![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2007, European Molecular Biology Organization The CENP-A NAC/CAD kinetochore complex controls chromosome congression and spindle bipolarity 1Chromosome Segregation Laboratory, Marie Curie Research Institute, The Chart, Oxted, Surrey, UK 2Institute of Biochemistry, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 3Molecular Life Sciences PhD Program, Zurich, Switzerland aChromosome Segregation Laboratory, Marie Curie Research Institute, The Chart, Oxted, Surrey RH8 0TL, UK. Tel.: +44 1883 722306; Fax: +44 1883 714375; E-mail: a.mcainsh/at/mcri.ac.uk bInstitute of Biochemistry, ETH Zurich, Zurich 8093, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 44 632 63 47; Fax: +41 44 632 12 69; E-mail: patrick.meraldi/at/bc.biol.ethz.ch *These authors contributed equally to this work Received September 21, 2007; Accepted October 24, 2007. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Kinetochores are complex protein machines that link chromosomes to spindle microtubules and contain a structural core composed of two conserved protein–protein interaction networks: the well-characterized KMN (KNL1/MIND/NDC80) and the recently identified CENP-A NAC/CAD. Here we show that the CENP-A NAC/CAD subunits can be assigned to one of two different functional classes; depletion of Class I proteins (Mcm21RCENP−O and Fta1RCENP−L) causes a failure in bipolar spindle assembly. In contrast, depletion of Class II proteins (CENP-H, Chl4RCENP−N, CENP-I and Sim4RCENP−K) prevents binding of Class I proteins and causes chromosome congression defects, but does not perturb spindle formation. Co-depletion of Class I and Class II proteins restores spindle bipolarity, suggesting that Class I proteins regulate or counteract the function of Class II proteins. We also demonstrate that CENP-A NAC/CAD and KMN regulate kinetochore–microtubule attachments independently, even though CENP-A NAC/CAD can modulate NDC80 levels at kinetochores. Based on our results, we propose that the cooperative action of CENP-A NAC/CAD subunits and the KMN network drives efficient chromosome segregation and bipolar spindle assembly during mitosis. Keywords: CENP-H, FtalR, Mcm21R, mitosis, spindle Introduction Human kinetochores are complex molecular machines that assemble on a centromere that spans mega bases of DNA and ensure bi-orientation, congression and disjunction of sister chromatids during mitosis (Cleveland et al, 2003). Kinetochores execute three main functions: (1) they form a structure that is compatible with tight, but dynamic binding to the plus-end of spindle microtubules (MTs); (2) they modulate MT dynamics and kinesin-like proteins to generate the forces necessary to drive chromosome movement and (3) they generate spindle checkpoint signals that block cells before initiation of anaphase in the presence of unattached or tension-free kinetochores (Musacchio and Hardwick, 2002; Musacchio and Salmon, 2007). Bioinformatic and biochemical studies have demonstrated that kinetochores contain a structural core composed of two conserved protein–protein interaction networks called KMN and CENP-A NAC/CAD (De Wulf et al, 2003; Nekrasov et al, 2003; Cheeseman et al, 2004, 2006; Obuse et al, 2004; Liu et al, 2005; Foltz et al, 2006; Meraldi et al, 2006; Okada et al, 2006). The KMN network is composed of three complexes that are required for distinct functions: the NDC80 complex that is essential for MT–kinetochore attachment and spindle checkpoint signaling (Kline-Smith et al, 2005), the MIND/Mis12 complex that is essential for spindle checkpoint signaling and contributes to kinetochore-based force generation (Kline et al, 2006; McAinsh et al, 2006), and KNL-1/Spc105 that links MIND and NDC80 (Cheeseman et al, 2006). Importantly, the KMN network binds to MTs directly in vitro and is conserved in all eukaryotes (Cheeseman et al, 2006; Meraldi et al, 2006; Wei et al, 2007). The CENP-A NAC/CAD network is only partially conserved with corresponding protein-protein interaction networks identified in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CTF19 complex) and Schizosaccharomyces pombe (Sim4 complex; Cheeseman et al, 2002; Liu et al, 2005). These three networks require the centromeric histone-H3 variant CENP-A for kinetochore binding. Moreover, bioinformatic analysis reveals that they are built up from a set of common orthologues (Figure 1A
