Review
The CCAN complex: Linking centromere specification to control of kinetochore–microtubule dynamics

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2011.09.016Get rights and content

Abstract

For over 70 years, chromosomes have been known to oscillate back-and-forth on the metaphase plate. These movements are directed by kinetochores, the microtubule-attachment complexes on centromeres that regulate the dynamics of bound spindle microtubules. Recent evidence shows that the CCAN (Constitutive Centromere Associated Network) kinetochore network, which directly binds centromeric nucleosomes, plays a crucial role in the control of kinetochore microtubule dynamics. Here we review how this 15-subunit protein network functions within the kinetochore machinery, how it may adapt dynamically both in time and in space to the functional requirements necessary for controlled and faithful chromosome movements during cell division, and how this conserved protein network may have evolved in organisms with different cell division machineries.

Introduction

Chromosome segregation acheives faithful partitioning of the duplicated genetic material into the two daughter cells during mitosis. One of the key requirements for successful chromosome segregation is the establishment of a tight metaphase plate, which forms as the chromosomes congress towards the equator of the mitotic spindle [1], [2]. Kinetochores attach chromosomes to microtubules and play the central role in chromosome congression by controlling the dynamics of bound microtubules [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. In addition, plus-end directed microtubule-motor forces generated by kinesins also play a role in the initial anti-poleward transport of chromosomes to the spindle equator. Once the metaphase plate is established kinetochore–microtubule dynamics then play the dominant role in controlling chromosome movements [8]. In most eukaryotes, the kinetochore is not bound to a single microtubule, but rather to bundles of microtubules, termed k-fibers, that, depending on the organism, can consist of up to 25 individual microtubules. When the majority of microtubules within a k-fiber undergo catastrophe the k-fiber will shrink. During shrinkage, the kinetochore will remain coupled to the depolymerizing plus-ends, which imparts a pulling force on the chromosomes. If the majority of microtubules within a k-fiber switch to a polymerizing state then the coupled-kinetochore will exert a pushing force on the chromosome. While pushing forces can contribute in certain situations to this process, it is the pulling forces generated at the leading sister-kinetochore are the dominant drivers of poleward movement of the chromosome [9], [10], [11].

In the vast majority of metazoan cells, bipolar-attached chromosomes do not align onto the metaphase plate in a single movement, but rather oscillate back and forth along the spindle axis in regular movements that continue after a chromosome reaches the spindle equator [8], [12], [13], [14]. The regularity is highly damped and correlations between oscillations do not extend over more than a full period of 75 s. It is unknown whether this emergent oscillatory behavior is simply a reflection of the mechanochemical systems, which underpin directional switching, or whether this regularity is itself physiologically important [15]. In either case, the regularity points to a highly regulated and coordinated control system at the kinetochore, as opposed to purely stochastic microtubule-based dynamic instability [16]. At the molecular level the human CCAN (Constitutive Centromere Associated Network) kinetochore complex was recently identified as a key component of this machinery that directly controls the dynamics of kinetochore–microtubules [17].

Section snippets

CCAN – a bridge between centromeric DNA and microtubule plus ends

The CCAN was originally identified as a set of proteins that could be affinity-purified with CENP-A containing centromeric nucleosomes and was, accordingly, originally named CENP-A NAC/CAD (CENP-A Nucleosome Associated Complex/CENP-A Distal) complex or CENP-H/I kinetochore complex (according to its most prominent subunits) [18], [19] (Fig. 1). Isolation of the interphase centromere complex also led to the identification of CCAN subunits [20], [21]. At the same time a bioinformatic analysis

CCAN – a core regulator of kinetochore–microtubule dynamics

This centromeric-centric perspective contrasts with a recent study, which demonstrated that depletion of the CCAN subunit CENP-H eliminates the regularity of chromosome oscillations, increases their speed and causes an increased frequency of directional switches. This suggests a lack of coordination amongst the individual microtubules within a k-fiber and more generally a role for CCAN in the regulation of kinetochore–microtubule dynamics [17]. Consistent with such a hypothesis, CCAN-depleted

The CCAN network is highly dynamic and can specifically recognize growing microtubules

The CCAN, as its name suggests, is thought to remain bound to the centromeres throughout the cell cycle. This view is rooted in the experiments that initially identified CENP-H and CENP-I and showed that they remained bound to centromeres during both mitosis and interphase [38], [39]. Photobleaching experiments confirm that CENP-H and CENP-I are stably bound to kinetochores [40]. However, recent evidence supports an alternative view of the CCAN as a highly dynamic network of proteins that are

What controls the asymmetry of CCAN proteins?

