Search

A key feature of chromosome segregation is the ability to sense tension between sister kinetochores. DNA between sister kinetochores must be packaged in a way that sustains tension propagation from one kinetochore to its sister, approximately 1 micron away. A molecular bottlebrush consisting of a primary axis populated with a crowded array of side chains provides a means to build tension over length scales considerably larger than the stiffness of the individual elements, that is, DNA polymer. Evidence for the bottlebrush organization of chromatin between sister kinetochores comes from genetic, cell biological, and polymer modeling of the budding yeast centromere. In this study, we have used polymer dynamic simulations of the bottlebrush to recapitulate experimental observations of kinetochore structure. Several aspects of the spatial distribution of kinetochore proteins and their response to perturbation lack a mechanistic understanding. Changes in physical parameters of bottlebrush, DNA stiffness, and DNA loops directly impact the architecture of the inner kinetochore. This study reveals that the bottlebrush is an active participant in building tension between sister kinetochores and proposes a mechanism for chromatin feedback to the kinetochore.

SMC (structural maintenance of chromosomes) complexes condensin and cohesin are crucial for proper chromosome organization. Condensin has been reported to be a mechanochemical motor capable of forming chromatin loops, while cohesin passively diffuses along chromatin to tether sister chromatids. In budding yeast, the pericentric region is enriched in both condensin and cohesin. As in higher-eukaryotic chromosomes, condensin is localized to the axial chromatin of the pericentric region, while cohesin is enriched in the radial chromatin. Thus, the pericentric region serves as an ideal model for deducing the role of SMC complexes in chromosome organization. We find condensin-mediated chromatin loops establish a robust chromatin organization, while cohesin limits the area that chromatin loops can explore. Upon biorientation, extensional force from the mitotic spindle aggregates condensin-bound chromatin from its equilibrium position to the axial core of pericentric chromatin, resulting in amplified axial tension. The axial localization of condensin depends on condensin’s ability to bind to chromatin to form loops, while the radial localization of cohesin depends on cohesin’s ability to diffuse along chromatin. The different chromatin-tethering modalities of condensin and cohesin result in their geometric partitioning in the presence of an extensional force on chromatin.

Faithful chromosome segregation maintains chromosomal stability as errors in this process contribute to chromosomal instability (CIN), which has been observed in many diseases including cancer. Epigenetic regulation of kinetochore proteins such as Cse4 (CENP-A in humans) plays a critical role in high-fidelity chromosome segregation. Here we show that Cse4 is a substrate of evolutionarily conserved Cdc7 kinase, and that Cdc7-mediated phosphorylation of Cse4 prevents CIN. We determined that Cdc7 phosphorylates Cse4 in vitro and interacts with Cse4 in vivo in a cell cycle-dependent manner. Cdc7 is required for kinetochore integrity as reduced levels of CEN-associated Cse4, a faster exchange of Cse4 at the metaphase kinetochores, and defects in chromosome segregation, are observed in a cdc7-7 strain. Phosphorylation of Cse4 by Cdc7 is important for cell survival as constitutive association of a kinase-dead variant of Cdc7 (cdc7-kd) with Cse4 at the kinetochore leads to growth defects. Moreover, phospho-deficient mutations of Cse4 for consensus Cdc7 target sites contribute to CIN phenotype. In summary, our results have defined a role for Cdc7-mediated phosphorylation of Cse4 in faithful chromosome segregation.

A new posttranslational modification is found of centromeric histone H3 variant Cse4. Cse4 is sumoylated by E3 ligases Siz1 and Siz2 and ubiquitinated by Slx5, a Sumo-targeted ubiquitin ligase. Slx5 regulates ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis of Cse4 and prevents it from being mislocalized under normal physiological conditions., Centromeric histone H3, CENP-ACse4, is essential for faithful chromosome segregation. Stringent regulation of cellular levels of CENP-ACse4 restricts its localization to centromeres. Mislocalization of CENP-ACse4 is associated with aneuploidy in yeast and flies and tumorigenesis in human cells; thus defining pathways that regulate CENP-A levels is critical for understanding how mislocalization of CENP-A contributes to aneuploidy in human cancers. Previous work in budding yeast shows that ubiquitination of overexpressed Cse4 by Psh1, an E3 ligase, partially contributes to proteolysis of Cse4. Here we provide the first evidence that Cse4 is sumoylated by E3 ligases Siz1 and Siz2 in vivo and in vitro. Ubiquitination of Cse4 by the small ubiquitin-related modifier (SUMO)-targeted ubiquitin ligase (STUbL) Slx5 plays a critical role in proteolysis of Cse4 and prevents mislocalization of Cse4 to euchromatin under normal physiological conditions. Accumulation of sumoylated Cse4 species and increased stability of Cse4 in slx5∆ strains suggest that sumoylation precedes ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis of Cse4. Slx5-mediated Cse4 proteolysis is independent of Psh1, since slx5∆ psh1∆ strains exhibit higher levels of Cse4 stability and mislocalization than either slx5∆ or psh1∆ strains. Our results demonstrate a role for Slx5 in ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis of Cse4 to prevent its mislocalization and maintain genome stability.