It is also unclear to what degree the CENP-A NAC/CAD network interacts with the KMN network. Some studies reported that CENP-A NAC/CAD is required for loading of the MIND and NDC80 subunits onto kinetochores (Hori et al, 2003; Liu et al, 2006; Okada et al, 2006; Kwon et al, 2007), while other studies found no such effect (Foltz et al, 2006; McAinsh et al, 2006). Another group even observed the opposite effect in which CENP-A NAC/CAD components displayed reduced kinetochore binding in the absence of the MIND complex (Kline et al, 2006). Thus, an important challenge in the kinetochore field is to define the precise function of CENP-A NAC/CAD and to understand how it interacts with the core KMN network at the functional level. We have therefore addressed the following three key questions in this paper by combining functional cell biological assays, small interfering RNA (siRNA)-mediated protein depletion, high-resolution microscopy and live-cell imaging: (1) are components of the human CENP-A NAC/CAD network responsible for different kinetochore functions? (2) How would these different CENP-A NAC/CAD components cooperate with one another to modulate kinetochore function? (3) How does CENP-A NAC/CAD functionally interact with the KMN network? Results Loading of CENP-A NAC/CAD kinetochore components during the cell cycle To investigate the function and organization of CENP-A NAC/CAD, we first focused on two NAC proteins (CENP-H and Chl4RCENP−N) and one CAD protein (Mcm21RCENP−O). We chose these proteins because different phenotypes have been reported for the depletion of CENP-H and Chl4R (congression defects; Fukagawa et al, 2001; Foltz et al, 2006), or Mcm21R (monopolar spindles; McAinsh et al, 2006). We first raised polyclonal antibodies against human CENP-H and Chl4R (antibodies against Mcm21R were available; McAinsh et al, 2006). By immunoblotting, CENP-H antisera recognized a 34-kDa band in whole-cell extracts and Chl4R antisera recognized a 38-kDa band. Depletion of CENP-H or Chl4R with siRNA abolished the 34- or 38-kDa bands, confirming the specificity of our antibodies (Figure 1B and C
Previous studies have found that CENP-H levels at kinetochores are constant during the cell cycle (Fukagawa et al, 2001), whereas Mcm21R levels are highest during interphase and diminished by 50% during mitosis (McAinsh et al, 2006; Figure 2C
Binding dependencies between CENP-A NAC/CAD, MIND and NDC80 subunits We next tested by quantitative immunofluorescence to what extent Mcm21R, CENP-H or Chl4R are required for the kinetochore binding of one another and of MIND (Nnf1R) and NDC80 (Ndc80 and Nuf2R) components. Depletion of CENP-H or Chl4R had little effect on the levels of MIND and NDC80, but abolished the kinetochore association of both CENP-A NAC/CAD proteins (Figure 2D–I Functional independence of CENP-A NAC/CAD, MIND and NDC80 We next investigated how the dependency relationships between the CENP-A NAC/CAD, MIND and NDC80 complexes reflect their kinetochore functions. Our dependency experiments predict that MIND functions independently of Chl4R/CENP-H, while Chl4R and CENP-H should be interdependent at the functional level. Previous studies have reported that depletion of CENP-A NAC/CAD proteins causes chromosome congression defects (Fukagawa et al, 2001; Foltz et al, 2006; Kline et al, 2006; McAinsh et al, 2006). To test their functional relationship, we quantitatively compared the effect of Chl4R, CENP-H and Nnf1R depletion on chromosome congression, using single and double siRNA transfections. Immunofluorescence and immunoblotting demonstrated that Chl4R, CENP-H and Nnf1R were depleted to the same level in double transfections as in single siRNA transfections (Figure 3B–E