A crucial future question is to know the molecular mechanisms that control the asymmetry of the CCAN proteins. The first point is that it is not the number of CCAN complexes at kinetochores that changes but the subunit stoichiometry within the complex. Indeed, while CENP-H and CENP-I are asymmetric, the CENP-O and CENP-P subunits are symmetric [17]. Any mechanism must therefore be based on the selective loading or unloading of specific subunits into the complex. Post-translational modifications

Is the CCAN complex conserved? What is the evidence that its function is conserved?

One final issue is whether the CCAN machinery is conserved in terms of subunit composition and function throughout evolution. At first sight, one could conclude that this complex might only be working in vertebrates, as many or even all equivalent components cannot be found in the classical model organisms Saccharomyces cerevisiae, C. elegans and Drosophila melanogaster. However, a more detailed analysis reveals a more differentiated view. Nearly all human CCAN proteins are conserved in the

Future view

The CCAN forms a core conserved part of the kinetochore that has the unique ability to form a direct physical bridge between the centromeric nucleosomes and the microtubules. It is tempting to imagine that such a structure could reflect an ancestral kinetochore, which was built on a regional centromere with a minimal DNA and microtubule-binding capacity [23]. As centromeres evolved the CCAN would have rapidly diverged and adapted to its microenvironment. We speculate that the capacity to form a

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all our laboratory members for highly productive discussions at the recent McAinsh-Meraldi retreat. Work in the Meraldi laboratory is supported by a Förderungs-professorship from the Swiss National Research Fund, the Swiss Cancer League, a EURYI-award by the European Research Council and the ETH Zurich, and work in the McAinsh Laboratory is supported by a program grant from Marie Curie Cancer Care.

References (63)

  • Y.H. Kang et al.

    Self-regulated Plk1 recruitment to kinetochores by the Plk1–PBIP1 interaction is critical for proper chromosome segregation

    Mol Cell

    (2006)
  • H. Daub et al.

    Kinase-selective enrichment enables quantitative phosphoproteomics of the kinome across the cell cycle

    Mol Cell

    (2008)
  • D.W. Cleveland et al.

    Centromeres and kinetochores: from epigenetics to mitotic checkpoint signaling

    Cell

    (2003)
  • J.R. McIntosh et al.

    Fibrils connect microtubule tips with kinetochores: a mechanism to couple tubulin dynamics to chromosome motion

    Cell

    (2008)
  • J.P. Welburn et al.

    Aurora B phosphorylates spatially distinct targets to differentially regulate the kinetochore–microtubule interface

    Mol Cell

    (2010)
  • A. Khodjakov et al.

    Dumb versus smart kinetochore models for chromosome congression during mitosis in vertebrate somatic cells

    Cell Motil Cytoskeleton

    (1999)
  • G.J. Kops et al.

    Finding the middle ground: how kinetochores power chromosome congression

    Cell Mol Life Sci

    (2010)
  • A. Khodjakov et al.

    Chromosome fragments possessing only one kinetochore can congress to the spindle equator

    J Cell Biol

    (1997)
  • S. Santaguida et al.

    The life and miracles of kinetochores

    EMBO J

    (2009)
  • C.B. O‘Connell et al.

    The spindle assembly checkpoint is satisfied in the absence of interkinetochore tension during mitosis with unreplicated genomes

    J Cell Biol

    (2008)
  • I.M. Cheeseman et al.

    Molecular architecture of the kinetochore–microtubule interface

    Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol

    (2008)
  • K. Jaqaman et al.

    Kinetochore alignment within the metaphase plate is regulated by centromere stiffness and microtubule depolymerases

    J Cell Biol

    (2010)
  • A.D. Silk et al.

    Requirements for NuMA in maintenance and establishment of mammalian spindle poles

    J Cell Biol

    (2009)
  • A. Khodjakov et al.

    Kinetochores moving away from their associated pole do not exert a significant pushing force on the chromosome

    J Cell Biol

    (1996)
  • A. Toso et al.

    Kinetochore-generated pushing forces separate centrosomes during bipolar spindle assembly

    J Cell Biol

    (2009)
  • A.F. Hughes et al.