A novel chromosome simulator recapitulates the position and dynamics of centromeric chromatin in a model composed of cross-linked intramolecular loops. Simulations reveal that chromatin loops stiffen the centromere and dictate the distribution of pericentric cohesin., ChromoShake is a three-dimensional simulator designed to find the thermodynamically favored states for given chromosome geometries. The simulator has been applied to a geometric model based on experimentally determined positions and fluctuations of DNA and the distribution of cohesin and condensin in the budding yeast centromere. Simulations of chromatin in differing initial configurations reveal novel principles for understanding the structure and function of a eukaryotic centromere. The entropic position of DNA loops mirrors their experimental position, consistent with their radial displacement from the spindle axis. The barrel-like distribution of cohesin complexes surrounding the central spindle in metaphase is a consequence of the size of the DNA loops within the pericentromere to which cohesin is bound. Linkage between DNA loops of different centromeres is requisite to recapitulate experimentally determined correlations in DNA motion. The consequences of radial loops and cohesin and condensin binding are to stiffen the DNA along the spindle axis, imparting an active function to the centromere in mitosis.

A novel Pat1-dependent mechanism is identified for the protection of kinetochore-associated Cse4 from ubiquitination in order to ensure faithful chromosome segregation and genomic stability., Evolutionarily conserved histone H3 variant Cse4 and its homologues are essential components of specialized centromere (CEN)-specific nucleosomes and serve as an epigenetic mark for CEN identity and propagation. Cse4 is a critical determinant for the structure and function of the kinetochore and is required to ensure faithful chromosome segregation. The kinetochore protein Pat1 regulates the levels and spatial distribution of Cse4 at centromeres. Deletion of PAT1 results in altered structure of CEN chromatin and chromosome segregation errors. In this study, we show that Pat1 protects CEN-associated Cse4 from ubiquitination in order to maintain proper structure and function of the kinetochore in budding yeast. PAT1-deletion strains exhibit increased ubiquitination of Cse4 and faster turnover of Cse4 at kinetochores. Psh1, a Cse4-specific E3-ubiquitin ligase, interacts with Pat1 in vivo and contributes to the increased ubiquitination of Cse4 in pat1∆ strains. Consistent with a role of Psh1 in ubiquitination of Cse4, transient induction of PSH1 in a wild-type strain resulted in phenotypes similar to a pat1∆ strain, including a reduction in CEN-associated Cse4, increased Cse4 ubiquitination, defects in spatial distribution of Cse4 at kinetochores, and altered structure of CEN chromatin. Pat1 interacts with Scm3 and is required for its maintenance at kinetochores. In conclusion, our studies provide novel insights into mechanisms by which Pat1 affects the structure of CEN chromatin and protects Cse4 from Psh1-mediated ubiquitination for faithful chromosome segregation.