To confirm these results and quantify the number of unaligned chromosomes at higher resolution, we used immunofluorescence on HeLa cells treated with MG132 for 30 min before fixation. The proteasome inhibitor MG132 blocks cells at multiple points in the cell cycle, including an arrest at the metaphase–anaphase transition independent of the spindle checkpoint (Rock et al, 1994). The fixed cells were stained with DAPI and sera against α-tubulin (MT marker) and CENP-E (kinetochore marker). In cells containing a metaphase plate indicating arrest at the metaphase–anaphase transition, we quantified the number of uncongressed chromosomes. Chromosomes were considered uncongressed if they were outside of a rectangular area encompassing the central 30% of the spindle (Figure 3H Our dependency experiments also indicated that the NDC80 complex remains kinetochore bound following depletion of CENP-H. To confirm that NDC80 is still functional in the absence of CENP-A NAC/CAD, we tested whether kinetochores in control, siCENP-H, siNuf2R or siCENP-H+siNuf2R treated cells bind to MTs in a cold-stable assay. This assay is based on the observation that abrupt cooling of cells to 4°C causes the depolymerization of MTs that are not bound to kinetochores, while kinetochore-bound MTs (k-fibers) remain stable (Salmon and Begg, 1980). We first confirmed by quantitative immunofluorescence that Nuf2R and CENP-H were depleted to the same level in double transfections as in single siRNA transfections (Figure 4A
CENP-H-Chl4R depletion suppresses the monopolar spindle phenotype caused by Mcm21R depletion How does the phenotype of CENP-H-Chl4R depletion (Class II) relate to that of Mcm21R (Class I)-depleted cells? The striking feature of Mcm21R-depleted cells is that their kinetochores inhibit bipolar spindle formation, causing an increase in monopolar spindles (McAinsh et al, 2006). Consistently, monitoring of spindle assembly in HeLa cells stably expressing H2B-GFP (chromosome marker) and α-tubulin-mRFP (spindle marker) revealed that 38% of Mcm21R-depleted cells fail to establish a bipolar spindle within the first 12 min after NBD (versus 5% in control depleted cells; Figure 5A and B
To distinguish between these possibilities, we first depleted both CENP-H or Chl4R and Mcm21R by siRNA, and followed spindle assembly by time-lapse microscopy. We found that the vast majority (91% compared with 95% in control cells) of double siChl4R+siMcm21R- or siCENP-H+siMcm21R-transfected cells assembled a bipolar spindle within the first 12 min after NBD (Figure 5A and B CENP-A NAC/CAD modulates NDC80 levels at kinetochores While the MT-binding NDC80 complex is loaded independently of CENP-A NAC/CAD, our dependency experiments also showed that the levels of the NDC80 were elevated in Mcm21R-depleted cells and normal in CENP-H-depleted cells (Figures 2H, I
Classification of further CENP-A NAC/CAD subunits Finally, we investigated whether any further CAD subunits of the CENP-A NAC/CAD complex were required for bipolar spindle formation. We first treated cells with siRNAs against the CAD components Fta1RCENP−L, Sim4RCENP−K or CENP-I, and validated the specificity of our RNAi depletions by immunofluorescence or western blot analysis (see Supplementary Figure S6). Next, by live-cell imaging we tested whether these depletions affected chromosome congression and/or bipolar spindle formation. Depletion of all three proteins resulted in chromosome congression errors as previously shown (data not shown; Foltz et al, 2006; Okada et al, 2006), whereas only Fta1R depletion impaired bipolar spindle formation resulting in monopolar spindles in 74% of mitotic cells (Figure 7A and B
A first prediction of such a classification is that Sim4R and CENP-I should be required for the binding of Class I and Class II proteins to kinetochores. Indeed, Sim4R, CENP-I, CENP-H and Mcm21R failed to bind kinetochores in the absence of either Sim4R or CENP-I (Figure 7C–F We next tested whether failure in bipolar spindle formation in Fta1R-depleted cells occurs through a mechanism similar to that found in Mcm21R-depleted cells. This appears to be the case as simultaneous depletion of Mcm21R and Fta1R did not have an additive effect on the percentage of monopolar spindles in a fixed-cell assay (Supplementary Figure S6H). Moreover, co-depletion of CENP-H in Fta1R-depleted cells strongly reduced the occurrence of monopolar spindles at T=12 min (14 versus 75% in siFta1R-treated cells; Figure 7A and B Discussion In this paper