Cell Division Intersects with Cell Geometry

Leading Edge Essay Cell Division Intersects with Cell Geometry James B. Moseley 1, * and Paul Nurse 1 1 The Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065, USA *Correspondence: jmoseley@rockefeller.edu DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2010.07.004 Single-celled organisms monitor cell geometry and use this information to control cell division. Such geometry-sensing mechanisms control both the decision to enter into cell division and the physical orientation of the chromosome segregation machinery, suggesting that signals controlling cell division may be linked to the mechanisms that ensure proper chromosome segregation. How cells coordinate growth and division is an important problem for cell and developmental biology. Cell size and shape impact the cell division process because chromosomes and other cellular components must be properly segregated within a confined space. As cells grow and progress toward division, a series of checkpoints ensure that cells do not prematurely undergo cell-cycle transitions such as entry into S phase or mitosis. Cell-cycle studies have revealed the existence of cell size checkpoints that link cell-cycle transitions with the attainment of critical cell size thresholds. These observations raise a number of questions, including what is size? and how is size measured? Work in a number of single-celled organisms has led to the idea that cell geometry may have a role in the assessment of size and how size relates to the cell-cycle checkpoints that operate during chromosome segregation and division. In this Essay, we examine the evidence and emerging themes that surround geometry-sensing mechanisms in two well-studied model systems: bacteria and yeast. We suggest that the role of geometry in controlling cell-cycle decisions at division may be linked to the role of cell geometry in physically guiding chromosome segregation in these organisms. This raises the possibility that cell-cycle controls over entry into mitosis may be linked to the mechanisms that ensure proper execution of mitosis and cytokinesis. Building a System to Measure Cell Geometry Connections between cell geometry and cell division have been well described in several bacterial species, providing a good framework for understanding the general design principles of geometrysensing mechanisms. In these bacterial cells, division occurs in the cell middle due to locally restricted assembly of the cytokinetic Z-ring composed of tubulin-like FtsZ. Two mechanisms prevent Z-ring assembly at the cell ends, thus incorporating geometric information into the division process. The first is in the bacterium Escherichia coli and uses a self-organized oscillator comprised of the MinCDE proteins. The second mechanism requires a self-assembled filament network that senses membrane curvature and is found in both Bacillus subtilis and Caulobacter crescentus. These two systems both inhibit division at the cell ends and demonstrate that mechanisms based on quite different molecular components can integrate geometric information with cell division. The MinCDE system is a remarkable geometry-measuring oscillator, the mechanism of which has been elucidated using a combination of elegant experimental and computational approaches. In this three-component system, MinC inhibits the assembly of tubulin-like FtsZ, MinD recruits MinC to the cell membrane, and MinE controls intracellular Figure 1. Design Principles of Different Geometry-Sensing Mechanisms (Left) In the bacterium Escherichia coli, the Z-ring inhibitory complex MinCD oscillates between cell ends to generate a time-averaged concentration gradient that facilitates division in the cell middle. (Middle) The bacteria Caulobacter crescentus and Bacillus subtilis share a common design principle comprised of different molecular components. The names of these components are given for each organism. (Filament anchors, brown; adaptors, blue squares; Z-ring inhibitors, red circles.) (Right) In the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, the mitotic inhibitor Pom1 forms a polarized gradient that is enriched at cell ends, whereas cortical nodes that promote mitosis and are inhibited by Pom1 are positioned in the cell middle. Small cells contain sufficient levels of Pom1 in the cell middle to prevent entry into mitosis, but Pom1 levels in the cell middle decrease in large cells, allowing cortical nodes to promote entry into mitosis. Cell 142, July 23, 2010 2010 Elsevier Inc. 189