The yeast microtubule polymerase Stu2’s C-terminal domain is a 15-nm parallel, homodimeric coiled coil with two spatially distinct conserved regions. Determinants in these conserved regions optimally position Stu2 on the mitotic spindle to drive proper spindle structure and dynamics., XMAP215/Dis1 family proteins are potent microtubule polymerases, critical for mitotic spindle structure and dynamics. While microtubule polymerase activity is driven by an N-terminal tumor overexpressed gene (TOG) domain array, proper cellular localization is a requisite for full activity and is mediated by a C-terminal domain. Structural insight into the C-terminal domain’s architecture and localization mechanism remain outstanding. We present the crystal structure of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Stu2 C-terminal domain, revealing a 15-nm parallel homodimeric coiled coil. The parallel architecture of the coiled coil has mechanistic implications for the arrangement of the homodimer’s N-terminal TOG domains during microtubule polymerization. The coiled coil has two spatially distinct conserved regions: CRI and CRII. Mutations in CRI and CRII perturb the distribution and localization of Stu2 along the mitotic spindle and yield defects in spindle morphology including increased frequencies of mispositioned and fragmented spindles. Collectively, these data highlight roles for the Stu2 dimerization domain as a scaffold for factor binding that optimally positions Stu2 on the mitotic spindle to promote proper spindle structure and dynamics.

The mitotic chromatin spring is organized into a rosette of intramolecular loops of pericentric chromatin by condensin and cohesin. Model convolution reveals that condensin clusters along the spindle axis, while cohesin is dispersed radially along pericentromere loops., In mitosis, the pericentromere is organized into a spring composed of cohesin, condensin, and a rosette of intramolecular chromatin loops. Cohesin and condensin are enriched in the pericentromere, with spatially distinct patterns of localization. Using model convolution of computer simulations, we deduce the mechanistic consequences of their spatial segregation. Condensin lies proximal to the spindle axis, whereas cohesin is radially displaced from condensin and the interpolar microtubules. The histone deacetylase Sir2 is responsible for the axial position of condensin, while the radial displacement of chromatin loops dictates the position of cohesin. The heterogeneity in distribution of condensin is most accurately modeled by clusters along the spindle axis. In contrast, cohesin is evenly distributed (barrel of 500-nm width × 550-nm length). Models of cohesin gradients that decay from the centromere or sister cohesin axis, as previously suggested, do not match experimental images. The fine structures of cohesin and condensin deduced with subpixel localization accuracy reveal critical features of how these complexes mold pericentric chromatin into a functional spring.

Cdc5 associates with centromeric chromatin during mitosis. Cdc5 plays a critical role in the differential removal of cohesin from centromeric chromatin compared to chromosome arms., Sister chromatid cohesion is essential for tension-sensing mechanisms that monitor bipolar attachment of replicated chromatids in metaphase. Cohesion is mediated by the association of cohesins along the length of sister chromatid arms. In contrast, centromeric cohesin generates intrastrand cohesion and sister centromeres, while highly cohesin enriched, are separated by >800 nm at metaphase in yeast. Removal of cohesin is necessary for sister chromatid separation during anaphase, and this is regulated by evolutionarily conserved polo-like kinase (Cdc5 in yeast, Plk1 in humans). Here we address how high levels of cohesins at centromeric chromatin are removed. Cdc5 associates with centromeric chromatin and cohesin-associated regions. Maximum enrichment of Cdc5 in centromeric chromatin occurs during the metaphase-to-anaphase transition and coincides with the removal of chromosome-associated cohesin. Cdc5 interacts with cohesin in vivo, and cohesin is required for association of Cdc5 at centromeric chromatin. Cohesin removal from centromeric chromatin requires Cdc5 but removal at distal chromosomal arm sites does not. Our results define a novel role for Cdc5 in regulating removal of centromeric cohesins and faithful chromosome segregation.

Dynamics of histones under tension in the pericentromere depends on RSC and ISW2 chromatin remodeling. The underlying pericentromeric chromatin forms a platform that is required to maintain kinetochore structure when under spindle-based tension., Nucleosome positioning is important for the structural integrity of chromosomes. During metaphase the mitotic spindle exerts physical force on pericentromeric chromatin. The cell must adjust the pericentromeric chromatin to accommodate the changing tension resulting from microtubule dynamics to maintain a stable metaphase spindle. Here we examine the effects of spindle-based tension on nucleosome dynamics by measuring the histone turnover of the chromosome arm and the pericentromere during metaphase in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We find that both histones H2B and H4 exhibit greater turnover in the pericentromere during metaphase. Loss of spindle-based tension by treatment with the microtubule-depolymerizing drug nocodazole or compromising kinetochore function results in reduced histone turnover in the pericentromere. Pericentromeric histone dynamics are influenced by the chromatin-remodeling activities of STH1/NPS1 and ISW2. Sth1p is the ATPase component of the Remodels the Structure of Chromatin (RSC) complex, and Isw2p is an ATP-dependent DNA translocase member of the Imitation Switch (ISWI) subfamily of chromatin-remodeling factors. The balance between displacement and insertion of pericentromeric histones provides a mechanism to accommodate spindle-based tension while maintaining proper chromatin packaging during mitosis.