we have used a combination of siRNA-mediated protein depletion, quantitative immunofluorescence and live-cell imaging to determine the functional organization of the CENP-A NAC/CAD protein–protein interaction network. Recent studies have subdivided this network into separate subcomplexes using data from experiments based on dependency (Okada et al, 2006) or affinity purification (Foltz et al, 2006). However, the reported number and subunit composition of such subcomplexes was not in agreement. By taking a function-based approach we show that CENP-A NAC/CAD subunits can be assigned to one of at least two distinct functional classes (Figure 8B
Internal regulation of CENP-A NAC/CAD function How do these classes of proteins functionally interact within the CENP-A NAC/CAD network? Our data indicate that the Class II proteins, such as CENP-H, CENP-I, Chl4R or Sim4R, are required for binding of Mcm21R at kinetochores, whereas Mcm21R seems to control or counteract the function of Class II proteins on kinetochores. Importantly, the absence of such a control impairs bipolar spindle assembly during mitosis. This is the first example of an antagonistic relationship among two kinetochore proteins/complexes, and has important implications for the understanding of kinetochore function; depletion of a kinetochore protein does not necessarily reveal the function of that particular protein, but can create misfunctioning kinetochores. This is the case for Mcm21R- or Fta1R-depleted kinetochores, which interfere with bipolar spindle assembly in a dominant-negative manner (McAinsh et al, 2006). Crucial challenges will be to understand how Mcm21R antagonizes Class II proteins, and how even low amounts of CENP-H, as seen in Fta1R-depleted cells, can impair spindle formation. One possibility is that Class I and Class II proteins are required for the loading of different plus-end MT-binding proteins, and that the Class I and II depletion phenotypes reflect different combinations of plus-end MT-binding proteins (for details see model in Figure 8C Functional interaction between CENP-A NAC/CAD and KMN networks We found that the CENP-A NAC/CAD network plays an important role in regulating MT–kinetochore attachment and promotes efficient chromosome alignment on the metaphase plate, but is dispensable for MT–attachment per se. Our data indicate that CENP-A NAC/CAD is not required for loading of the KMN network and that it regulates chromosome congression independently of the MIND complex (see Figure 8B What could be the function of CENP-A NAC/CAD if it is not a KMN loading factor? Our data indicate that CENP-A NAC/CAD can modulate the levels of the MT-binding NDC80 complex at kinetochores. We propose that the CENP-A NAC/CAD network functions as a fine-tuning regulator, which controls MT attachment through other protein complexes such as NDC80. Such a system might reflect the requirement for alterations in kinetochore–MT attachments during the series of stochastic chromosome movements that take place within the complex mechanical system of the mitotic spindle. We believe that the major goal of future research will be to understand at the molecular level how the CENP-A NAC/CAD network regulates its own activities and fine-tunes the activity of the KMN network and other kinetochore components. One key challenge will be to derive better assays to differentiate the function of complexes with qualitatively similar RNAi depletion phenotypes, for example, MIND and CENP-H. Overall this will allow us to understand how the two core kinetochore protein networks, CENP-A NAC/CAD and KMN, act together as dynamic molecular machines that ensure faithful MT–kinetochore attachment, bipolar spindle assembly and chromosome segregation. Materials and methods Cell culture and siRNA, MG132, ZM1 and nocodazole treatment HEK293, HeLa, HeLa H2B-EGFP and HeLa H2B-EGFP/αTubulin RFP were grown as described (McAinsh et al, 2006). siRNA oligonucleotides (Qiagen or Invitrogen) are listed in Supplementary data and were transfected as described (Elbashir et al, 2001). For all double siRNA experiments, 20 nM of each oligonucleotide was used (e.g., 20 nM siMcm21R+20 nM siLaminA), with 40 nM siLaminA being used for the