Fig. 3. TCJ distribution accounts for division orientation along the interphase cell shape.

(a) TCJ (red dots) bipolarity and cell shape (blue) anisotropies η and orientations θ represented by the length and orientation of red and blue bars.

(b) η_TCJ and η_shape from interphase to anaphase (mean±s.e.m). Insets: time-lapse images of a cell from interphase to mitotic rounding (n=249 cells). t-test (*:p<0.05, ***:p<0.0005).

(c-c’) Difference between experimental (θ_division) and predicted division orientations by the average (-20 to -10min interphase, -4 to -3min metaphase) cell long-axis (θ_shape) (c) or TCJ bipolarity (θ_TCJ) (c’). Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p values).

(d) Top: θ_shape and θ_TCJ align with θ_division. Bottom: only θ_TCJ aligns with θ_division. Time-lapse images of 2 cells out of the 29388 cells analysed.

(e-f’) Difference between experimental (θ_division) and predicted division orientations based on interphase TCJ bipolarity (θ_TCJ) or cell long-axis (θ_shape) for |θ_TCJ – θ_shape| intervals (e-e’) and indicated η_shape intervals (f-f’). Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p values), percentage of 29388 cells.

(g) TCJ bipolarity (θ_TCJ) prediction improvement over cell long-axis (θ_shape) versus |θ_TCJ – θ_shape|. mean±s.e.m of three movies for a total of n=29388 cells analyzed.

(h) Differences (mean±s.d.) between θ_shape and θ_TCJ versus η_shape. Correlation coefficient A_experiment = 0.88.

(i-i’) Difference between experimental (θ_division) and predicted division orientations based on interphase cell long-axis (θ_shape) (left) or the TCJ bipolarity (θ_TCJ) (right) in wt and mud cells. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p values).

Scale bars: 1μm (a, b), n: cell numbers (b, g, h).