Skip to main content
. 2004 Mar;15(3):1146–1159. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E03-08-0581

Table 4.

Analysis of chromosome behavior in GFP′ versus GFP-CEN–injected cells

Measurement Control GFP'-injected cells GFP-CEN–injected cells Student's t test Trends
avg. ± SEM (n) avg ± SEM (n)
Antipoleward rate during congression (μm/min) 1.69 ± 0.16 (23) 1.64 ± 0.09 (33) p = 0.76 No change
Poleward rate during congression (μm/min) 1.76 ± 0.13 (23) 1.72 ± 0.16 (33) p = 0.95 No change
Time in antipoleward motion during congression (%) 96.5 ± 2.0 (23) 80.9 ± 3.0 (33) p < 0.001 12% decrease
Time in poleward motion during congression (%) 1.0 ± 0.1 (23) 10.3 ± 2.4 (33) p < 0.001 10-fold increase
Oscillation rate at the equator (μm/min) 1.55 ± 0.21 (10) 1.79 ± 0.19 (13) p = 0.08 No change
No. switches between AP and P movement during oscillations 2.6 ± 0.4 (10) 4.2 ± 0.5 (13) p < 0.05 63% increase
Chromatid mass anaphase A segregation rate (μm/min) 2.06 ± 0.19 (22) 2.05 ± 0.14 (30) p =0.32 No change
Chromatid mass anaphase B segregation rate (μm/min) 1.22 ± 0.10 (22) 1.12 ± 0.07 (30) p < 0.05 8% decrease
Pole-pole anaphase A separation rate (μm/min) 0.70 ± 0.09 (22) 0.63 ± 0.11 (30) p = 0.50 No change
Pole-pole anaphase B separation rate (μm/min) 1.00 ± 0.09 (22) 0.80 ± 0.07 (30) p < 0.01 20% decrease

Chromosome behavior was analyzed in cells injected with control GFP' fusion protein or GFP-CEN according to MATERIALS AND METHODS. Sample sizes for all congression and metaphase oscillation measurements are given in number of chromosomes. Sample sizes for anaphase measurements are given in number of chromatid masses or number of spindle poles analyzed.