Cited by 25Microtubule and mitosis dynamicsBiotin and Related StudiesGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics

Cell cycle regulation of microtubule interactomes: multi-layered regulation is critical for the interphase/mitosis transition

Open access
Syred, Heather M., Welburn, Julie, Rappsilber, Juri, Ohkura, Hiroyuki·2013·Molecular & Cellular Proteomics

Abstract

Microtubules dramatically change their dynamics and organization at the entry into mitosis. Although this change is mediated by microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), how MAPs themselves are regulated is not well understood. Here we used an integrated multi-level approach to establish the framework and biological significance of MAP regulation critical for the interphase/mitosis transition. Firstly, we applied quantitative proteomics to determine global cell cycle changes in the profiles of MAPs in human and Drosophila cells. This uncovered a wide range of cell cycle regulations of MAPs previously unidentified. Secondly, systematic studies of human kinesins highlighted an overlooked aspect of kinesins: most mitotic kinesins suppress their affinity to microtubules or reduce their protein levels in interphase in combination with nuclear localization. Thirdly, in-depth analysis of a novel Drosophila MAP (Mink) revealed that the suppression of the microtubule affinity of this mitotic MAP in combination with nuclear localization is essential for microtubule organization in interphase, and phosphorylation of Mink is needed for kinetochore-microtubule attachment in mitosis. Thus, this first comprehensive analysis of MAP regulation for the interphase/mitosis transition advances our understanding of kinesin biology and reveals the prevalence and importance of multi-layered MAP regulation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1074/mcp.m113.028563

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Newer proteomics approaches are identifying novel protein-protein interactions and putative sites of phosphoregulation and other post-translational modifications, which should provide a complete roadmap of the mitotic spindle.

    “In addition, newer proteomics approaches are identifying novel protein-protein interactions and putative sites of phosphoregulation and other post-translational modifications, which should provide a complete roadmap of the mitotic spindle [61, 62].”

    From Regulatory mechanisms that control mitotic kinesins (2015) · cites this paper as [61]

    The Results report phosphorylation-site measurements, and the Experimental Procedures describe mapping an interaction network for identified microtubule-associated proteins. But the Discussion says other modifications were not actively maintained and notes that the method missed proteins binding exclusively to dynamic microtubule ends. The paper therefore supports proteomics as a way to build a broader picture, not the claim that it should provide a complete roadmap of the mitotic spindle. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Syred, H. M., Welburn, J., Rappsilber, J., & Ohkura, H.
Affiliations
Wellcome Centre for Cell Biology (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Rappsilber, Juri
  • Ohkura, Hiroyuki
Venue
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-11
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
3135-3147
ISSN
1535-9476 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2140591566
Cited by
25
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular & Cellular Proteomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (98030, 091020, 084229, 098030, 081849, 092076, 098030/Z/11/Z)
  • Cancer Research UK (12840, C40377/A12840)
  • University of Warwick
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Microtubule and mitosis dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Biotin and Related Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Keywords
microtubule-associated proteins, cell cycle regulation, kinesin, nuclear localization, mink, kinetochore-microtubule attachment, microtubule dynamics, protein phosphorylation, Drosophila cells, human cells
MeSH terms
Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Cell Line, Drosophila melanogaster, HeLa Cells, Humans, Interphase, Microtubule-Associated Proteins, Microtubules, Molecular Sequence Data, Phosphorylation, Recombinant Fusion Proteins, Mutagenesis, Site-Directed, Kinesins, Sequence Homology, Amino Acid, Kinetochores, Amino Acid Substitution, Drosophila Proteins, Proteomics, Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs, Cell Cycle Checkpoints, M Phase Cell Cycle Checkpoints

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review