organization of MinCD (for reviews see Lutkenhaus, 2007, 2008). The interaction of MinD and MinE generates oscillatory behavior in which MinCD migrates back and forth between the two cell poles (Raskin and de Boer, 1997). These oscillations lead to a time-averaged polar gradient, in which the lowest levels of the FtsZ inhibitor are found in the cell middle, thus linking cell shape with assembly of its division apparatus (Figure 1). The ability of this system to assess cell geometry predicts changes in its behavior upon alterations to cell size and shape. As such, when cell division is inhibited to generate long bacterial filaments, the MinCDE system appears in vertical stripes along the length of the cell, suggesting the establishment of defined geometric domains (Raskin and de Boer, 1997). As in wild-type cells, the MinCDE stripes are dynamic but move in a coordinated manner consistent with a single signal leading to organized behavior. Moreover, MinCDE can also oscillate in rounded cells and thus does not depend on the rod-like shape of wild-type cells (Corbin et al., 2002). These results suggested that the MinCDE oscillator provides a read-out of cell geometry, and computational modeling has revealed the potential for these oscillations to result from the self-organization of the three components without the need for additional signals (Kruse et al., 2007; Lutkenhaus, 2007). Thus, cell geometry acts as a guide for a self-organized oscillator that then provides a read-out for controlling cell division. The investigative approach used here, which combines experimental understanding of the molecular components with the generation of computational models, provides a good approach for studies of other geometry-sensing mechanisms. This ability to link cell geometry and cell division is not unique to E. coli, and investigations of other bacterial cell types have revealed alternative strategies that achieve the same goal. Geometry sensing in B. subtilis and C. crescentus shares a three-component design principle despite using different proteins. The three key features of these systems are (1) a self-assembling filament anchor at cell ends, (2) an inhibitor of FtsZ, and (3) a molecular adaptor (Figure 1). Mounting evidence suggests that the filament anchors can target the cell ends by preferentially interacting with negatively curved membranes, a notion that is reinforced by their assembly at cell ends when ectopically expressed in other cell types (Bowman et al., 2008; Ebersbach et al., 2008; Edwards et al., 2000; Lenarcic et al., 2009; Ramamurthi and Losick, 2009; Stahlberg et al., 2004). This suggests a key role for membrane curvature in the organization of cell division control systems, with several such curvature-sensing mechanisms recently proposed (Lenarcic et al., 2009; Ramamurthi et al., 2009; Ramamurthi and Losick, 2009). In these organisms, adaptor proteins tether the chromosome to the cell pole while also providing the molecular link between the filament anchors and the inhibitors of FtsZ (Bowman et al., 2008; Bramkamp et al., 2008; Ebersbach et al., 2008; Patrick and Kearns, 2008; Thanbichler and Shapiro, 2006). B. subtilis uses the same FtsZ inhibitor as E. coli despite different input signals related to cell geometry (Marston et al., 1998). Here, we focus on the role of B. subtilis MinCD at the cell poles for comparison with other geometry-sensing mechanisms, but this protein complex also targets the late division site in a mechanism proposed to prevent Z-ring assembly near existing division septa (Gregory et al., 2008). In C. crescentus, the FtsZ inhibitor is MipZ, which forms a polarized gradient from the cell ends (Thanbichler and Shapiro, 2006). Gradients may be a common theme in geometry-sensing mechanisms to generate controls that are adaptable to changes in cell size and shape. These examples illustrate the point that common design principles may have evolved in organisms that use distinct sets of molecular players. These prokaryote examples indicate that cells can monitor their geometry and use this information to generate temporal and spatial control over cell division. But do such mechanisms operate in eukaryotes? Experimental evidence suggests links between cell size and cell division in eukaryotes, but do similar themes and design principles apply? Work from fission and budding yeast indicates that eukaryotic cells possess size-sensing mechanisms linked to controls over cell-cycle transitions, including entry into mitosis. Central to this mitotic control system in fission yeast is the ubiquitous cyclin-dependent kinase Cdk1, which drives entry into mitosis by phosphorylating a wide range of targets, and its inhibitor Wee1, which phosphorylates and inhibits Cdk1 to prevent precocious entry into mitosis (Jorgensen and Tyers, 2004; Rupes, 2002). Fission yeast cells are cylindrical and grow in a polarized manner at their tips while maintaining a constant cell width, and this regular cell shape suggests that size-monitoring mechanisms could also involve cell geometry. Mutations in the Cdk1 control system suggest that cells must reach a defined length to trigger mitotic entry, but the mechanisms that link this size with Cdk1 activation are unclear. Recent studies have identified a two-part system that may link cell geometry with Cdk1 regulation (Figure 1) (Martin and Berthelot-Grosjean, 2009; Moseley et al., 2009). First, a