Table 3.

Morphological analysis of time-lapse mitosis in GFP′ versus GFP-CEN–injected cells

Observed phenotypes	Control GFP′-injected cells	GFP-CEN–injected cells
Alignment defects	(% cells)	(% cells)
Chromosomes lingering at poles	0	44.4
Multiple attempts to congress	0	55.6
Bad alignment with high oscillations	6.7	27.8
Not all chromosomes congress before anaphase	0	27.8
Total % cells with alignment defects	6.7	89.9
Segregation defects	(% cells)	(% cells)
Lagging chromosomes and/or chromatids	0	27.8
Total % cells with segregation defects	0	27.8
Pole to pole distance measurements	(avg. μm ± SEM)	(avg. μm ± SEM)
At last chromosome begins congression	16.5 ± 0.5	14.9 ± 0.6
At metaphase alignment	15.7 ± 0.4	13.5 ± 0.6
At frame before anaphase A onset	15.6 ± 0.5	12.7 ± 0.6
Sample size (no. cells)	15	18

Alignment and segregation defects were analyzed in cells injected with control GFP′ fusion protein versus GFP-CEN, the centromere dominant-negative version of MCAK. To measure the pole to pole distance, positions of the spindle poles were inferred from the pattern that develops from the clearing of organelles and vesicles from the area of the mitotic spindle.