control. For the partial CENP-H siRNA treatment, we used 10 nM siCENP-H+20 nM siLaminA or siMcm21R. For MG132 experiments, HeLa cells were treated with 1 μM MG132 for 30 min before fixing for immunofluorescence. For treatment with the Aurora B kinase inhibitor ZM1 (Tocris), cells were treated with 2 μM for 1 h before live-cell imaging. To measure spindle checkpoint activity, cells were treated for 16 h with 100 ng/ml nocodazole and the percentage of cells arrested in mitosis determined by phase-contrast microscopy. Antibody production Chl4R cDNA was obtained from ATCC; Sim4R and CENP-I full-length cDNAs were obtained from Open Biosystems and a CENP-H ORF was synthesized as an Escherichia coli codon-optimized version (GENEART). Polyclonal rabbit antibodies (NEOMPS) were raised against His6-tagged Chl4R, a His6-tagged fragment of CENP-I (AA 1–202), an untagged Sim4R or GST-tagged CENP-H expressed in E. coli, and purified from inclusion bodies. Peptide antibodies against Aurora B were raised in rabbits against a KENSYPWPYGRQGC peptide linked to Keyhole Limpet Hemocyanin (Covance). Rabbit anti-Chl4R antibodies were affinity purified against GST-tagged Chl4R, which was expressed in E. coli, purified under native conditions from glutathione–Sepharose beads (GE Healthcare) and covalently bound to an AminoLink Plus Immobilization column (Pierce). The specific antibodies were eluted with 100 mM glycine at pH 2.5. Immunofluorescence microscopy and live-cell imaging Cells were fixed at room temperature either for 2.5 min in methanol/acetone (1:1) or for 10 min in PTEMF (20 mM Pipes (pH 6.8), 10 mM EGTA, 1 mM MgCl2, 0.2% Triton X-100, 4% formaldehyde). For cold-stable assays, cells were incubated in ice-cold medium 10 min before fixation. Primary antibodies are listed in Supplementary data. Cross-adsorbed secondary antibodies were used (Molecular Probes). 3D image stacks were acquired in 0.2-μm steps using a × 100 or × 60 oil NA 1.4 objective on an Olympus Deltavision microscope (API) equipped with a DAPI-FITC-Rhod/TR-CY5 filter set (Chroma) and a Coolsnap HQ camera. The 3D image stacks were deconvolved with SoftWorx (API). For quantitative measurements, kinetochore signals were determined and quantified with SoftWorx using the formula
with s (signal), b (background) and r (reference signal). For each measurement, levels in at least five cells (50 kinetochores) were determined. For Ndc80, Nuf2R, Nnf1R, CENP-E and Aurora B, signal intensities were measured in mitotic cells. For CENP-H, Mcm21R and Chl4R, CENP-I and Sim4R, intensities were measured in interphase cells as they display the strongest signal. We do however emphasize that we obtained qualitatively the same results when measuring in mitotic cells. For live-cell imaging cells were monitored at 37°C in LabTech II (LabTech) chambers in Leibovitz's L-15 medium containing 10% fetal calf serum (GibcoBRL). Images were acquired every 3 min for 8 h using either a × 20 NA 0.75 or a × 40 oil NA 1.3 objective on a Olympus Deltavision microscope (API) equipped with a GFP/dsRed (Semrock) or DAPI-FITC-Rhod/TR-CY5 (Chroma) filter set. Immunoblotting Whole-cell lysate preparation and immunoblotting were carried out as described (Meraldi et al, 2004), using primary antibodies as listed in Supplementary data and anti-mouse and anti-rabbit HRP-conjugated secondary antibodies (Amersham). Supplementary Information Click here to view.(444K, pdf) Acknowledgments We thank the Light Microscopy Centre of ETH Zurich for technical support, René Holtackers for generating CENP-H, CENP-I and Sim4R antisera and Tatsuo Fukagawa for CENP-H plasmids. We are grateful to Yves Barral, Monica Gotta and Anne Straube for critical reading of the manuscript, and members of the McAinsh and Meraldi labs for helpful discussions. Work in the McAinsh laboratory was supported by Marie Curie Cancer Care (ADM, SEM and JRW), and in the Meraldi laboratory by Swiss National Science Foundation grant 3100A0-107912/1 (PM and SB), the Swiss National Science Foundation Förderungsprofessur (PM) and the EURYI award from the European Science Foundation (PM, ACA and MB). References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cell. 2003 Feb 21; 112(4):407-21.