set of cortical nodes in the middle of interphase cells contains Wee1 and multiple inhibitors of Wee1, including the Wee1- inhibitory kinase Cdr2. Genetic evidence supports the notion that these nodes promote mitotic entry through negative regulation of Wee1. Second, the protein kinase Pom1 forms a polarized gradient that is enriched at cell ends and inhibits mitotic entry by negatively regulating the cortical nodes. Due to the shape of this gradient, Pom1 overlaps with the cortical nodes in small cells but not in large cells and thus appears to inhibit mitotic entry until cells reach a critical size. Pom1 also participates in additional mechanisms linking cell geometry and cell division in fission yeast by promoting assembly of the cytokinetic ring in the cell middle (Celton-Morizur et al., 2006; Padte et al., 2006) and then blocking cytokinesis at cell ends (Huang et al., 2007), a process with intriguing similarities to regulation of the Z-ring in bacteria. This tip occlusion of cytokinesis becomes particularly important in small cells, where cell ends are closer together. These examples indicate that multiple steps in the fission yeast cell division process incorporate signals related to cell geometry. This fission yeast system suggests a mechanism that senses cell geometry and may contain design principles related to the bacterial examples. Approaches 190 Cell 142, July 23, 2010 2010 Elsevier Inc.

that elucidated the geometry-sensing mechanisms in bacteria are likely to provide a framework for answering the open questions in this eukaryotic system. For example, what aspect of size is measured by the gradient-node system? As in bacteria, experiments that examine the organization and activity of the system upon changes to cell geometry will indicate whether this mechanism reflects geometry or some other proxy related to cell size. Do the central players selforganize like the MinCDE system in E. coli, or are self-assembling anchors and adaptor proteins involved similar to the B. subtilis and C. crescentus systems? Establishment of the Pom1 gradient requires microtubules (Bahler and Pringle, 1998), which self-organize into an array in fission yeast cells (Carazo-Salas and Nurse, 2006; Daga et al., 2006), hinting at self-organization in this system. The self-organizing principle of the MinCDE system became clear through computational models that followed from the identification and characterization of the primary components. Similar models are likely to generate new experimental approaches for understanding the fission yeast system and may suggest how the geometry of cell ends versus the cell middle can organize this gradient-node mechanism. It is possible that the ends of fission yeast cells provide an environment or curvature to organize filament anchors, as shown by the ability of the B. subtilis filament anchor DivIVA to localize at cell ends when ectopically expressed in fission yeast (Edwards et al., 2000). This possibility suggests that geometric shapes may generate a universal signal in widely divergent organisms. Several general themes emerge from a comparison of these prokaryotic and eukaryotic geometry-sensing mechanisms. In all cases, polar inhibition is established by molecules at the cell poles that inhibit cell division and can act as sensors of cell geometry. Components that may contribute to these polar cues include self-assembling anchors, cell curvature, and the organization of phospholipids and sterols. The molecular details of these cues and their signaling pathways may vary between cell types and organisms, but the presence of conserved design principles supports the importance of studying the organization and emergent properties of these model systems. Spatial gradients also appear in each system, with the potential for adaptable control of downstream decisions. It will be important to understand how thresholds are set for these gradient-based signals, in particular for controlling mitotic entry in eukaryotic cells. Changes in these gradients and their signaling targets may also contribute to how cells respond to changes in growth conditions or nutrients, which often affect cell division (Jorgensen and Tyers, 2004). Ultimately, a systems-level understanding of how cell geometry directs cell division events will emerge from combining genetic, cell biological, biochemical, and computational approaches. Such progress has been successful in bacterial systems such as MinCDE and represents a key future goal for systems in eukaryotic cells such as fission yeast. Linking the Decision to Divide with the Mechanism of Mitosis The described geometry sensors act to trigger events at cell division, when chromosomal DNA must be segregated to opposite cell poles. This segregation relies on cell size and shape, as the mitotic spindle must be oriented to position chromosomes within the defined geometry of the cell. This raises the possibility that geometry sensors might serve the role of