    Anaphase movements in the living cell

    J Exp Biol

    (1948)
  • W.H. Lewis

    Changes of viscosity and cell activity

    Science

    (1939)
  • R.V. Skibbens et al.

    Directional instability of kinetochore motility during chromosome congression and segregation in mitotic newt lung cells: a push–pull mechanism

    J Cell Biol

    (1993)
  • E. Vladimirou et al.

    Springs, clutches and motors: driving forward kinetochore mechanism by modelling

    Chromosome Res

    (2011)
  • T. Mitchison et al.

    Dynamic instability of microtubule growth

    Nature

    (1984)
  • A.C. Amaro et al.

    Molecular control of kinetochore–microtubule dynamics and chromosome oscillations

    Nat Cell Biol

    (2010)
  • Cited by (32)

    • Cryo-EM Structures of Centromeric Tri-nucleosomes Containing a Central CENP-A Nucleosome

      2020, Structure
      Citation Excerpt :

      CENP-N and CENP-C also stabilize the CENP-A nucleosome in vitro, although they have minimal effects on centromeric CENP-A stability in vivo (Cao et al., 2018). The CENP-A nucleosome bound with CENP-B, CENP-C, and CENP-N leads to the subsequent assembly of additional centromeric proteins, such as the components of the constitutive centromere-associated network, followed by the formation of functional kinetochores (McAinsh and Meraldi, 2011; Fukagawa and Earnshaw, 2014; McKinley and Cheeseman, 2016; Müller and Almouzni, 2017; Musacchio and Desai, 2017; Hara and Fukagawa, 2018). CENP-B binds to the specific DNA sequence (CENP-B box) of alphoid DNA within the CENP-A nucleosome, and also directly interacts with the nucleosomal CENP-A protein (Tanaka et al., 2005; Tachiwana et al., 2013; Fujita et al., 2015; Fachinetti et al., 2015).

    • Reconstitution of a 26-Subunit Human Kinetochore Reveals Cooperative Microtubule Binding by CENP-OPQUR and NDC80

      2018, Molecular Cell
      Citation Excerpt :

      Original work with anti-centromere antibodies, and more recent proteomic analyses of CENP-A and its binding partners, identified 16 vertebrate proteins now collectively identified as the constitutive-centromere-associated network (CCAN, Figure 1A), reflecting association of these proteins with kinetochores during the entire cell cycle (Earnshaw and Rothfield, 1985; Foltz et al., 2006; Hori et al., 2008a; Izuta et al., 2006; Obuse et al., 2004; Okada et al., 2006; Saitoh et al., 1992). These CENP-A proximal or “inner kinetochore” subunits include CENP-C, CENP-H, CENP-I, CENP-K, CENP-L, CENP-M, CENP-N, CENP-O, CENP-P, CENP-Q, CENP-R, CENP-S, CENP-T, CENP-U, CENP-W, and CENP-X. Most of these proteins are conserved in eukaryotes, including the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, where they are generally identified as the Ctf19 complex (McAinsh and Meraldi, 2011; Perpelescu and Fukagawa, 2011; Westermann and Schleiffer, 2013; Westhorpe and Straight, 2013). The CCAN subunits are organized in distinct subcomplexes, including the CENP-T:CENP-W complex (herewith CENP-TW), proposed to form a nucleosome-like particle with CENP-S:CENP-X (CENP-SX) (Hori et al., 2008a; Nishino et al., 2012); the CENP-L:CENP-N (CENP-LN) complex (Carroll et al., 2009, 2010); the CENP-H:CENP-I:CENP-K:CENP-M (CENP-HIKM) complex (Basilico et al., 2014; Klare et al., 2015; Okada et al., 2009; Pekgöz Altunkaya et al., 2016); and the CENP-O:CENP-P:CENP-Q:CENP-U:CENP-R (CENP-OPQUR) complex (Hori et al., 2008b) (Figure 1A).

    • Regulation of Centromeric Chromatin

      2017, Chromatin Regulation and Dynamics
    • Chromatin Dynamics During the Cell Cycle

      2017, Chromatin Regulation and Dynamics
    • Kinetochore

      2013, Brenner's Encyclopedia of Genetics: Second Edition
    • Structural insights into the role of the Chl4-Iml3 complex in kinetochore assembly

      2013, Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text