Skip to main content
The Journal of Cell Biology logoLink to The Journal of Cell Biology
. 1985 Jan 1;100(1):1–7. doi: 10.1083/jcb.100.1.1

The total length of spindle microtubules depends on the number of chromosomes present

PMCID: PMC2113474  PMID: 4038398

Abstract

We extracted chromosomes by micromanipulation from Melanoplus differentialis spermatocytes, producing metaphase spindles with only one or a few chromosomes instead of the usual complement of 23. Cells with various numbers of chromosomes were prepared for electron microscopy, and spindle microtubule length was measured. A constant increment of microtubule length was lost upon the removal of each chromosome; we estimate that only approximately 40% of the original length would remain in the total absence of chromosomes. Unexpectedly, kinetochore microtubules were not the only ones affected when chromosomes were removed: nonkinetochore microtubules accounted for a substantial fraction of the total length lost. No compensatory increase in microtubule length outside the spindle was found. Studies by others show that the kinetochore microtubules of extracted chromosomes are left behind in the cell and dissassemble. The resulting increase in subunit concentration would be expected from in vitro studies to drive microtubule assembly until the original total microtubule length was restored, but that did not happen in these living cells. We conclude that the assembly of a certain, large fraction of microtubule subunits into stable microtubules is dependent on the presence of chromosomes. Possible explanations include (a) limits on microtubule length that prevent any net assembly of the subunits released after chromosomes are removed or (b) a promotion of microtubule assembly by chromosomes, which therefore is reduced in their absence. Chromosome-dependent regulation of microtubule length may account for some features of normal mitosis.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1,000.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brinkley B. R., Cox S. M., Pepper D. A., Wible L., Brenner S. L., Pardue R. L. Tubulin assembly sites and the organization of cytoplasmic microtubules in cultured mammalian cells. J Cell Biol. 1981 Sep;90(3):554–562. doi: 10.1083/jcb.90.3.554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bryan J. A quantitative analysis of microtubule elongation. J Cell Biol. 1976 Dec;71(3):749–767. doi: 10.1083/jcb.71.3.749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. De Brabander M. A model for the microtubule organizing activity of the centrosomes and kinetochores in mammalian cells. Cell Biol Int Rep. 1982 Oct;6(10):901–915. doi: 10.1016/0309-1651(82)90001-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Inoué S., Sato H. Cell motility by labile association of molecules. The nature of mitotic spindle fibers and their role in chromosome movement. J Gen Physiol. 1967 Jul;50(6 Suppl):259–292. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Karsenti E., Newport J., Hubble R., Kirschner M. Interconversion of metaphase and interphase microtubule arrays, as studied by the injection of centrosomes and nuclei into Xenopus eggs. J Cell Biol. 1984 May;98(5):1730–1745. doi: 10.1083/jcb.98.5.1730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Nicklas R. B., Brinkley B. R., Pepper D. A., Kubai D. F., Rickards G. K. Electron microscopy of spermatocytes previously studied in life: methods and some observations on micromanipulated chromosomes. J Cell Sci. 1979 Feb;35:87–104. doi: 10.1242/jcs.35.1.87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Nicklas R. B., Kubai D. F., Hays T. S. Spindle microtubules and their mechanical associations after micromanipulation in anaphase. J Cell Biol. 1982 Oct;95(1):91–104. doi: 10.1083/jcb.95.1.91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Nicklas R. B., Staehly C. A. Chromosome micromanipulation. I. The mechanics of chromosome attachment to the spindle. Chromosoma. 1967;21(1):1–16. doi: 10.1007/BF00330544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Roos U. P. Light and electron microscopy of rat kangaroo cells in mitosis. I. Formation and breakdown of the mitotic apparatus. Chromosoma. 1973;40(1):43–82. doi: 10.1007/BF00319836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Salmon E. D. Spindle microtubules: thermodynamics of in vivo assembly and role in chromosome movement. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1975 Jun 30;253:383–406. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1975.tb19216.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sato H., Ellis G. W., Inoué S. Microtubular origin of mitotic spindle form birefringence. Demonstration of the applicability of Wiener's equation. J Cell Biol. 1975 Dec;67(3):501–517. doi: 10.1083/jcb.67.3.501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Witt P. L., Ris H., Borisy G. G. Origin of kinetochore microtubules in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Chromosoma. 1980;81(3):483–505. doi: 10.1007/BF00368158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Cell Biology are provided here courtesy of The Rockefeller University Press

RESOURCES