delaying cell division until cells have reached an appropriate size and shape to promote proper spindle orientation and elongation. In support of this idea, functional links between cell geometry and the DNA segregation machinery have been described in cell types that display geometry-sensing mechanisms. In fission yeast, cell geometry directs spindle orientation in two ways. During early mitosis, the initial orientation of short spindles follows the alignment of interphase microtubules, which selforganize according to cell geometry along the long axis of these cylindrical cells. At anaphase B, elongating spindles then orient according to cell geometry the physical constraints of a cylindrical cell align the spindle along the long axis to facilitate segregation of the chromosomes to opposite poles (Daga and Nurse, 2008; Vogel et al., 2007). As such, changes in cell shape leave cells vulnerable to segregation defects leading to polyploidy. The intriguing connection here is that cells might delay mitotic entry until reaching a specific geometry, which then ensures proper segregation of the genome. A similar connection appears to operate in bacterial cells, where the chromosomes occupy such a large proportion of the cell volume that their segregation inevitably follows the long axis of the cell. This chromosome positioning is exploited by the nucleoid occlusion system to reinforce spatial control of cytokinesis by the Min systems (Bernhardt and de Boer, 2005; Wu and Errington, 2004; Wu et al., 2009). Moreover, additional work has demonstrated the ability of bacterial spindles that segregate plasmid DNA and contain the actin-like protein ParM to follow geometric cues both in vitro and in vivo (Campbell and Mullins, 2007; Garner et al., 2007). Thus, in both fission yeast and bacterial cells, the controls over cell division are linked with mechanisms of spindle orientation and behavior through cell geometry. These examples support the possibility of geometry-sensing mechanisms that control the timing of cell division to ensure proper segregation of the genome. But what about cell types that control division according to different signals? For example, budding yeast cells initiate mitosis through a Wee1 signaling pathway that shares many components with fission yeast, but this budding yeast pathway is not known to use a gradient-based signal and does not appear to monitor geometry. Rather, the budding yeast pathway is proposed to survey the integrity of the bud neck and proper organization of the actin cytoskeleton (Keaton and Lew, 2006). This difference becomes interesting when one considers the different mechanisms that determine spindle orientation and positioning in these two cell types. Unlike geometry-based positioning of the fission yeast spindle, the budding yeast spindle is pulled from the mother cell into the bud neck along polarized actin cables, which emanate from the daughter cell (Siller and Doe, 2009). This means that spindle positioning in budding yeast cells requires proper organization of the bud neck and the actin cytoskeleton Cell 142, July 23, 2010 2010 Elsevier Inc. 191

the two factors that appear to control cell division timing through Wee1 and Cdk1. This raises the possibility that, in some cell types, checkpoints regulating mitotic entry could be tailored to the mechanisms that control events during cell division. How might these lessons from yeast and bacterial cells relate to animal cells and other multicellular organisms? In such cells, signals controlling progression through the cell cycle are likely to come from both intrinsic (e.g., cell geometry) and extrinsic (e.g., contact inhibition) sources. This contrasts with single-celled organisms such as bacteria and yeast, which act more often through intrinsic, or cell-autonomous, signals with some modulation by environmental cues such as nutritional availability. Cell geometry appears to play at least some role in controlling the cell cycle in animal cells, in part through signaling pathways that respond to cortical tension generated by both cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions (Chen et al., 1997). The complexity of distinguishing between intrinsic versus extrinsic cues may have contributed to the long-standing debates over the existence of size control in animal cells. Recent work supports the existence of such size control with implications for signals controlling cell division (Tzur et al., 2009), although it remains to be seen how widespread this effect may be for different cell types and organisms. Despite these complications, several lines of evidence suggest that controls over the cell cycle and DNA segregation may be linked in at least some animal cell types. One means of focusing on intrinsic signals in animal cells is to examine the first division in a newly fertilized embryo. Such work in the worm Caenorhabditis elegans has identified polarity proteins that control both mitotic entry and spindle orientation (Rivers et al., 2008). In many cell types, including C. elegans embryos, the mitotic spindle is oriented and positioned by interactions between astral microtubules and the cell cortex. In C. elegans, PAR proteins in the cell cortex position the spindle and also control two central regulators of mitotic entry Cdc25 and Polo kinase. Thus, in animal cells, the control system that decides when to enter mitosis and the control system that orients the mitotic spindle can be linked. As in single-celled organisms, this connection relies on cortical cell polarity proteins, and such polarized pulling forces at the cell cortex can align the mitotic spindle to direct asymmetric divisions. These asymmetric cell divisions can drive cell fate decisions, implicating these connections in cell differentiation and stem cell renewal (Siller and Doe, 2009). The common link between the mitotic entry control system and spindle orientation appears to be cortical polarity factors, which also facilitate mitotic entry in human cells. Indeed, a growing number of focal adhesion proteins, which contribute to the orientation of cell division by organizing actin stress fibers (Thery et al., 2005), have been linked to mitotic entry through the Aurora-A kinase (Hirota et al., 2000, 2003; Pugacheva and Golemis, 2005; Zhao et al., 2005). These examples suggest a conserved ability of cortical polarity factors to link cell geometry with mitotic entry and spindle orientation. This may allow the cell to delay entry into mitosis until proper assembly of these polarized cues for spindle orientation and chromosome segregation. Conclusions We have described a range of mechanisms that monitor cell geometry and link these measurements to mitosis and cell division in different cell types and organisms. This type of cell size control checkpoint differs from others that have been proposed to monitor some surrogate of cell size, such as biosynthetic capacity or protein mass (Jorgensen and Tyers, 2004). These types of size control operate at the beginning of the cell cycle, and so this difference may reflect differing requirements for starting a cell cycle versus triggering the end of the cell cycle at cell division. To start a cell cycle, size checkpoints may need to ensure that sufficient resources are available to power through the long haul of a full cell cycle, which includes a range of energyconsuming tasks and cellular growth. At division, different checkpoints may need also to ensure that both the cellular geometry and cortical protein machinery needed for successful mitosis and cytokinesis have been assembled. It is important to note that such geometry sensing is likely to be part of a larger size control system that may include a range of additional input signals. Identification of the input signals that trigger mitotic entry in different cell types or act redundantly within the same cell type may help to illuminate how broadly geometrysensing mechanisms are used. In multicellular organisms, these intrinsic signals are likely to be additionally coordinated with a range of extrinsic cues related to the extracellular environment. We have suggested that geometrysensing mechanisms may be linked to the role of cell geometry in directing chromosome segregation in certain cell types. As such, factors that are critical for proper chromosome segregation may contribute to cell-cycle controls during division, in particular entry into mitosis. For cell types that control mitotic spindle orientation by factors other than cell geometry (e.g., cortical anchors that interact with astral microtubules), some element of the G2/M transition may require proper assembly and spatial distribution of these factors. A common theme in different cell types appears to be cortical cell polarity factors that contribute to both mitotic entry and spindle behavior, whether indirectly through control of cell geometry or directly through physical links with the spindle. These links between cell polarity, cell-cycle transitions, and cell division suggest significant coordination of these processes. We have focused on how geometrysensing mechanisms influence cell division in single-celled organisms, but a key challenge for the field will be to determine how these mechanisms relate to multicellular organisms such as animal cells embedded within tissues and organs. Unlike the regular cylindrical shape of bacterial and fission yeast cells, animal cell geometry is often irregular and constrained by interactions with neighboring cells. The geometry of such cells may require complex mechanisms to link cell size and shape to mitotic entry, with additional factors such as stress, tension, and nutritional signals likely to play significant roles. Studies both in cell culture and within tissues have begun to unravel the relative contributions of these factors in controlling entry into mitosis. In addition, cell geometry has been shown to 192 Cell 142, July 23, 2010 2010 Elsevier Inc.

