Abstract
Single (individual) bivalents in cultured Drosophila melanogaster primary spermatocytes were detached from the spindle with a micromanipulation needle and placed in the cytoplasm. Such bivalents are prevented from rejoining the spindle by a natural membrane barrier that surrounds the spindle, but they quickly orient as if on a spindle of their own and the half-bivalents separate in anaphase. Serial section electron microscopy shows that a mini-spindle forms around the cytoplasmic bivalent, i.e., the microtubule density in the vicinity of the bivalent is much greater than in other cytoplasmic regions. This microtubule population cannot be accounted for solely by kinetochore nucleation and/or capture of microtubules. Furthermore, the mini- spindles frequently form at odd angles to the main spindle, so that at least one pole has no relationship to the poles of the main spindle. We conclude that a bivalent, or factors that become associated with the bivalent as a result of the manipulation, can either stabilize microtubules or promote their assembly. The bivalent activates latent microtubule organizing centers, or alternatively, polar organizing material has been passively transported from the main spindle to the cytoplasm by the micromanipulation procedure.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (2.6 MB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- 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]
- Church K., Lin H. P. Kinetochore microtubules and chromosome movement during prometaphase in Drosophila melanogaster spermatocytes studied in life and with the electron microscope. Chromosoma. 1985;92(4):273–282. doi: 10.1007/BF00329810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Church K., Lin H. P. Meiosis in Drosophila melanogaster. II. The prometaphase-I kinetochore microtubule bundle and kinetochore orientation in males. J Cell Biol. 1982 May;93(2):365–373. doi: 10.1083/jcb.93.2.365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Davis F. M., Tsao T. Y., Fowler S. K., Rao P. N. Monoclonal antibodies to mitotic cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1983 May;80(10):2926–2930. doi: 10.1073/pnas.80.10.2926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- Kemphues K. J., Raff E. C., Raff R. A., Kaufman T. C. Mutation in a testis-specific beta-tubulin in Drosophila: analysis of its effects on meiosis and map location of the gene. Cell. 1980 Sep;21(2):445–451. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(80)90481-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Maro B., Howlett S. K., Webb M. Non-spindle microtubule organizing centers in metaphase II-arrested mouse oocytes. J Cell Biol. 1985 Nov;101(5 Pt 1):1665–1672. doi: 10.1083/jcb.101.5.1665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mitchison T. J., Kirschner M. W. Properties of the kinetochore in vitro. II. Microtubule capture and ATP-dependent translocation. J Cell Biol. 1985 Sep;101(3):766–777. doi: 10.1083/jcb.101.3.766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mitchison T., Kirschner M. Dynamic instability of microtubule growth. Nature. 1984 Nov 15;312(5991):237–242. doi: 10.1038/312237a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moens P. B., Moens T. Computer measurements and graphics of three-dimensional cellular ultrastructure. J Ultrastruct Res. 1981 May;75(2):131–141. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5320(81)80129-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nicklas R. B., Gordon G. W. The total length of spindle microtubules depends on the number of chromosomes present. J Cell Biol. 1985 Jan;100(1):1–7. doi: 10.1083/jcb.100.1.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- Raff E. C. Genetics of microtubule systems. J Cell Biol. 1984 Jul;99(1 Pt 1):1–10. doi: 10.1083/jcb.99.1.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sluder G., Rieder C. L. Experimental separation of pronuclei in fertilized sea urchin eggs: chromosomes do not organize a spindle in the absence of centrosomes. J Cell Biol. 1985 Mar;100(3):897–903. doi: 10.1083/jcb.100.3.897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]