FIGURE 3:

Probing the effect of the syntelic correction mechanism: (A) Probability to find each type of KT–MT attachments for the system with flexible centromere spring (data shown in blue color) between the sister KTs without chromosome arms, with stiff spring (in black color), and with semiflexible spring (in red color). Probabilities of attachments were determined from attachments collected from eight independent CellDynaMo simulations for all three case studies. The total number of amphitelic attachments over time collected from all eight simulations for all three case studies are shown in the inset. (B) The same as panel A, but for CHs with short CH arms. (C) The same as panel A, but for CHs with long CH arms. (D) Separation distance between the sister KTs as a function of time for the most representative simulation run for the systems with flexible (blue), semiflexible (red), and stiff centromere spring (black). Solid lines show the time series for the case with KTs without CH arms, and dashed lines show the time series for the case with CH arms. (E) Example of syntelic attachment. (F) Example of mero-syntelic attachment. Centrosomes are shown as green beads, the blue corrugated ball is the centromere, KTs are shown in orange, unconnected MTs are displayed in gray, connected MTs are shown in green, and cyan links are Ndc80 complexes. (G) Comparison of CHs with short and long CH arms.