The kinetochore is a complex protein–DNA assembly that provides the mechanical linkage between microtubules and the centromere DNA of each chromosome. Centromere DNA in all eukaryotes is wrapped around a unique nucleosome that contains the histone H3 variant CENP-A (Cse4p in Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Here, we report that the inner kinetochore complex (CBF3) is required for pericentric DNA looping at the Cse4p-containing nucleosome. DNA within the pericentric loop occupies a spatially confined area that is radially displaced from the interpolar central spindle. Microtubule-binding kinetochore complexes are not involved in pericentric DNA looping but are required for the geometric organization of DNA loops around the spindle microtubules in metaphase. Thus, the mitotic segregation apparatus is a composite structure composed of kinetochore and interpolar microtubules, the kinetochore, and organized pericentric DNA loops. The linkage of microtubule-binding to centromere DNA-looping complexes positions the pericentric chromatin loops and stabilizes the dynamic properties of individual kinetochore complexes in mitosis.

The first centromere was isolated 35 years ago by Louise Clarke and John Carbon from budding yeast. They embarked on their journey with rudimentary molecular tools (by today's standards) and little knowledge of the structure of a chromosome, much less the nature of a centromere. Their discovery opened up a new field, as centromeres have now been isolated from fungi and numerous plants and animals, including mammals. Budding yeast and several other fungi have small centromeres with short, well-defined sequences, known as point centromeres, whereas regional centromeres span several kilobases up to megabases and do not seem to have DNA sequence specificity. Centromeres are at the heart of artificial chromosomes, and we have seen the birth of synthetic centromeres in budding and fission yeast and mammals. The diversity in centromeres throughout phylogeny belie conserved functions that are only beginning to be understood.

A computational model for the budding yeast mitotic spindle predicts a spatial gradient in tubulin turnover that is produced by kinetochore-attached microtubule (kMT) plus-end polymerization and depolymerization dynamics. However, kMTs in yeast are often much shorter than the resolution limit of the light microscope, making visualization of this gradient difficult. To overcome this limitation, we combined digital imaging of fluorescence redistribution after photobleaching (FRAP) with model convolution methods to compare computer simulations at nanometer scale resolution to microscopic data. We measured a gradient in microtubule dynamics in yeast spindles at approximately 65-nm spatial intervals. Tubulin turnover is greatest near kinetochores and lowest near the spindle poles. A beta-tubulin mutant with decreased plus-end dynamics preserves the spatial gradient in tubulin turnover at a slower time scale, increases average kinetochore microtubule length approximately 14%, and decreases tension at kinetochores. The beta-tubulin mutant cells have an increased frequency of chromosome loss, suggesting that the accuracy of chromosome segregation is linked to robust kMT plus-end dynamics.

During metaphase in budding yeast mitosis, sister kinetochores are tethered to opposite poles and separated, stretching their intervening chromatin, by singly attached kinetochore microtubules (kMTs). Kinetochore movements are coupled to single microtubule plus-end polymerization/depolymerization at kinetochore attachment sites. Here, we use computer modeling to test possible mechanisms controlling chromosome alignment during yeast metaphase by simulating experiments that determine the 1) mean positions of kinetochore Cse4-GFP, 2) extent of oscillation of kinetochores during metaphase as measured by fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) of kinetochore Cse4-GFP, 3) dynamics of kMTs as measured by FRAP of GFP-tubulin, and 4) mean positions of unreplicated chromosome kinetochores that lack pulling forces from a sister kinetochore. We rule out a number of possible models and find the best fit between theory and experiment when it is assumed that kinetochores sense both a spatial gradient that suppresses kMT catastrophe near the poles and attachment site tension that promotes kMT rescue at higher amounts of chromatin stretch.