[Cell. 2003]Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2002 Oct; 3(10):731-41.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2002]Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007 May; 8(5):379-93.
[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007]Genes Dev. 2003 Dec 1; 17(23):2902-21.
[Genes Dev. 2003]Mol Biol Cell. 2003 Dec; 14(12):4931-46.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2003]Cell. 2002 Oct 18; 111(2):163-72.
[Cell. 2002]EMBO J. 2005 Aug 17; 24(16):2919-30.
[EMBO J. 2005]Genome Biol. 2006; 7(3):R23.
[Genome Biol. 2006]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):458-69.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]Genes Dev. 2003 Dec 1; 17(23):2902-21.
[Genes Dev. 2003]J Cell Sci. 2003 Aug 15; 116(Pt 16):3347-62.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]J Cell Biol. 2006 Oct 9; 175(1):41-53.
[J Cell Biol. 2006]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):446-57.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]Mol Biol Cell. 2007 Jun; 18(6):2155-68.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2007]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):458-69.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]EMBO J. 2001 Aug 15; 20(16):4603-17.
[EMBO J. 2001]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):458-69.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]EMBO J. 2006 Sep 6; 25(17):4033-49.
[EMBO J. 2006]EMBO J. 2001 Aug 15; 20(16):4603-17.
[EMBO J. 2001]EMBO J. 2006 Sep 6; 25(17):4033-49.
[EMBO J. 2006]Mol Biol Cell. 2001 Jul; 12(7):1995-2009.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2001]EMBO J. 2001 Aug 15; 20(16):4603-17.
[EMBO J. 2001]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):458-69.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]J Cell Biol. 2006 Apr 10; 173(1):9-17.
[J Cell Biol. 2006]EMBO J. 2006 Sep 6; 25(17):4033-49.
[EMBO J. 2006]Cell. 1994 Sep 9; 78(5):761-71.
[Cell. 1994]J Cell Biol. 1980 Jun; 85(3):853-65.
[J Cell Biol. 1980]Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2005 Feb; 17(1):35-46.
[Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2005]EMBO J. 2006 Sep 6; 25(17):4033-49.
[EMBO J. 2006]Cell. 2006 Dec 1; 127(5):969-82.
[Cell. 2006]J Cell Biol. 2003 Apr 28; 161(2):267-80.
[J Cell Biol. 2003]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):458-69.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):446-57.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]EMBO J. 2006 Sep 6; 25(17):4033-49.
[EMBO J. 2006]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):446-57.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):458-69.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]EMBO J. 2006 Sep 6; 25(17):4033-49.
[EMBO J. 2006]Mol Cell. 2006 Nov 3; 24(3):409-22.
[Mol Cell. 2006]J Cell Biol. 2006 Oct 9; 175(1):41-53.
[J Cell Biol. 2006]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):446-57.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]Mol Biol Cell. 2007 Jun; 18(6):2155-68.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2007]EMBO J. 2001 Aug 15; 20(16):4603-17.
[EMBO J. 2001]Dev Cell. 2002 Apr; 2(4):463-76.
[Dev Cell. 2002]EMBO J. 2006 Sep 6; 25(17):4033-49.
[EMBO J. 2006]Nature. 2001 May 24; 411(6836):494-8.
[Nature. 2001]Dev Cell. 2004 Jul; 7(1):45-60.
[Dev Cell. 2004]EMBO J. 2006 Sep 6; 25(17):4033-49.
[EMBO J. 2006]Mol Biol Cell. 2005 Oct; 16(10):4882-92.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2005]EMBO J. 2006 Sep 6; 25(17):4033-49.
[EMBO J. 2006]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):446-57.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]