direct spindle orientation in different animal systems (Gray et al., 2004; O Connell and Wang, 2000; Strauss et al., 2006; Tsou et al., 2003), likely through physical interactions between astral microtubules and cortical polarity proteins. Work from single-celled systems suggests that molecules critical to geometry sensing in animal cells may also be linked to the mechanisms that control spindle orientation and mitotic fidelity. Identifying and characterizing these molecules that bridge the mitotic entry and spindle orientation control systems will illuminate how cells coordinate events at division, even within the complicated context of a multicellular tissue. In making these links, it will be important to be aware of orthologs from yeast systems; for example, the Pom1-related kinase MBK-2 has been linked to cell-cycle transitions, spindle orientation, and developmental transitions (Cheng et al., 2009; Maruyama et al., 2007; Pang et al., 2004; Stitzel et al., 2007). Due to the range of inputs that contribute to mitotic entry signals in both single-cell and multicellular organisms, we anticipate that computational modeling will play an important role in understanding the complex coordination of events in this process. Work on model systems has provided a framework for identifying and characterizing the mechanisms of this coordination, and further insights can be expected to follow in bacterial and yeast models as well as in metazoan cells. Acknowledgments We thank members of the Nurse laboratory for discussions and Jeff Errington and the reviewers for comments on the manuscript. J.B.M. was supported by a postdoctoral research fellowship from the American Cancer Society (PF-07-129-01- MBC); P.N. by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and The Rockefeller University. References Bahler, J., and Pringle, J.R. (1998). Genes Dev. 12, 1356 1370. Bernhardt, T.G., and de Boer, P.A. (2005). Mol. Cell 18, 555 564. Bowman, G.R., Comolli, L.R., Zhu, J., Eckart, M., Koenig, M., Downing, K.H., Moerner, W.E., Earnest, T., and Shapiro, L. (2008). Cell 134, 945 955. Bramkamp, M., Emmins, R., Weston, L., Donovan, C., Daniel, R.A., and Errington, J. (2008). Mol. Microbiol. 70, 1556 1569. Campbell, C.S., and Mullins, R.D. (2007). J. Cell Biol. 179, 1059 1066. Carazo-Salas, R.E., and Nurse, P. (2006). Nat. Cell Biol. 8, 1102 1107. Celton-Morizur, S., Racine, V., Sibarita, J.B., and Paoletti, A. (2006). J. Cell Sci. 119, 4710 4718. Chen, C.S., Mrksich, M., Huang, S., Whitesides, G.M., and Ingber, D.E. (1997). Science 276, 1425 1428. Cheng, K.C., Klancer, R., Singson, A., and Seydoux, G. (2009). Cell 139, 560 572. Corbin, B.D., Yu, X.C., and Margolin, W. (2002). EMBO J. 21, 1998 2008. Daga, R.R., Lee, K.G., Bratman, S., Salas-Pino, S., and Chang, F. (2006). Nat. Cell Biol. 8, 1108 1113. Daga, R.R., and Nurse, P. (2008). J. Cell Sci. 121, 1973 1980. Ebersbach, G., Briegel, A., Jensen, G.J., and Jacobs-Wagner, C. (2008). Cell 134, 956 968. Edwards, D.H., Thomaides, H.B., and Errington, J. (2000). EMBO J. 19, 2719 2727. Garner, E.C., Campbell, C.S., Weibel, D.B., and Mullins, R.D. (2007). Science 315, 1270 1274. Gray, D., Plusa, B., Piotrowska, K., Na, J., Tom, B., Glover, D.M., and Zernicka-Goetz, M. (2004). Curr. Biol. 14, 397 405. Gregory, J.A., Becker, E.C., and Pogliano, K. (2008). Genes Dev. 22, 3475 3488. Hirota, T., Morisaki, T., Nishiyama, Y., Marumoto, T., Tada, K., Hara, T., Masuko, N., Inagaki, M., Hatakeyama, K., and Saya, H. (2000). J. Cell Biol. 149, 1073 1086. Hirota, T., Kunitoku, N., Sasayama, T., Marumoto, T., Zhang, D., Nitta, M., Hatakeyama, K., and Saya, H. (2003). Cell 114, 585 598. Huang, Y., Chew, T.G., Ge, W., and Balasubramanian, M.K. (2007). Dev. Cell 12, 987 996. Jorgensen, P., and Tyers, M. (2004). Curr. Biol. 14, R1014 R1027. Keaton, M.A., and Lew, D.J. (2006). Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 9, 540 546. Kruse, K., Howard, M., and Margolin, W. (2007). Mol. Microbiol. 63, 1279 1284. Lenarcic, R., Halbedel, S., Visser, L., Shaw, M., Wu, L.J., Errington, J., Marenduzzo, D., and Hamoen, L.W. (2009). EMBO J. 28, 2272 2282. Lutkenhaus, J. (2007). Annu. Rev. Biochem. 76, 539 562. Lutkenhaus, J. (2008). Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 641, 49 61. Marston, A.L., Thomaides, H.B., Edwards, D.H., Sharpe, M.E., and Errington, J. (1998). Genes Dev. 12, 3419 3430. Martin, S.G., and Berthelot-Grosjean, M. (2009). Nature 459, 852 856. Maruyama, R., Velarde, N.V., Klancer, R., Gordon, S., Kadandale, P., Parry, J.M., Hang, J.S., Rubin, J., Stewart-Michaelis, A., Schweinsberg, P., et al. (2007). Curr. Biol. 17, 1555 1560. Moseley, J.B., Mayeux, A., Paoletti, A., and Nurse, P. (2009). Nature 459, 857 860. O Connell, C.B., and Wang, Y.L. (2000). Mol. Biol. Cell 11, 1765 1774. Padte, N.N., Martin, S.G., Howard, M., and Chang, F. (2006). Curr. Biol. 16, 2480 2487. Pang, K.M., Ishidate, T., Nakamura, K., Shirayama, M., Trzepacz, C., Schubert, C.M., Priess, J.R., and Mello, C.C. (2004). Dev. Biol. 265, 127 139. Patrick, J.E., and Kearns, D.B. (2008). Mol. Microbiol. 70, 1166 1179. Pugacheva, E.N., and Golemis, E.A. (2005). Nat. Cell Biol. 7, 937 946. Ramamurthi, K.S., and Losick, R. (2009). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 13541 13545. Ramamurthi, K.S., Lecuyer, S., Stone, H.A., and Losick, R. (2009). Science 323, 1354 1357. Raskin, D.M., and de Boer, P.A. (1997). Cell 91, 685 694. Rivers, D.M., Moreno, S., Abraham, M., and Ahringer, J. (2008). J. Cell Biol. 180, 877 885. Rupes, I. (2002). Trends Genet. 18, 479 485. Siller, K.H., and Doe, C.Q. (2009). Nat. Cell Biol. 11, 365 374. Stahlberg, H., Kutejova, E., Muchova, K., Gregorini, M., Lustig, A., Muller, S.A., Olivieri, V., Engel, A., Wilkinson, A.J., and Barak, I. (2004). Mol. Microbiol. 52, 1281 1290. Stitzel, M.L., Cheng, K.C., and Seydoux, G. (2007). Curr. Biol. 17, 1545 1554. Strauss, B., Adams, R.J., and Papalopulu, N. (2006). Development 133, 3883 3893. Thanbichler, M., and Shapiro, L. (2006). Cell 126, 147 162. Thery, M., Racine, V., Pepin, A., Piel, M., Chen, Y., Sibarita, J.B., and Bornens, M. (2005). Nat. Cell Biol. 7, 947 953. Tsou, M.F., Ku, W., Hayashi, A., and Rose, L.S. (2003). J. Cell Biol. 160, 845 855. Tzur, A., Kafri, R., LeBleu, V.S., Lahav, G., and Kirschner, M.W. (2009). Science 325, 167 171. Vogel, S.K., Raabe, I., Dereli, A., Maghelli, N., and Tolic-Norrelykke, I. (2007). Curr. Biol. 17, 438 444. Wu, L.J., and Errington, J. (2004). Cell 117, 915 925. Wu, L.J., Ishikawa, S., Kawai, Y., Oshima, T., Ogasawara, N., and Errington, J. (2009). EMBO J. 28, 1940 1952. Zhao, Z.S., Lim, J.P., Ng, Y.W., Lim, L., and Manser, E. (2005). Mol. Cell 20, 237 249. Cell 142, July 23, 2010 2010 Elsevier Inc. 193