Microtubule dynamics are influenced by interactions of microtubules with cellular factors and by changes in the primary sequence of the tubulin molecule. Mutations of yeast β-tubulin C354, which is located near the binding site of some antimitotic compounds, reduce microtubule dynamicity greater than 90% in vivo and in vitro. The resulting intrinsically stable microtubules allowed us to determine which, if any, cellular processes are dependent on dynamic microtubules. The average number of cytoplasmic microtubules decreased from 3 in wild-type to 1 in mutant cells. The single microtubule effectively located the bud site before bud emergence. Although spindles were positioned near the bud neck at the onset of anaphase, the mutant cells were deficient in preanaphase spindle alignment along the mother-bud axis. Spindle microtubule dynamics and spindle elongation rates were also severely depressed in the mutants. The pattern and extent of cytoplasmic microtubule dynamics modulation through the cell cycle may reveal the minimum dynamic properties required to support growth. The ability to alter intrinsic microtubule dynamics and determine the in vivo phenotype of cells expressing the mutant tubulin provides a critical advance in assessing the dynamic requirements of an essential gene function.

The Sec14-like phosphatidylinositol transfer protein Sfh3 associates with bulk LDs in vegetative cells but targets to a neutral lipid hydrolase-rich LD pool during sporulation. Sfh3 inhibits LD utilization by a PtdIns-4-phosphate–dependent mechanism, and this inhibition prevents prospore membrane biogenesis in sporulating cells., Lipid droplet (LD) utilization is an important cellular activity that regulates energy balance and release of lipid second messengers. Because fatty acids exhibit both beneficial and toxic properties, their release from LDs must be controlled. Here we demonstrate that yeast Sfh3, an unusual Sec14-like phosphatidylinositol transfer protein, is an LD-associated protein that inhibits lipid mobilization from these particles. We further document a complex biochemical diversification of LDs during sporulation in which Sfh3 and select other LD proteins redistribute into discrete LD subpopulations. The data show that Sfh3 modulates the efficiency with which a neutral lipid hydrolase-rich LD subclass is consumed during biogenesis of specialized membrane envelopes that package replicated haploid meiotic genomes. These results present novel insights into the interface between phosphoinositide signaling and developmental regulation of LD metabolism and unveil meiosis-specific aspects of Sfh3 (and phosphoinositide) biology that are invisible to contemporary haploid-centric cell biological, proteomic, and functional genomics approaches.

Novel green fluorescent protein (GFP) labeling techniques targeting specific mRNA transcripts reveal discrete phases of mRNA localization in yeast: packaging, transport, and docking. In budding yeast,ASH1 mRNA is translocated via actin and myosin to the tip of growing cells. A GFP-decorated reporter transcript containing the ASH1 3′ untranslated region gRNAASH1forms spots of fluorescence localized to a cortical domain at the bud tip, relocates to the mother-bud neck before cell separation, and finally migrates to the incipient bud site before the next budding cycle. The correct positioning of the mRNA requires at least six proteins: She1p-5p and Bud6p/Aip3p. gRNAASH1localization in mutant strains identified three functional categories for the She proteins: mRNA particle formation (She2p and She4p), mRNA transport into the bud (She1p/Myo4p and She3p), and mRNA tethering at the bud tip (She5p/Bni1p and Bud6p/Aip3p). Because localization of the mRNA within the bud does not a priori restrict the translated protein, we examine the distribution of a mother-specific protein (Yta6p) translated from a mRNA directed into the bud. Yta6p remains associated with the mother cortex despite localization of the mRNA to the bud. This video essay traces the life history of a localized mRNA transcript, describes the roles of proteins required to polarize and anchor the mRNA, and demonstrates at least one instance where mRNA localization does not effect protein localization.

We have used mitotic spindle forces to examine the role of Sir2 and Ku in chromatin compaction. Escherichia coli lac operator DNA was placed between two centromeres on a conditional dicentric chromosome in budding yeast cells and made visible by expression of a lac repressor–green fluorescent fusion protein. Centromeres on the same chromatid of a dicentric chromosome attach to opposite poles ∼50% of the time, resulting in chromosome bridges during anaphase. In cells deleted for yKU70, yKU80, or SIR2, a 10-kb region of the dicentric chromosome stretched along the spindle axis to a length of 6 μm during anaphase. On spindle disassembly, stretched chromatin recoiled to the bud neck and was partitioned to mother and daughter cells after cytokinesis and cell separation. Chromatin immunoprecipitation revealed that Sir2 localizes to the lacO region in response to activation of the dicentric chromosome. These findings indicate that Ku and Sir proteins are required for proper chromatin compaction within regions of a chromosome experiencing tension or DNA damage. The association of Sir2 with the affected region suggests a direct role in this process, which may include the formation of heterochromatic DNA.

In the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, movement of the mitotic spindle to a predetermined cleavage plane at the bud neck is essential for partitioning chromosomes into the mother and daughter cells. Astral microtubule dynamics are critical to the mechanism that ensures nuclear migration to the bud neck. The nucleus moves in the opposite direction of astral microtubule growth in the mother cell, apparently being “pushed” by microtubule contacts at the cortex. In contrast, microtubules growing toward the neck and within the bud promote nuclear movement in the same direction of microtubule growth, thus “pulling” the nucleus toward the bud neck. Failure of “pulling” is evident in cells lacking Bud6p, Bni1p, Kar9p, or the kinesin homolog, Kip3p. As a consequence, there is a loss of asymmetry in spindle pole body segregation into the bud. The cytoplasmic motor protein, dynein, is not required for nuclear movement to the neck; rather, it has been postulated to contribute to spindle elongation through the neck. In the absence of KAR9, dynein-dependent spindle oscillations are evident before anaphase onset, as are postanaphase dynein-dependent pulling forces that exceed the velocity of wild-type spindle elongation threefold. In addition, dynein-mediated forces on astral microtubules are sufficient to segregate a 2N chromosome set through the neck in the absence of spindle elongation, but cytoplasmic kinesins are not. These observations support a model in which spindle polarity determinants (BUD6, BNI1, KAR9) and cytoplasmic kinesin (KIP3) provide directional cues for spindle orientation to the bud while restraining the spindle to the neck. Cytoplasmic dynein is attenuated by these spindle polarity determinants and kinesin until anaphase onset, when dynein directs spindle elongation to distal points in the mother and bud.

In budding yeast, spindle polarity relies on a precise temporal program of cytoplasmic microtubule–cortex interactions throughout spindle assembly. Loss of Clb5-dependent kinase activity under conditions of attenuated Cdc28 function disrupts this program, resulting in diploid-specific lethality. Here we show that polarity loss is tolerated by haploids due to a more prominent contribution of microtubule–neck interactions to spindle orientation inherent to haploids. These differences are mediated by the relative partition of Bud6 between the bud tip and bud neck, distinguishing haploids from diploids. Bud6 localizes initially to the bud tip and accumulates at the neck concomitant with spindle assembly. bud6Δ mutant phenotypes are consistent with Bud6's role as a cortical cue for cytoplasmic microtubule capture. Moreover, mutations that affect Bud6 localization and partitioning disrupt the sequential program of microtubule–cortex interactions accordingly. These data support a model whereby Bud6 sequentially cues microtubule capture events at the bud tip followed by capture events at the bud neck, necessary for correct spindle morphogenesis and polarity.

The wealth of information from genetic and more recently genomic studies of the budding yeast has been staggering. However, the small size of the organism has limited traditional cytological approaches. Thus there is a disparity in our detailed understanding of the genetic control of mitosis, for instance, relative to the morphology of mitosis. The application of time-lapse high-resolution digital-enhanced differential interference contrast (DE-DIC) and multimode fluoresence microscopy to studying yeast cell division has revealed a very dynamic process that reflects the interplay among microtubule dynamics, microtubule-based motor proteins, and positional determinants in the mother and bud (Salmon et al., 1998a ,b ; Shaw et al., 1997a ,b ).

Spindle orientation is critical for accurate chromosomal segregation in eukaryotic cells. In the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, orientation of the mitotic spindle is achieved by a program of microtubule–cortex interactions coupled to spindle morphogenesis. We previously implicated Bud6p in directing microtubule capture throughout this program. Herein, we have analyzed cells coexpressing GFP:Bud6 and GFP:Tub1 fusions, providing a kinetic view of Bud6p–microtubule interactions in live cells. Surprisingly, even during the G1 phase, microtubule capture at the recent division site and the incipient bud is dictated by Bud6p. These contacts are eliminated in bud6Δ cells but are proficient inkar9Δ cells. Thus, Bud6p cues microtubule capture, as soon as a new cell polarity axis is established independent of Kar9p. Bud6p increases the duration of interactions and promotes distinct modes of cortical association within the bud and neck regions. In particular, microtubule shrinkage and growth at the cortex rarely occur away from Bud6p sites. These are the interactions selectively impaired at the bud cortex in bud6Δ cells. Finally, interactions away from Bud6p sites within the bud differ from those occurring at the mother cell cortex, pointing to the existence of an independent factor controlling cortical contacts in mother cells after bud emergence.

The use of quantitative approaches in cell biology, including modeling and theory, has been increasing steadily in the past decade. A number of seminal works that combine experiments and modeling have made a significant impact on the field (see Hill and Kirschner, 1982 ; Peskin et al., 1993 ; Barkai and Leibler, 1997 , to name but a few). Mathematical modeling can help when our intuition fails or misleads us. It can provide a precise language for understanding complex cell biological phenomena. Modeling represents a new addition to our repertoire of strategies to understand biological systems. Like other journals in molecular and cellular biology, Molecular Biology of the Cell (MBoC) has thus far published a limited repertoire of papers that include modeling. Roughly speaking, there are two types of modeling/theoretical papers: one that is purely theoretical and another in which a quantitative model complements and extends experimental approaches. Furthermore, there are several different kinds of modeling, including deterministic or stochastic modeling, geometrical modeling, such as model convolution, and network (or database) modeling. Recognizing that modeling is becoming an indispensable tool, MBoC welcomes modeling and theoretical papers. This article is intended to help authors understand what MBoC is looking for in a modeling paper through advice and guidelines. A paper should clearly and convincingly advance the understanding of a cell biological phenomenon of wide interest for the biological (rather than modeling) community. A model should not be “window dressing” to make an experimental paper trendier. If a mathematical or quantitative model is used, there should be a clear demonstration of its usefulness. Typical applications of modeling include (but are not restricted to) the following: (1) demonstrating that a qualitative hypothesis cannot work as suggested; (2) calculating important quantities or hidden variables that are hard to measure experimentally, based on those that are observed; (3) discriminating between competing hypotheses; (4) supporting a qualitative hypothesis by showing that (simulated) computational results fit the experimental data; (5) reverse engineering a biological system, that is, using fits to observed data to deduce values of important rates or parameters; and (6) extracting quantitative information from quantitative data. In the main text, the model should be described in lay terms understandable by the wider scientific community. Mathematical/computer/physical jargon is to be avoided. The explanation in the main text should highlight the key assumptions and strategy used in deriving the appropriate model and should carefully explain the gist of the model. This could be done by including schematic (“flowchart” or “network”) diagrams and putting the more technical details in the supplemental material. However, supplemental material should be informative enough that a qualified reviewer can appraise the relevance and formulation of the model. Because biologists may be unfamiliar with mathematical or physical terms, these should be carefully defined and used appropriately. Figures reporting modeling results should be as clear and well-explained as the rest of the paper. In the theoretical supplemental material (written and edited as carefully as the main text), equations, model parameters (see next point), and other technical details should be included. Ideally, a reader should not have to guess how any part of calculations/simulations is done. The modeling results have to be as reproducible as the experimental results. We recommend including a list of assumptions either in the main text or in supplemental material. All model parameter values (with relevant units) should be listed and defined in a supplemental table. Each value should be explained by citing published sources (when available), giving the basis for the calculation or estimate of the value or indicating that the value is unknown/fitted. We recommend some discussion of which parameters are crucial for predicted behaviors and which are less important. MBoC recommends that authors voluntarily submit (well annotated) computational codes that could be used to reproduce the modeling result, either as a part of the supplemental material or on the Web. This submission is not currently a formal requirement, but discussions are under way about making this part of the MBoC policy. MBoC welcomes purely theoretical papers that provide an especially novel conceptual model or discussion of a fundamental biological question. Examples of papers with well-presented links between theory and experiment include (but are not restricted to) the following: Meinhardt, 1999 —a purely theoretical conceptual model that started the modern modeling of eukaryotic cell chemotaxis; Marshall and Rosenbaum, 2001 —a mathematical model summarizing experimental data; Chen et al., 2004 —reverse engineering a complex biological system; Lomakin et al., 2009 —a model that complements experiment by examining aspects that cannot be addressed experimentally; Odell and Foe, 2008 —modeling used to discriminate between competing hypotheses; and Vogel et al., 2009 —a model that guides experiments and proves correctness of qualitative conclusions from the data.