biology. J Cell Sci 116:1157–1173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ingber DE (2003b) Tensegrity II. How structural networks influence cellular information processing networks. J Cell Sci 116:1397–1408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Johansen KM, Johansen J (2007) Cell and molecular biology of the spindle matrix. Int Rev Cytol 263:155–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Johansen KM, Forer A, Yao C, Girton J, Johansen J (2011) Do nuclear envelope and intranuclear proteins reorganize during mitosis to form an elastic hydrogel-like spindle matrix? Chromosom Res 19:345–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jordan MA, Wilson L (2004) Microtubules as a target for anticancer drugs. Nat Rev Cancer 4(4):253–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu M, Post M (2000) Mechanochemical signal transduction in the fetal lung. J Appl Physiol 89:2078–2084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. McIntosh K, Pickett-Heaps JD, Gunning BES (1995) Cytokinesis in Spirogyra: integration of cleavage and cell-plate formation. Int J Plant Sci 156:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mogessie B, Schuh M (2017) Actin protects mammalian eggs against chromosome segregation errors. Science 357:eaal 1647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mollinedo F, Gajate C (2003) Microtubules, microtubule-interfering agents and apoptosis. Apoptosis 8(5):413–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Murthy K, Wadsworth P (2008) Dual role for microtubules in regulating cortical contractility during cytokinesis. J Cell Sci 121:2350–2359CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Oakley HA (1984) Meiosis in Mesostoma ehrenbergii ehrenbergii (Turbellaria, Rhabdocoela). III. Univalent chromosome segregation during the first meiotic division in spermatocytes. Chromosoma 91(2):95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pickett-Heaps JD (1991) Post-mitotic cellular reorganisation in the diatom Cymatopleura solea: the role of microtubules and the microtubule Centre. Cell Motil Cytoskel 18:279–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pickett-Heaps JD, Tippit DH, Andreozzi A (1978) Cell division in the pennate diatom Pinnularia. II Later stages in mitosis. Biol Cell 33:79–84Google Scholar
  39. Pickett-Heaps JD, Tippit DH, Andreozzi A (1979) Cell division in the pennate diatom Pinnularia. V. Observations on living cells. Biol Cell 35:295–304Google Scholar
  40. Pickett-Heaps JD, Tippit DH, Leslie R (1980) Light and electron microscopic observations on cell division in two large pennate diatoms, Hantzschia and Nitzschia. I. Mitosis in vivo. Eur J Cell Biol 21:1–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Poxleitner MK, Dawson SC, Cande WZ (2008) Cell cycle synchrony in Giardia intestinalis cultures achieved by using nocodazole and aphidicolin. Eukaryot Cell 7(4):559–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Quinlan RA, Schwarz N, Windoffer R, Richardson C, Hawkins T, Broussard JA, Green KJ, Leube RE (2017) A rim-and-spoke hypothesis to explain the biochemical roles for cytoplasmic intermediate filament networks. J Cell Sci 130:3437–3445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Rappaport R (1985) Repeated furrow formation from a single mitotic apparatus in cylindrical sand dollar eggs. J Exp Zool 234:167–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rappaport R (1981) Cytokinesis: cleavage furrow establishment in cylindrical sand dollar eggs. J Exp Zool 217:365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rappaport R, Ebstein RP (1965) Duration of stimulus and latent periods preceding furrow formation in sand dollar eggs. J Exp Zool 158:373–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Rappaport R (1961) Experiments concerning the cleavage stimulus in sand dollar eggs. J Exp Zool 148:81–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Vasquez R, Howell B, Yvon AC, Wadsworth P, Cassimeris L (1997) Nanomolar concentrations of nocodazole alter microtubule dynamic instability in vivo and in vitro. Mol Biol Cell 8:973–985CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. von Dassow G, Verbrugghe KJC, Miller AL, Sider JR, Bement WM (2009) Action at a distance during cytokinesis. J Cell Biol 187(6):831–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. White CR, Frangos JA (2007) The shear stress of it all: the cell membrane and mechanochemical transduction. Phil Trans R Soc B 362:1459–1467CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Wong R, Forer A (2003) Signalling between chromosomes in crane fly spermatocytes studied using ultraviolet microbeam irradiation. Chromosom Res 11:771–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang H, Ganguly A, Cabral F (2010) Inhibition of cell migration and cell division correlates with distinct effects of microtubule inhibiting drugs. J Biol Chem 285(42):32242–32250CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Yao C, Rath U, Maiato H, Sharp D, Girton J, Johansen KM, Johansen J (2012) A nuclear-derived proteinaceous matrix embeds the microtubule spindle apparatus during mitosis. Mol Biol Cell 23:3532–3541CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations