The evolutionary conserved chromosomal passenger complex (CPC) is essential for faithful transmission of the genome during cell division. Perturbation of this complex in cultured cells gives rise to chromosome segregation errors and cytokinesis failure and as a consequence the ploidy status of the next generation of cells is changed. Aneuploidy and chromosomal instability (CIN) is observed in many human cancers, but whether this may be caused by deregulation of the CPC is unknown. In the present review, we discuss if and how a dysfunctional CPC could contribute to CIN in cancer.

CIN, aneuploidy and cancer

Aneuploidy, a state in which the genomic content of a cell deviates from a multiple of the haploid set of chromosomes, occurs in around 70% of all tumours [1]. Aneuploid cells arise as a consequence of mis-segregation of whole chromosomes during cell division. In many cancer cells, the rate of chromosome mis-segregation is increased, resulting in a high frequency of chromosome gain and loss, a condition known as chromosomal instability (CIN). It has long been debated whether CIN itself can drive tumorigenesis or whether it arises as an indirect consequence of cell transformation. Increasing pieces of evidence, based on the examination of mouse models in which CIN is induced, suggest that chromosome mis-segregations could promote cancer development [2]. Human aneuploid tumours can be categorized into two types: those that exhibit clonal aneuploidy and those that have heterogeneous karyotypes [3]. The former situation implies that cancer cells have gone through a period of CIN or a rare event of chromosome mis-segregation, whereas the latter case is indicative of ongoing CIN [3]. This poses the question whether persistent chromosome mis-segregation provides an advantage to the cancer cell or if it is the aneuploid genome composition that is beneficial. Loss or gain of particular chromosomes could indeed be beneficial for the cancer cell, as it can shift the balance between genes with oncogenic properties and tumour suppressor genes, thereby conferring benefits with respect to proliferation and survival [1,4,5]. Additionally, CIN by itself may be profitable. It will give rise to a cell population with a variety of karyotypes allowing fast adaptation to a changing environment, which could help to develop resistance to anti-cancer drug treatment [3,6,7]. The level of CIN is probably a critical determinant of cellular fitness because elevation of the segregation error frequency results in reduced viability of cancer cells [8]. Moreover, mis-segregation rates may not only affect tumour cell fitness, but also appear to determine whether CIN can promote or inhibit the development of cancer [9].

Origins of CIN

Faithful chromosome segregation during mitosis requires that kinetochores (multiprotein structures that assemble at centromeres and form microtubule attachment sites) of the duplicated chromosomes bind to microtubules emanating from opposite spindle poles (chromosome biorientation) [10]. Since the interactions between kinetochores and spindle microtubules are stochastic in early mitosis, many sister chromatids initially acquire attachments that are not bipolar. Both kinetochores of the sister chromatids may bind microtubules emanating from one spindle pole (syntelic attachments) or a single kinetochore may attach to microtubules derived from both spindle poles, whereas the other kinetochore is attached to microtubules from just one spindle pole (merotelic attachments). In addition, one kinetochore can become attached to microtubules from one pole, whereas its sister remains unattached (monotelic attachment) [11]. When these kinetochore–microtubule (k–MT) attachment errors persist until anaphase, they can result in whole chromosome mis-segregation and in aneuploidy of the two daughter cells. In addition, lagging chromosomes that are a frequent consequence of merotelic attachments can also cause structural chromosomal aberrations [1214]. However, the combined activities of the error-correction machinery and the mitotic checkpoint (MC; a surveillance pathway that prevents chromosome segregation until all sister chromatids are attached to the mitotic spindle [15]) ensure that k–MT attachment errors are resolved before anaphase onset to preserve genome integrity.

A number of defects are thought to cause CIN. First, multipolar mitotic spindles, arising as a consequence of centrosome over-duplication, increase the likelihood of acquiring merotelic k–MT attachments in pro-metaphase. Due to centrosome clustering, cells with multiple centrosomes frequently undergo a pseudo-bipolar anaphase with the merotellicaly attached sister chromatids appearing as lagging chromosomes [16,17]. Secondly, impaired sister chromatid cohesion affects chromosome biorientation and increases the frequency of mis-segregating chromosomes [1821]. Third, a weakened MC fails to delay anaphase onset sufficiently to allow all chromosomes to achieve proper biorientation before anaphase onset [7,15]. And fourth, excessively stable k–MT attachments lead to persistent incorrect k–MT attachments and lagging chromosomes in anaphase [22,23]. Although centrosome amplification, cohesin defects and hyperstabilized k–MT interactions have been described in cancer or cancer cell lines [16,17,19,22,23], evidence for a weaker function of the MC as a widespread feature in chromosomally unstable cancer cells is controversial [2428].

The CPC ensures faithful chromosome segregation

An evolutionarily conserved component of the error correction machinery is the mitotic kinase Aurora B [29]. Aurora B functions in complex with three other non-enzymatic proteins; INCENP (inner centromere protein), Borealin and Survivin, together known as the chromosomal passenger complex (CPC). At the onset of mitosis Aurora B is recruited and activated at the inner centromere, where it promotes the destabilization of k–MT attachments through the phosphorylation of (among others) the KMN network, the core microtubule-binding protein complex at the kinetochore [3032]. Destabilization of incorrect k–MT attachments allows for a new opportunity to establish bipolar attachments [30,33]. As sister-kinetochores bind microtubules from opposite poles, the chromosome orients each kinetochore toward the attached pole greatly favouring appropriate bioriented attachments [34,35]. Also, centromeres of bioriented chromosomes experience increased tension that spatially separates Aurora B from its outer-kinetochore substrates resulting in changes of the phosphorylation status of these substrates [30,3638]. In addition, Aurora B-counteracting phosphatases, such as protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) and PP1, are essential for removal of phosphate groups from Aurora B target sites. The combined action of Aurora B kinase and the PP2A and PP1 phosphatases are thought to create a highly dynamic kinetochore microtubule interface that promote the correction of mis-attached k–MTs, and the stabilization of correctly attached microtubules [3943]. Besides its role in error correction, Aurora B also directly feeds into the MC by controlling the kinetochore recruitment of the MC kinase Mps1 [4446] and is crucial for cytokinesis [4753]. This latter function is probably associated with its localization on the central spindle midzone and midbody during anaphase and telophase respectively. Through its multiple activities during cell division the CPC ensures chromosomal stability. The questions if and how the function of the CPC is disturbed in chromosomally unstable cancer cells are discussed in the present review.

Consequences of impaired Aurora B function

A functional CPC requires Aurora B kinase activity and INCENP, Survivin and Borealin for proper activation and localization of the kinase. The level of localized Aurora B activity needs to be tightly regulated to prevent chromosome mis-segregation and to support cytokinesis (Figure 1). In line with this, partial inhibition of Aurora B using low concentrations of a small molecule inhibitor was shown to hamper the resolution of merotelic attachments during (pro-)metaphase and increases the number of lagging chromosomes in anaphase [54]. Higher doses of Aurora B inhibitor or RNAi-mediated kinase depletion perturb chromosome alignment in metaphase, indicative of mal-attachments other than merotelics [5254]. This is followed by massive chromosome mis-segregations in anaphase and cytokinesis failure [5254].

Possible fates of mitotic cells with increased or decreased levels of local Aurora B kinase activity

Figure 1
Possible fates of mitotic cells with increased or decreased levels of local Aurora B kinase activity

(A) Normal mitosis. Chromosome segregation is error-free and cytokinesis is completed. (B) High levels of Aurora B activity could lead to ongoing destabilization of k–MT interactions, followed by mitotic slippage or cytokinesis failure, giving rise to one cell with multiple nuclei (4n) and two centrosomes. (C) Reduced Aurora B activity at centromeres probably increases the frequency of merotelic attachments, giving rise to lagging chromosomes in anaphase [54]. When followed by normal cytokinesis, it can give rise to cells with near diploid aneuploidy and micronuclei. This situation can be envisaged to occur when cancer cells express mutant versions of Borealin or Survivin that impair centromere localization, but not central spindle localization of Aurora B [5557]. (D) Reduced Aurora B activity at the central spindle can result in cytokinesis failure, giving rise to binucleated 4n daughter cells with two centrosomes. When these cells progress through S-phase and a subsequent mitosis, the extra centrosomes may produce multipolar spindles that will increase the likelihood of acquiring merotelic k–MT attachments. This situation may occur when cancer cells express mutant versions of INCENP, Borealin or Survivin that impair central spindle localization, but not centromere localization of Aurora B [57]. (E) Reduced Aurora B activity at both the centromere and the central spindle can cause both chromosome mis-segregation and cytokinesis failure, giving rise to multinucleated (4n) cells. Mitotic spindle and centrosomes are shown in grey. Kinetochores are shown in red. DNA is shown in blue. Mis-segregated chromosomes can give rise to micronuclei in G1-phase, which are depicted as small blue spheres.

Figure 1
Possible fates of mitotic cells with increased or decreased levels of local Aurora B kinase activity

(A) Normal mitosis. Chromosome segregation is error-free and cytokinesis is completed. (B) High levels of Aurora B activity could lead to ongoing destabilization of k–MT interactions, followed by mitotic slippage or cytokinesis failure, giving rise to one cell with multiple nuclei (4n) and two centrosomes. (C) Reduced Aurora B activity at centromeres probably increases the frequency of merotelic attachments, giving rise to lagging chromosomes in anaphase [54]. When followed by normal cytokinesis, it can give rise to cells with near diploid aneuploidy and micronuclei. This situation can be envisaged to occur when cancer cells express mutant versions of Borealin or Survivin that impair centromere localization, but not central spindle localization of Aurora B [5557]. (D) Reduced Aurora B activity at the central spindle can result in cytokinesis failure, giving rise to binucleated 4n daughter cells with two centrosomes. When these cells progress through S-phase and a subsequent mitosis, the extra centrosomes may produce multipolar spindles that will increase the likelihood of acquiring merotelic k–MT attachments. This situation may occur when cancer cells express mutant versions of INCENP, Borealin or Survivin that impair central spindle localization, but not centromere localization of Aurora B [57]. (E) Reduced Aurora B activity at both the centromere and the central spindle can cause both chromosome mis-segregation and cytokinesis failure, giving rise to multinucleated (4n) cells. Mitotic spindle and centrosomes are shown in grey. Kinetochores are shown in red. DNA is shown in blue. Mis-segregated chromosomes can give rise to micronuclei in G1-phase, which are depicted as small blue spheres.

Instead of impairing general kinase activity, local kinase activity can also be affected by specifically disturbing Aurora B localization to the inner centromere or central spindle via expression of truncation and/or point mutants of Borealin, Survivin or INCENP [5557]. Local perturbation of Aurora B activity can give rise to CIN by at least two different mechanisms: impaired correction of mal-attachments or by centrosome amplification due to failed cytokinesis (Figure 1). Moreover, in contrast with reduced Aurora B activity, hyper-activation or overexpression of Aurora B may also cause problems through, for example, failure of stabilizing bipolar attachments. While under normal circumstances unattached kinetochores, created by ongoing k–MT destabilization, would keep the MC active, a failure to stabilize bipolar attachments could give rise to aneuploidy when the MC is simultaneously weakened (Figure 1). A recent study in budding yeast in which the Aurora B and INCENP homologues Ipl1 and Sli15 were both overexpressed suggests that hyperactivity of Aurora B can indeed prevent stabilization of bipolar attachments in this organism [58]. However, whether bioriented attachments fail to be stabilized in mammalian cells that overexpress Aurora B is not known. Mere overexpression of Aurora B in Chinese hamster embryo cells enhanced phosphorylation of the Aurora B substrate histone H3, indicating that elevated levels of the kinase in mammalian cells can indeed result in increased activity [59]. This was associated with an increased frequency of lagging chromosomes and chromosome bridges in anaphase and the formation of multinucleated cells [59]. Increased multinucleation was also seen upon Aurora B overexpression in human fibroblast and epithelial cell lines [60]. Moreover, in a small fraction of murine mammary gland epithelial cells, multiplication of the genomic content, as judged by FACS analysis and chromosome count, was observed upon overexpression of Aurora B [61]. The observed multinucleation and polyploidization suggests that Aurora B overexpression can lead to cytokinesis failure or mitotic slippage [5961]. In addition to these phenotypes, Aurora B overexpression has also been reported to induce premature sister chromatid separation in both diploid and tetraploid mouse epithelial cells, although it remains unclear how this cohesion defect is mediated [62]. Moreover, whether cohesion loss could explain the earlier described chromosome segregation defects is unknown [62]. Although these collective findings suggest that overexpression of Aurora B can indeed disturb chromosome segregation and cytokinesis, the mechanism underlying these cell division defects remains poorly understood. Furthermore, the consequence of overexpression of the other CPC subunits for chromosome segregation or cytokinesis has not been extensively studied.

Aurora B deregulation in tumours

Since Aurora B ensures error-free chromosome segregation, a process that is disturbed in many tumour types, the question arises how well Aurora B is functioning in chromosomally unstable cancer cells. Below, we describe several mechanisms that could lead to deregulation of Aurora B and discuss these aberrations in the context of cancer.

Deregulation of Aurora B gene expression

Overexpression of Aurora B has been reported in a variety of tumour types [63]. Moreover, Aurora B is one of the genes in the CIN70 signature, a list of genes whose overexpression is associated with aneuploidy in cancer [64]. However, a more recent paper questioned the validity of the CIN70 profile and posed the possibility that expression of these genes may be related to proliferation rather than aneuploidy [3]. Since Aurora B is mainly expressed during G2 and mitosis [65,66], it is more abundant in cycling cells, raising the question whether the up-regulation is merely a consequence of the proliferative state of cancer cells. Aberrant overexpression of a gene may be caused by gene amplification or by (epi)genetic changes in the gene promoter, neither of which have been reported as a cause for increased expression of Aurora B in tumours. Moreover, a recent study indicated that the increased mRNA levels of many kinetochore genes, including CPC genes, in tumours was strongly correlated with the activation of a general cell division programme [67]. Thus, although overexpression of Aurora B in cultured cells can result in segregation defects, it is questionable whether the high Aurora B levels observed in cancer will be a causal factor for CIN.

On the other hand, reduced levels of Aurora B clearly give rise to segregation errors. Mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), in which both alleles for Aurora B have been knocked out, exhibit a range of aberrations associated with impaired mitosis or cytokinesis, including multinucleation, formation of micronuclei and multipolar spindles [68]. Homozygous Aurora B knockout mice do not survive beyond embryonic stage E9.5; however, heterozygous Aurora B knockout mice develop normally and have an increased tumour incidence [68]. Although an increase in DNA content was reported for a small number of MEFs derived from these mice, the ploidy status of either healthy or tumour cells from adult animals was not determined [68]. It can, therefore, not be excluded that subtle segregation defects could eventually have driven cancer development [68]. In cultured cells, INCENP, Borealin and Survivin are required for activation and/or localization of Aurora B [57] and similar to inactivation of Aurora B, loss of these subunits impairs error correction and cytokinesis [56,6971]. INCENP-, Survivin- or Borealin-null mice also die during embryonic development and MEFs derived from early embryos show signs of defective mitosis [7274]. There is presently no indication that mitotic errors frequently occur in MEFs derived from mice heterozygous for these CPC members. However, since the phenotype of the heterozygous adult animals was not thoroughly investigated, a low frequency of segregation errors may have been missed. Moreover, it is also not known whether these animals have an increased cancer incidence later in life [7274].

In cancer cells, reduced levels of Aurora B might result from genetic alteration of one of the coding alleles. The human AURKB (Aurora kinase B) gene is located at the 17p13.1 locus, in close proximity to the gene encoding the tumour suppressor p53, a region that is often deleted in tumours [4,7579]. Evaluation of a panel of breast carcinomas showed that in 12% of tumours the Aurora B and p53 genes were co-deleted [80]. Interestingly, when this is accompanied with loss or mutation of the second p53 allele, it could result in cells with reduced Aurora B expression and loss of functional p53. Non-transformed cells frequently arrest in G1, in a p53-dependent manner, when they have mis-segregated chromosomes or failed cytokinesis [81,82]. Cells with co-deleted Aurora B and p53 genes may progress through the cell cycle with aberrant chromosome and even centrosome numbers, leading to further chromosome mis-segregation in the next mitosis or to secondary structural genomic alterations [13,14]. It would be interesting to determine in non-transformed human cells to what extend heterozygous loss of the Aurora B gene affects Aurora B protein levels and whether this is sufficient to elevate the rates of chromosome mis-segregation. By doing so, in a p53 proficient and deficient background, the cellular response to potential chromosome mis-segregations as a result of loss of one Aurora B allele can be compared.

Mutations

Single nucleotide substitutions can give rise to a protein with altered functionality. The numbers of mutations that are present in a tumour vary per tumour type and can range from fewer than ten to over a thousand [83]. A major challenge in interpreting all these genetic alterations is to distinguish mutations that confer a selective advantage to the cell, the so-called driver mutations, from passenger mutations that do not contribute to cellular fitness. Driver mutations exist in two flavours: (1) gain-of-function mutations that impose oncogenic properties on a protein; (2) mutations that abrogate protein function, which in cancer usually occur in tumour suppressor genes [84]. The problem of pin-pointing driver mutations in the cancer genome is often-times dealt with by comparing mutational profiles across tumour samples [85,86]. If a mutation at a specific site is present in a large proportion of tumours, but not in healthy tissue, it probably entails an oncogenic mutation [4]. Loss-of-function mutations that provide a selective advantage to a cell are not necessarily confined to a single nucleotide, but occur with elevated frequency along the length of the gene [4]. These protein-inactivating mutations can be mis-sense mutations that lead to amino acid substitutions, but also frame-shift mutations, alteration of splice sites or mutations that introduce a premature stop-codon [87]. Many major driver mutations have already been identified based on their overall occurrence in cancer. Since methods to analyse high-throughput sequencing data are getting more refined, it also becomes feasible to address more complex issues regarding the contribution of mutations to cancer establishment or maintenance. For example, the classification of genes as cancer-associated genes or neutral genes might not be as black-and-white as previously stated, as there appear to be gradations in the oncogenic- or tumour suppressor capacity that genes harbour [4]. It could also be possible that combinations of mutations in certain genes give a fitness advantage, rather than each genetic alteration having an effect in an isolated manner. The large amounts of tumour sequencing data that are being generated worldwide make it possible to obtain mutation data about any gene of interest as well as the genetic context of the identified mutations. Moreover, as the output of next-generation sequencing data is often made available via different online platforms, a wide audience can obtain access to and make use of this information [85].

Point mutations in any of the genes that encode members of the CPC could prevent the formation of a functional complex and result in chromosome mis-segregations or cytokinesis failure. As such, mutations in CPC genes might promote tumour development through induction of CIN. These mutations are not classical cancer drivers, as they do not directly provide a benefit with regard to tumour cell survival or proliferation, but could enable the creation of a population in which a certain subset of cells may have acquired a karyotype that supports transformation. Currently there are no indications that the genes encoding proteins of the CPC are mutated with elevated frequency in tumours. However, since mutation of any of the four proteins might result in Aurora B dysfunction, the cumulative mutation rate of the CPC across tumours might encompass all cases with mutations in Aurora B, INCENP, Borealin or Survivin. Characterization of how mutations in the CPC genes that occur in cancers affect chromosome segregation could reveal whether this may indeed be a mechanism by which CIN in tumours can arise.

The Aurora B regulatory network

Aurora B function relies on many different factors. Numerous proteins are involved in the localization and activation of the kinase. In addition, Aurora B antagonizing phosphatases influence the phosphorylation status of its substrates. The list of proteins that are phosphorylated by Aurora B is extensive [32,8890] and together they determine the different functions of Aurora B with respect to error correction, MC activation and cytokinesis. The intricate network of Aurora B regulators and effectors denotes that perturbation of any of these proteins might, in fact, result in aberrant Aurora B function (Figure 2). Below we have listed a number of examples in which CIN and tumorigenesis are in some way linked to a change in Aurora B functionality.

Schematic overview of the Aurora B regulatory network

Figure 2
Schematic overview of the Aurora B regulatory network

Various factors are important for the regulation of local Aurora B activity required for error correction, proper function of the MC and execution of cytokinesis. Perturbation of specific components within this network could affect Aurora B function to various degrees.

Figure 2
Schematic overview of the Aurora B regulatory network

Various factors are important for the regulation of local Aurora B activity required for error correction, proper function of the MC and execution of cytokinesis. Perturbation of specific components within this network could affect Aurora B function to various degrees.

Overexpression of the MC protein Bub1 in mice caused Aurora B hyperactivation by a thus far unknown mechanism and resulted in aneuploidy and increased tumour formation [91]. The observed CIN in MEFs derived from these mice could be reversed by Aurora B inhibition, indicating that hyperactivation of Aurora B caused the CIN upon Bub1 overexpression [91]. However, whether Aurora B hyperactivation was also responsible for the increase in tumour incidence remains to be demonstrated.

Mice heterozygous for an acetylation-defective mutant of BubR1, another component of the MC are also chromosomally unstable and prone to tumour development [92]. Experiments on MEFs from these mice indicated that these cells not only had difficulties maintaining the MC, but also exhibited reduced binding of BubR1 to the Aurora B counteracting PP2A–B56 phosphatase and had increased levels of phosphorylated Ndc80 [92]. As such, the BubR1 acetylation-defective mutants may affect chromosome segregation via dual effects on MC and k–MT interactions. The effect of BubR1 on phosphorylation of Aurora B substrates via regulation of PP2A–B56 is also observed in human cells [42,43,93]. Depletion of BubR1 prevents the formation of stable k–MT interactions and this phenotype can be rescued by Aurora B inhibition [93,94]. Interestingly, genetic mutations in BubR1 are associated with mosaic variegated aneuploidy (MVA), a disease characterized by growth retardation, microcephaly, mosaic aneuploidies and pre-disposition to cancer [95]. Bi-allelic BubR1 mutations identified in MVA patients caused defects in checkpoint functioning and/or chromosome alignment via specific effects of the mutations on certain protein interaction domains or as a result of reduced BubR1 protein stability [41]. In some MVA patients, the chromosome segregation defects may thus be explained by a disturbed balance between PP2A–B56 and Aurora B as a consequence of BubR1 dysfunction [41].

Overexpression of Mad2 promotes aneuploidy and tumorigenesis in mice [96]. Interestingly, Mad2 overexpression in human cells reduces Aurora B levels at centromeres and leads to hyper-stabilization of k–MT interactions and lagging chromosomes in anaphase [97]. This indicates that the aneuploidy induced by Mad2 overexpression might be mediated via delocalization of Aurora B. How Mad2 affects the signalling pathways involved in CPC centromere recruitment remains to be elucidated. In addition, experiments in human cell lines showed that depletion of the PP2A regulatory subunit Aα (PPP2R1a) resulted in increased Mad2 phosphorylation and reduced growth of Mad2 overexpressing cells [98]. Knockdown of Aurora B inhibited Mad2 phosphorylation and abolished the PPP2R1a depletion-induced growth arrest, providing a different regulatory link in which Aurora B acts upstream of Mad2 [98].

The final example of how Aurora B activity could be changed as a result of altered functionality of regulatory proteins comes from the recently discovered link between the ARF (alternative reading frame) tumour suppressor and Aurora B [99]. The CDKN2a (cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A) locus, which encodes both INK4a and ARF in different reading frames, is frequently mutated in tumours [100]. Germline mutations of this gene cause a pre-disposition to development of melanomas [101]. It is well established that ARF stabilizes p53 through its interaction with MDM2 (murine double minute 2 homologue) [102]. Loss of ARF resulted in aneuploidy in MEFs and splenocytes from adult mice, however, the segregation defects and weakened MC that probably give rise to the aneuploid state were independent of p53 [99]. Instead, Aurora B protein levels were increased in ARF knockout cells and the phenotypes could be rescued by depletion of Aurora B to near wild-type levels, indicating that Aurora B overexpression is the likely cause for the mitotic defects in ARF knockout cells [99].

Concluding remarks

Currently, it is unclear whether perturbation of Aurora B or of the other members of the CPC by aberrant expression or by mutations could mediate CIN in certain tumours. Although present in low frequency in cancer, analysis of the effects of potential tumour-associated mutations of Aurora B, INCENP, Borealin or Survivin could provide further insight into the functionality of the CPC in chromosomally unstable tumours. Moreover, the proper level of activity of Aurora B, at either the centromere in (pro-)metaphase or the central spindle in anaphase is not only dictated by the other CPC members, but is also controlled by a complex regulatory network involving many other proteins [103] (Figure 2). Mutations or defects in either of these regulators could impair Aurora B function and cause CIN. Taking this into account, the number of tumours in which Aurora B function could be disturbed may be much higher than predicted by mutational analysis of CPC subunits. Yet, it will be a challenge to identify all the potential genetic alterations that may indirectly affect Aurora B function and to determine whether they thereby contribute to CIN and cancer.

We thank Dr N. Jelluma for a critical reading of the paper.

Funding

This work is supported by the Dutch Cancer Society [grant number KWF UU2011–5134]; and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research [grant number NWO Vici 918.12.610].

Abbreviations

     
  • ARF

    alternative reading frame

  •  
  • CIN

    chromosomal instability

  •  
  • CPC

    chromosomal passenger complex

  •  
  • INCENP

    inner centromere protein

  •  
  • k–MT

    kinetochore–microtubule

  •  
  • MC

    mitotic checkpoint

  •  
  • MEF

    mouse embryonic fibroblast

  •  
  • MVA

    mosaic variegated aneuploidy

  •  
  • PP

    protein phosphatase

  •  
  • PPP2R1A

    PP2A regulatory subunit Aα

The Dynamic Cell: held at Robinson College, Cambridge University, Cambridge, U.K., 4–7 September 2014.

References

References
1
Duijf
 
P.H.
Schultz
 
N.
Benezra
 
R.
 
Cancer cells preferentially lose small chromosomes
Int. J. Cancer
2013
, vol. 
132
 (pg. 
2316
-
2326
)
[PubMed]
2
Duijf
 
P.H.
Benezra
 
R.
 
The cancer biology of whole-chromosome instability
Oncogene
2013
, vol. 
32
 (pg. 
4727
-
4736
)
[PubMed]
3
Sheltzer
 
J.M.
 
A transcriptional and metabolic signature of primary aneuploidy is present in chromosomally unstable cancer cells and informs clinical prognosis
Cancer Res.
2013
, vol. 
73
 (pg. 
6401
-
6412
)
[PubMed]
4
Davoli
 
T.
Xu
 
A.W.
Mengwasser
 
K.E.
Sack
 
L.M.
Yoon
 
J.C.
Park
 
P.J.
Elledge
 
S.J.
 
Cumulative haploinsufficiency and triplosensitivity drive aneuploidy patterns and shape the cancer genome
Cell
2013
, vol. 
155
 (pg. 
948
-
962
)
[PubMed]
5
Komarova
 
N.L.
Lengauer
 
C.
Vogelstein
 
B.
Nowak
 
M.A.
 
Dynamics of genetic instability in sporadic and familial colorectal cancer
Cancer Biol. Ther.
2002
, vol. 
1
 (pg. 
685
-
692
)
[PubMed]
6
Roschke
 
A.V.
Stover
 
K.
Tonon
 
G.
Schäffer
 
A.A.
Kirsch
 
I.R.
 
Stable karyotypes in epithelial cancer cell lines despite high rates of ongoing structural and numerical chromosomal instability
Neoplasia
2002
, vol. 
4
 (pg. 
19
-
31
)
[PubMed]
7
Kops
 
G.J.
Weaver
 
B.A.
Cleveland
 
D.W.
 
On the road to cancer: aneuploidy and the mitotic checkpoint
Nat. Rev. Cancer
2005
, vol. 
5
 (pg. 
773
-
785
)
[PubMed]
8
Janssen
 
A.
Kops
 
G.J.
Medema
 
R.H.
 
Elevating the frequency of chromosome mis-segregation as a strategy to kill tumor cells
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
2009
, vol. 
106
 (pg. 
19108
-
19113
)
[PubMed]
9
Silk
 
A.D.
Zasadil
 
L.M.
Holland
 
A.J.
Vitre
 
B.
Cleveland
 
D.W.
Weaver
 
B.A.
 
Chromosome missegregation rate predicts whether aneuploidy will promote or suppress tumors
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
2013
, vol. 
110
 (pg. 
E4134
-
E4141
)
[PubMed]
10
Cheeseman
 
I.M.
Desai
 
A.
 
Molecular architecture of the kinetochore–microtubule interface
Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.
2008
, vol. 
9
 (pg. 
33
-
46
)
[PubMed]
11
Cimini
 
D.
Degrassi
 
F.
 
Aneuploidy: a matter of bad connections
Trends Cell Biol.
2005
, vol. 
15
 (pg. 
442
-
451
)
[PubMed]
12
Cimini
 
D.
Howell
 
B.
Maddox
 
P.
Khodjakov
 
A.
Degrassi
 
F.
Salmon
 
E.D.
 
Merotelic kinetochore orientation is a major mechanism of aneuploidy in mitotic mammalian tissue cells
J. Cell Biol.
2001
, vol. 
153
 (pg. 
517
-
527
)
[PubMed]
13
Janssen
 
A.
van der Burg
 
M.
Szuhai
 
K.
Kops
 
G.J.
Medema
 
R.H.
 
Chromosome segregation errors as a cause of DNA damage and structural chromosome aberrations
Science
2011
, vol. 
333
 (pg. 
1895
-
1898
)
[PubMed]
14
Crasta
 
K.
Ganem
 
N.J.
Dagher
 
R.
Lantermann
 
A.B.
Ivanova
 
E.V.
Pan
 
Y.
Nezi
 
L.
Protopopov
 
A.
Chowdhury
 
D.
Pellman
 
D.
 
DNA breaks and chromosome pulverization from errors in mitosis
Nature
2012
, vol. 
482
 (pg. 
53
-
58
)
[PubMed]
15
Foley
 
E.A.
Kapoor
 
T.M.
 
Microtubule attachment and spindle assembly checkpoint signalling at the kinetochore
Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.
2013
, vol. 
14
 (pg. 
25
-
37
)
[PubMed]
16
Silkworth
 
W.T.
Nardi
 
I.K.
Scholl
 
L.M.
Cimini
 
D.
 
Multipolar spindle pole coalescence is a major source of kinetochore mis-attachment and chromosome mis-segregation in cancer cells
PLoS ONE
2009
, vol. 
4
 pg. 
e6564
 
[PubMed]
17
Ganem
 
N.J.
Godinho
 
S.A.
Pellman
 
D.
 
A mechanism linking extra centrosomes to chromosomal instability
Nature
2009
, vol. 
460
 (pg. 
278
-
282
)
[PubMed]
18
Barber
 
T.D.
McManus
 
K.
Yuen
 
K.W.
Reis
 
M.
Parmigiani
 
G.
Shen
 
D.
Barrett
 
I.
Nouhi
 
Y.
Spencer
 
F.
Markowitz
 
S.
, et al 
Chromatid cohesion defects may underlie chromosome instability in human colorectal cancers
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
2008
, vol. 
105
 (pg. 
3443
-
3448
)
[PubMed]
19
Solomon
 
D.A.
Kim
 
T.
Diaz-Martinez
 
L.A.
Fair
 
J.
Elkahloun
 
A.G.
Harris
 
B.T.
Toretsky
 
J.A.
Rosenberg
 
S.A.
Shukla
 
N.
Ladanyi
 
M.
, et al 
Mutational inactivation of STAG2 causes aneuploidy in human cancer
Science
2011
, vol. 
333
 (pg. 
1039
-
1043
)
[PubMed]
20
Tanaka
 
T.
Fuchs
 
J.
Loidl
 
J.
Nasmyth
 
K.
 
Cohesin ensures bipolar attachment of microtubules to sister centromeres and resists their precocious separation
Nat. Cell Biol.
2000
, vol. 
2
 (pg. 
492
-
499
)
[PubMed]
21
Sonoda
 
E.
Matsusaka
 
T.
Morrison
 
C.
Vagnarelli
 
P.
Hoshi
 
O.
Ushiki
 
T.
Nojima
 
K.
Fukagawa
 
T.
Waizenegger
 
I.C.
Peters
 
J.M.
, et al 
Scc1/Rad21/Mcd1 is required for sister chromatid cohesion and kinetochore function in vertebrate cells
Dev. Cell
2001
, vol. 
1
 (pg. 
759
-
770
)
[PubMed]
22
Bakhoum
 
S.F.
Genovese
 
G.
Compton
 
D.A.
 
Deviant kinetochore microtubule dynamics underlie chromosomal instability
Curr. Biol.
2009
, vol. 
19
 (pg. 
1937
-
1942
)
[PubMed]
23
Bakhoum
 
S.F.
Thompson
 
S.L.
Manning
 
A.L.
Compton
 
D.A.
 
Genome stability is ensured by temporal control of kinetochore–microtubule dynamics
Nat. Cell Biol.
2009
, vol. 
11
 (pg. 
27
-
35
)
[PubMed]
24
Weaver
 
B.A.
Cleveland
 
D.W.
 
Does aneuploidy cause cancer?
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
2006
, vol. 
18
 (pg. 
658
-
667
)
25
Gascoigne
 
K.E.
Taylor
 
S.S.
 
Cancer cells display profound intra- and interline variation following prolonged exposure to antimitotic drugs
Cancer Cell
2008
, vol. 
14
 (pg. 
111
-
122
)
[PubMed]
26
Thompson
 
S.L.
Compton
 
D.A.
 
Examining the link between chromosomal instability and aneuploidy in human cells
J. Cell Biol.
2008
, vol. 
180
 (pg. 
665
-
672
)
[PubMed]
27
Cahill
 
D.P.
Lengauer
 
C.
Yu
 
J.
Riggins
 
G.J.
Willson
 
J.K.
Markowitz
 
S.D.
Kinzler
 
K.W.
Vogelstein
 
B.
 
Mutations of mitotic checkpoint genes in human cancers
Nature
1998
, vol. 
392
 (pg. 
300
-
303
)
[PubMed]
28
Michel
 
L.S.
Liberal
 
V.
Chatterjee
 
A.
Kirchwegger
 
R.
Pasche
 
B.
Gerald
 
W.
Dobles
 
M.
Sorger
 
P.K.
Murty
 
V.V.
Benezra
 
R.
 
MAD2 haplo-insufficiency causes premature anaphase and chromosome instability in mammalian cells
Nature
2001
, vol. 
409
 (pg. 
355
-
359
)
[PubMed]
29
Lampson
 
M.A.
Cheeseman
 
I.M.
 
Sensing centromere tension: Aurora B and the regulation of kinetochore function
Trends Cell Biol.
2011
, vol. 
21
 (pg. 
133
-
140
)
[PubMed]
30
Tanaka
 
T.U.
Rachidi
 
N.
Janke
 
C.
Pereira
 
G.
Galova
 
M.
Schiebel
 
E.
Stark
 
M.J.
Nasmyth
 
K.
 
Evidence that the Ipl1–Sli15 (Aurora kinase–INCENP) complex promotes chromosome bi-orientation by altering kinetochore-spindle pole connections
Cell
2002
, vol. 
108
 (pg. 
317
-
329
)
[PubMed]
31
Cheeseman
 
I.M.
Chappie
 
J.S.
Wilson-Kubalek
 
E.M.
Desai
 
A.
 
The conserved KMN network constitutes the core microtubule-binding site of the kinetochore
Cell
2006
, vol. 
127
 (pg. 
983
-
997
)
[PubMed]
32
van der Waal
 
M.S.
Hengeveld
 
R.C.
van der Horst
 
A.
Lens
 
S.M.
 
Cell division control by the chromosomal passenger complex
Exp. Cell Res.
2012
, vol. 
318
 (pg. 
1407
-
1420
)
[PubMed]
33
Nicklas
 
R.B.
Ward
 
S.C.
 
Elements of error correction in mitosis: microtubule capture, release, and tension
J. Cell Biol.
1994
, vol. 
126
 (pg. 
1241
-
1253
)
[PubMed]
34
Loncarek
 
J.
Kisurina-Evgenieva
 
O.
Vinogradova
 
T.
Hergert
 
P.
La Terra
 
S.
Kapoor
 
T.M.
Khodjakov
 
A.
 
The centromere geometry essential for keeping mitosis error free is controlled by spindle forces
Nature
2007
, vol. 
450
 (pg. 
745
-
749
)
[PubMed]
35
Indjeian
 
V.B.
Murray
 
A.W.
 
Budding yeast mitotic chromosomes have an intrinsic bias to biorient on the spindle
Curr. Biol.
2007
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
1837
-
1846
)
[PubMed]
36
Andrews
 
P.D.
Ovechkina
 
Y.
Morrice
 
N.
Wagenbach
 
M.
Duncan
 
K.
Wordeman
 
L.
Swedlow
 
J.R.
 
Aurora B regulates MCAK at the mitotic centromere
Dev. Cell
2004
, vol. 
6
 (pg. 
253
-
268
)
[PubMed]
37
Liu
 
D.
Vader
 
G.
Vromans
 
M.J.
Lampson
 
M.A.
Lens
 
S.M.
 
Sensing chromosome bi-orientation by spatial separation of Aurora B kinase from kinetochore substrates
Science
2009
, vol. 
323
 (pg. 
1350
-
1353
)
[PubMed]
38
Welburn
 
J.P.
Vleugel
 
M.
Liu
 
D.
Yates
 
J.R.
Lampson
 
M.A.
Fukagawa
 
T.
Cheeseman
 
I.M.
 
Aurora B phosphorylates spatially distinct targets to differentially regulate the kinetochore–microtubule interface
Mol. Cell
2010
, vol. 
38
 (pg. 
383
-
392
)
[PubMed]
39
Liu
 
D.
Vleugel
 
M.
Backer
 
C.B.
Hori
 
T.
Fukagawa
 
T.
Cheeseman
 
I.M.
Lampson
 
M.A.
 
Regulated targeting of protein phosphatase 1 to the outer kinetochore by KNL1 opposes Aurora B kinase
J. Cell Biol.
2010
, vol. 
188
 (pg. 
809
-
820
)
[PubMed]
40
Foley
 
E.A.
Maldonado
 
M.
Kapoor
 
T.M.
 
Formation of stable attachments between kinetochores and microtubules depends on the B56-PP2A phosphatase
Nat. Cell Biol.
2011
, vol. 
13
 (pg. 
1265
-
1271
)
[PubMed]
41
Suijkerbuijk
 
S.J.
van Osch
 
M.H.
Bos
 
F.L.
Hanks
 
S.
Rahman
 
N.
Kops
 
G.J.
 
Molecular causes for BUBR1 dysfunction in the human cancer predisposition syndrome mosaic variegated aneuploidy
Cancer Res.
2010
, vol. 
70
 (pg. 
4891
-
4900
)
[PubMed]
42
Kruse
 
T.
Zhang
 
G.
Larsen
 
M.S.
Lischetti
 
T.
Streicher
 
W.
Kragh Nielsen
 
T.
Bjørn
 
S.P.
Nilsson
 
J.
 
Direct binding between BubR1 and B56-PP2A phosphatase complexes regulate mitotic progression
J. Cell Sci.
2013
, vol. 
126
 (pg. 
1086
-
1092
)
[PubMed]
43
Xu
 
P.
Raetz
 
E.A.
Kitagawa
 
M.
Virshup
 
D.M.
Lee
 
S.H.
 
BUBR1 recruits PP2A via the B56 family of targeting subunits to promote chromosome congression
Biol. Open
2013
, vol. 
2
 (pg. 
479
-
486
)
[PubMed]
44
Vader
 
G.
Cruijsen
 
C.W.
van Harn
 
T.
Vromans
 
M.J.
Medema
 
R.H.
Lens
 
S.M.
 
The chromosomal passenger complex controls spindle checkpoint function independent from its role in correcting microtubule kinetochore interactions
Mol. Biol. Cell
2007
, vol. 
18
 (pg. 
4553
-
4564
)
[PubMed]
45
Saurin
 
A.T.
van der Waal
 
M.S.
Medema
 
R.H.
Lens
 
S.M.
Kops
 
G.J.
 
Aurora B potentiates Mps1 activation to ensure rapid checkpoint establishment at the onset of mitosis
Nat. Commun.
2011
, vol. 
2
 pg. 
316
 
[PubMed]
46
Santaguida
 
S.
Vernieri
 
C.
Villa
 
F.
Ciliberto
 
A.
Musacchio
 
A.
 
Evidence that Aurora B is implicated in spindle checkpoint signalling independently of error correction
EMBO J.
2011
, vol. 
30
 (pg. 
1508
-
1519
)
[PubMed]
47
Terada
 
Y.
Tatsuka
 
M.
Suzuki
 
F.
Yasuda
 
Y.
Fujita
 
S.
Otsu
 
M.
 
AIM-1: a mammalian midbody-associated protein required for cytokinesis
EMBO J.
1998
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
667
-
676
)
[PubMed]
48
Severson
 
A.F.
Hamill
 
D.R.
Carter
 
J.C.
Schumacher
 
J.
Bowerman
 
B.
 
The Aurora-related kinase AIR-2 recruits ZEN-4/CeMKLP1 to the mitotic spindle at metaphase and is required for cytokinesis
Curr. Biol.
2000
, vol. 
10
 (pg. 
1162
-
1171
)
[PubMed]
49
Adams
 
R.R.
Maiato
 
H.
Earnshaw
 
W.C.
Carmena
 
M.
 
Essential roles of Drosophila inner centromere protein (INCENP) and Aurora B in histone H3 phosphorylation, metaphase chromosome alignment, kinetochore disjunction, and chromosome segregation
J. Cell Biol.
2001
, vol. 
153
 (pg. 
865
-
880
)
[PubMed]
50
Giet
 
R.
Glover
 
D.M.
 
Drosophila Aurora B kinase is required for histone H3 phosphorylation and condensin recruitment during chromosome condensation and to organize the central spindle during cytokinesis
J. Cell Biol.
2001
, vol. 
152
 (pg. 
669
-
682
)
[PubMed]
51
Kallio
 
M.J.
McCleland
 
M.L.
Stukenberg
 
P.T.
Gorbsky
 
G.J.
 
Inhibition of Aurora B kinase blocks chromosome segregation, overrides the spindle checkpoint, and perturbs microtubule dynamics in mitosis
Curr. Biol.
2002
, vol. 
12
 (pg. 
900
-
905
)
[PubMed]
52
Ditchfield
 
C.
Johnson
 
V.L.
Tighe
 
A.
Ellston
 
R.
Haworth
 
C.
Johnson
 
T.
Mortlock
 
A.
Keen
 
N.
Taylor
 
S.S.
 
Aurora B couples chromosome alignment with anaphase by targeting BubR1, Mad2, and Cenp-E to kinetochores
J. Cell Biol.
2003
, vol. 
161
 (pg. 
267
-
280
)
[PubMed]
53
Hauf
 
S.
Cole
 
R.W.
LaTerra
 
S.
Zimmer
 
C.
Schnapp
 
G.
Walter
 
R.
Heckel
 
A.
van Meel
 
J.
Rieder
 
C.L.
Peters
 
J.M.
 
The small molecule hesperadin reveals a role for Aurora B in correcting kinetochore–microtubule attachment and in maintaining the spindle assembly checkpoint
J. Cell Biol.
2003
, vol. 
161
 (pg. 
281
-
294
)
[PubMed]
54
Cimini
 
D.
Wan
 
X.
Hirel
 
C.B.
Salmon
 
E.D.
 
Aurora kinase promotes turnover of kinetochore microtubules to reduce chromosome segregation errors
Curr. Biol.
2006
, vol. 
16
 (pg. 
1711
-
1718
)
[PubMed]
55
Lens
 
S.M.
Rodriguez
 
J.A.
Vader
 
G.
Span
 
S.W.
Giaccone
 
G.
Medema
 
R.H.
 
Uncoupling the central spindle-associated function of the chromosomal passenger complex from its role at centromeres
Mol. Biol. Cell
2006
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
1897
-
1909
)
[PubMed]
56
Gassmann
 
R.
Carvalho
 
A.
Henzing
 
A.J.
Ruchaud
 
S.
Hudson
 
D.F.
Honda
 
R.
Nigg
 
E.A.
Gerloff
 
D.L.
Earnshaw
 
W.C.
 
Borealin: a novel chromosomal passenger required for stability of the bipolar mitotic spindle
J. Cell Biol.
2004
, vol. 
166
 (pg. 
179
-
191
)
[PubMed]
57
Jeyaprakash
 
A.A.
Klein
 
U.R.
Lindner
 
D.
Ebert
 
J.
Nigg
 
E.A.
Conti
 
E.
 
Structure of a Survivin–Borealin–INCENP core complex reveals how chromosomal passengers travel together
Cell
2007
, vol. 
131
 (pg. 
271
-
285
)
[PubMed]
58
Muñoz-Barrera
 
M.
Monje-Casas
 
F.
 
Increased Aurora B activity causes continuous disruption of kinetochore–microtubule attachments and spindle instability
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
2014
, vol. 
111
 (pg. 
E3996
-
E4005
)
[PubMed]
59
Ota
 
T.
Suto
 
S.
Katayama
 
H.
Han
 
Z.B.
Suzuki
 
F.
Maeda
 
M.
Tanino
 
M.
Terada
 
Y.
Tatsuka
 
M.
 
Increased mitotic phosphorylation of histone H3 attributable to AIM-1/Aurora-B overexpression contributes to chromosome number instability
Cancer Res.
2002
, vol. 
62
 (pg. 
5168
-
5177
)
[PubMed]
60
Tatsuka
 
M.
Katayama
 
H.
Ota
 
T.
Tanaka
 
T.
Odashima
 
S.
Suzuki
 
F.
Terada
 
Y.
 
Multinuclearity and increased ploidy caused by overexpression of the Aurora- and Ipl1-like midbody-associated protein mitotic kinase in human cancer cells
Cancer Res.
1998
, vol. 
58
 (pg. 
4811
-
4816
)
[PubMed]
61
Nguyen
 
H.G.
Chinnappan
 
D.
Urano
 
T.
Ravid
 
K.
 
Mechanism of Aurora-B degradation and its dependency on intact KEN and A-boxes: identification of an aneuploidy-promoting property
Mol. Cell. Biol.
2005
, vol. 
25
 (pg. 
4977
-
4992
)
[PubMed]
62
Nguyen
 
H.G.
Makitalo
 
M.
Yang
 
D.
Chinnappan
 
D.
St Hilaire
 
C.
Ravid
 
K.
 
Deregulated Aurora-B induced tetraploidy promotes tumorigenesis
FASEB J.
2009
, vol. 
23
 (pg. 
2741
-
2748
)
[PubMed]
63
Lens
 
S.M.
Voest
 
E.E.
Medema
 
R.H.
 
Shared and separate functions of Polo-like kinases and Aurora kinases in cancer
Nat. Rev. Cancer
2010
, vol. 
10
 (pg. 
825
-
841
)
[PubMed]
64
Carter
 
S.L.
Eklund
 
A.C.
Kohane
 
I.S.
Harris
 
L.N.
Szallasi
 
Z.
 
A signature of chromosomal instability inferred from gene expression profiles predicts clinical outcome in multiple human cancers
Nat. Genet.
2006
, vol. 
38
 (pg. 
1043
-
1048
)
[PubMed]
65
Kimura
 
M.
Kotani
 
S.
Hattori
 
T.
Sumi
 
N.
Yoshioka
 
T.
Todokoro
 
K.
Okano
 
Y.
 
Cell cycle-dependent expression and spindle pole localization of a novel human protein kinase, Aik, related to Aurora of Drosophila and yeast Ipl1
J. Biol. Chem.
1997
, vol. 
272
 (pg. 
13766
-
13771
)
[PubMed]
66
Bischoff
 
J.R.
Anderson
 
L.
Zhu
 
Y.
Mossie
 
K.
Ng
 
L.
Souza
 
B.
Schryver
 
B.
Flanagan
 
P.
Clairvoyant
 
F.
Ginther
 
C.
, et al 
A homologue of Drosophila Aurora kinase is oncogenic and amplified in human colorectal cancers
EMBO J.
1998
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
3052
-
3065
)
[PubMed]
67
Thiru
 
P.
Kern
 
D.M.
McKinley
 
K.L.
Monda
 
J.K.
Rago
 
F.
Su
 
K.C.
Tsinman
 
T.
Yarar
 
D.
Bell
 
G.W.
Cheeseman
 
I.M.
 
Kinetochore genes are coordinately up-regulated in human tumors as part of a FoxM1-related cell division program
Mol. Biol. Cell
2014
, vol. 
25
 (pg. 
1983
-
1994
)
[PubMed]
68
Fernández-Miranda
 
G.
Trakala
 
M.
Martin
 
J.
Escobar
 
B.
González
 
A.
Ghyselinck
 
N.B.
Ortega
 
S.
Cañamero
 
M.
Pérez de Castro
 
I.
Malumbres
 
M.
 
Genetic disruption of Aurora B uncovers an essential role for Aurora C during early mammalian development
Development
2011
, vol. 
138
 (pg. 
2661
-
2672
)
[PubMed]
69
Honda
 
R.
Körner
 
R.
Nigg
 
E.A.
 
Exploring the functional interactions between Aurora B, INCENP, and survivin in mitosis
Mol. Biol. Cell
2003
, vol. 
14
 (pg. 
3325
-
3341
)
[PubMed]
70
Lens
 
S.M.
Wolthuis
 
R.M.
Klompmaker
 
R.
Kauw
 
J.
Agami
 
R.
Brummelkamp
 
T.
Kops
 
G.
Medema
 
R.H.
 
Survivin is required for a sustained spindle checkpoint arrest in response to lack of tension
EMBO J.
2003
, vol. 
22
 (pg. 
2934
-
2947
)
[PubMed]
71
Carvalho
 
A.
Carmena
 
M.
Sambade
 
C.
Earnshaw
 
W.C.
Wheatley
 
S.P.
 
Survivin is required for stable checkpoint activation in taxol-treated HeLa cells
J Cell Sci.
2003
, vol. 
116
 (pg. 
2987
-
2998
)
[PubMed]
72
Uren
 
A.G.
Wong
 
L.
Pakusch
 
M.
Fowler
 
K.J.
Burrows
 
F.J.
Vaux
 
D.L.
Choo
 
K.H.
 
Survivin and the inner centromere protein INCENP show similar cell-cycle localization and gene knockout phenotype
Curr. Biol.
2000
, vol. 
10
 (pg. 
1319
-
1328
)
[PubMed]
73
Yamanaka
 
Y.
Heike
 
T.
Kumada
 
T.
Shibata
 
M.
Takaoka
 
Y.
Kitano
 
A.
Shiraishi
 
K.
Kato
 
T.
Nagato
 
M.
Okawa
 
K.
, et al 
Loss of Borealin/DasraB leads to defective cell proliferation, p53 accumulation and early embryonic lethality
Mech. Dev.
2008
, vol. 
125
 (pg. 
441
-
450
)
[PubMed]
74
Cutts
 
S.M.
Fowler
 
K.J.
Kile
 
B.T.
Hii
 
L.L.
O’Dowd
 
R.A.
Hudson
 
D.F.
Saffery
 
R.
Kalitsis
 
P.
Earle
 
E.
Choo
 
K.H.
 
Defective chromosome segregation, microtubule bundling and nuclear bridging in inner centromere protein gene (Incenp)-disrupted mice
Hum. Mol. Genet.
1999
, vol. 
8
 (pg. 
1145
-
1155
)
[PubMed]
75
Jung
 
H.L.
Wang
 
K.C.
Kim
 
S.K.
Sung
 
K.W.
Koo
 
H.H.
Shin
 
H.Y.
Ahn
 
H.S.
Shin
 
H.J.
Cho
 
B.K.
 
Loss of heterozygosity analysis of chromosome 17p13.1–13.3 and its correlation with clinical outcome in medulloblastomas
J. Neurooncol.
2004
, vol. 
67
 (pg. 
41
-
46
)
[PubMed]
76
Grebe
 
S.K.
McIver
 
B.
Hay
 
I.D.
Wu
 
P.S.
Maciel
 
L.M.
Drabkin
 
H.A.
Goellner
 
J.R.
Grant
 
C.S.
Jenkins
 
R.B.
Eberhardt
 
N.L.
 
Frequent loss of heterozygosity on chromosomes 3p and 17p without VHL or p53 mutations suggests involvement of unidentified tumor suppressor genes in follicular thyroid carcinoma
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
1997
, vol. 
82
 (pg. 
3684
-
3691
)
[PubMed]
77
Eiriksdottir
 
G.
Barkardottir
 
R.B.
Agnarsson
 
B.A.
Johannesdottir
 
G.
Olafsdottir
 
K.
Egilsson
 
V.
Ingvarsson
 
S.
 
High incidence of loss of heterozygosity at chromosome 17p13 in breast tumours from BRCA2 mutation carriers
Oncogene
1998
, vol. 
16
 (pg. 
21
-
26
)
[PubMed]
78
Christiansen
 
D.H.
Andersen
 
M.K.
Pedersen-Bjergaard
 
J.
 
Mutations with loss of heterozygosity of p53 are common in therapy-related myelodysplasia and acute myeloid leukemia after exposure to alkylating agents and significantly associated with deletion or loss of 5q, a complex karyotype, and a poor prognosis
J. Clin. Oncol.
2001
, vol. 
19
 (pg. 
1405
-
1413
)
[PubMed]
79
Campo
 
E.
de la Calle-Martin
 
O.
Miquel
 
R.
Palacin
 
A.
Romero
 
M.
Fabregat
 
V.
Vives
 
J.
Cardesa
 
A.
Yague
 
J.
 
Loss of heterozygosity of p53 gene and p53 protein expression in human colorectal carcinomas
Cancer Res.
1991
, vol. 
51
 (pg. 
4436
-
4442
)
[PubMed]
80
Hegyi
 
K.
Egervári
 
K.
Sándor
 
Z.
Méhes
 
G.
 
Aurora kinase B expression in breast carcinoma: cell kinetic and genetic aspects
Pathobiology
2012
, vol. 
79
 (pg. 
314
-
322
)
[PubMed]
81
Margolis
 
R.L.
Lohez
 
O.D.
Andreassen
 
P.R.
 
G1 tetraploidy checkpoint and the suppression of tumorigenesis
J. Cell. Biochem.
2003
, vol. 
88
 (pg. 
673
-
683
)
[PubMed]
82
Thompson
 
S.L.
Compton
 
D.A.
 
Proliferation of aneuploid human cells is limited by a p53-dependent mechanism
J. Cell Biol.
2010
, vol. 
188
 (pg. 
369
-
381
)
[PubMed]
83
Vogelstein
 
B.
Papadopoulos
 
N.
Velculescu
 
V.E.
Zhou
 
S.
Diaz
 
L.A.
Kinzler
 
K.W.
 
Cancer genome landscapes
Science
2013
, vol. 
339
 (pg. 
1546
-
1558
)
[PubMed]
84
Ponder
 
B.A.
 
Cancer genetics
Nature
2001
, vol. 
411
 (pg. 
336
-
341
)
[PubMed]
85
Chin
 
L.
Hahn
 
W.C.
Getz
 
G.
Meyerson
 
M.
 
Making sense of cancer genomic data
Genes Dev.
2011
, vol. 
25
 (pg. 
534
-
555
)
[PubMed]
86
Stratton
 
M.R.
 
Exploring the genomes of cancer cells: progress and promise
Science
2011
, vol. 
331
 (pg. 
1553
-
1558
)
[PubMed]
87
Vogelstein
 
B.
Kinzler
 
K.W.
 
Cancer genes and the pathways they control
Nat. Med.
2004
, vol. 
10
 (pg. 
789
-
799
)
[PubMed]
88
Hengeveld
 
R.C.
Hertz
 
N.T.
Vromans
 
M.J.
Zhang
 
C.
Burlingame
 
A.L.
Shokat
 
K.M.
Lens
 
S.M.
 
Development of a chemical genetic approach for human Aurora B kinase identifies novel substrates of the chromosomal passenger complex
Mol. Cell. Proteomics
2012
, vol. 
11
 (pg. 
47
-
59
)
[PubMed]
89
Kettenbach
 
A.N.
Schweppe
 
D.K.
Faherty
 
B.K.
Pechenick
 
D.
Pletnev
 
A.A.
Gerber
 
S.A.
 
Quantitative phosphoproteomics identifies substrates and functional modules of Aurora and Polo-like kinase activities in mitotic cells
Sci. Signal.
2011
, vol. 
4
 pg. 
rs5
 
[PubMed]
90
Koch
 
A.
Krug
 
K.
Pengelley
 
S.
Macek
 
B.
Hauf
 
S.
 
Mitotic substrates of the kinase Aurora with roles in chromatin regulation identified through quantitative phosphoproteomics of fission yeast
Sci. Signal.
2011
, vol. 
4
 pg. 
rs6
 
[PubMed]
91
Ricke
 
R.M.
Jeganathan
 
K.B.
van Deursen
 
J.M.
 
Bub1 overexpression induces aneuploidy and tumor formation through Aurora B kinase hyperactivation
J. Cell Biol.
2011
, vol. 
193
 (pg. 
1049
-
1064
)
[PubMed]
92
Park
 
I.
Lee
 
H.O.
Choi
 
E.
Lee
 
Y.K.
Kwon
 
M.S.
Min
 
J.
Park
 
P.G.
Lee
 
S.
Kong
 
Y.Y.
Gong
 
G.
Lee
 
H.
 
Loss of BubR1 acetylation causes defects in spindle assembly checkpoint signaling and promotes tumor formation
J. Cell Biol.
2013
, vol. 
202
 (pg. 
295
-
309
)
[PubMed]
93
Suijkerbuijk
 
S.J.
Vleugel
 
M.
Teixeira
 
A.
Kops
 
G.J.
 
Integration of kinase and phosphatase activities by BUBR1 ensures formation of stable kinetochore–microtubule attachments
Dev. Cell
2012
, vol. 
23
 (pg. 
745
-
755
)
[PubMed]
94
Lampson
 
M.A.
Renduchitala
 
K.
Khodjakov
 
A.
Kapoor
 
T.M.
 
Correcting improper chromosome–spindle attachments during cell division
Nat. Cell Biol.
2004
, vol. 
6
 (pg. 
232
-
237
)
[PubMed]
95
Hanks
 
S.
Coleman
 
K.
Reid
 
S.
Plaja
 
A.
Firth
 
H.
Fitzpatrick
 
D.
Kidd
 
A.
Méhes
 
K.
Nash
 
R.
Robin
 
N.
, et al 
Constitutional aneuploidy and cancer predisposition caused by biallelic mutations in BUB1B
Nat. Genet.
2004
, vol. 
36
 (pg. 
1159
-
1161
)
[PubMed]
96
Sotillo
 
R.
Hernando
 
E.
Diaz-Rodriguez
 
E.
Teruya-Feldstein
 
J.
Cordón-Cardo
 
C.
Lowe
 
S.W.
Benezra
 
R.
 
Mad2 overexpression promotes aneuploidy and tumorigenesis in mice
Cancer Cell
2007
, vol. 
11
 (pg. 
9
-
23
)
[PubMed]
97
Kabeche
 
L.
Compton
 
D.A.
 
Checkpoint-independent stabilization of kinetochore–microtubule attachments by Mad2 in human cells
Curr. Biol.
2012
, vol. 
22
 (pg. 
638
-
644
)
[PubMed]
98
Bian
 
Y.
Kitagawa
 
R.
Bansal
 
P.K.
Fujii
 
Y.
Stepanov
 
A.
Kitagawa
 
K.
 
Synthetic genetic array screen identifies PP2A as a therapeutic target in Mad2-overexpressing tumors
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
2014
, vol. 
111
 (pg. 
1628
-
1633
)
[PubMed]
99
Britigan
 
E.M.
Wan
 
J.
Zasadil
 
L.M.
Ryan
 
S.D.
Weaver
 
B.A.
 
The ARF tumor suppressor prevents chromosomal instability and ensures mitotic checkpoint fidelity through regulation of Aurora B
Mol. Biol. Cell
2014
, vol. 
25
 (pg. 
2761
-
2773
)
[PubMed]
100
Sherr
 
C.J.
 
Cancer cell cycles
Science
1996
, vol. 
274
 (pg. 
1672
-
1677
)
[PubMed]
101
Kefford
 
R.F.
Newton Bishop
 
J.A.
Bergman
 
W.
Tucker
 
M.A.
 
Counseling and DNA testing for individuals perceived to be genetically predisposed to melanoma: a consensus statement of the Melanoma Genetics Consortium
J. Clin. Oncol.
1999
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
3245
-
3251
)
[PubMed]
102
Pomerantz
 
J.
Schreiber-Agus
 
N.
Liégeois
 
N.J.
Silverman
 
A.
Alland
 
L.
Chin
 
L.
Potes
 
J.
Chen
 
K.
Orlow
 
I.
Lee
 
H.W.
, et al 
The Ink4a tumor suppressor gene product, p19Arf, interacts with MDM2 and neutralizes MDM2′s inhibition of p53
Cell
1998
, vol. 
92
 (pg. 
713
-
723
)
[PubMed]
103
Carmena
 
M.
Wheelock
 
M.
Funabiki
 
H.
Earnshaw
 
W.C.
 
The chromosomal passenger complex (CPC): from easy rider to the godfather of mitosis
Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.
2012
, vol. 
13
 (pg. 
789
-
803
)
[PubMed]
104
Sessa
 
F.
Mapelli
 
M.
Ciferri
 
C.
Tarricone
 
C.
Areces
 
L.B.
Schneider
 
T.R.
Stukenberg
 
P.T.
Musacchio
 
A.
 
Mechanism of Aurora B activation by INCENP and inhibition by hesperadin
Mol. Cell
2005
, vol. 
18
 (pg. 
379
-
391
)
[PubMed]
105
Petsalaki
 
E.
Akoumianaki
 
T.
Black
 
E.J.
Gillespie
 
D.A.
Zachos
 
G.
 
Phosphorylation at serine 331 is required for Aurora B activation
J. Cell Biol.
2011
, vol. 
195
 (pg. 
449
-
466
)
[PubMed]
106
Bishop
 
J.D.
Schumacher
 
J.M.
 
Phosphorylation of the carboxyl terminus of inner centromere protein (INCENP) by the Aurora B kinase stimulates Aurora B kinase activity
J. Biol. Chem.
2002
, vol. 
277
 (pg. 
27577
-
27580
)
[PubMed]
107
Wang
 
F.
Dai
 
J.
Daum
 
J.R.
Niedzialkowska
 
E.
Banerjee
 
B.
Stukenberg
 
P.T.
Gorbsky
 
G.J.
Higgins
 
J.M.
 
Histone H3 Thr-3 phosphorylation by haspin positions Aurora B at centromeres in mitosis
Science
2010
, vol. 
330
 (pg. 
231
-
235
)
[PubMed]
108
Kelly
 
A.E.
Ghenoiu
 
C.
Xue
 
J.Z.
Zierhut
 
C.
Kimura
 
H.
Funabiki
 
H.
 
Survivin reads phosphorylated histone H3 threonine 3 to activate the mitotic kinase Aurora B
Science
2010
, vol. 
330
 (pg. 
235
-
239
)
[PubMed]
109
Tsukahara
 
T.
Tanno
 
Y.
Watanabe
 
Y.
 
Phosphorylation of the CPC by Cdk1 promotes chromosome bi-orientation
Nature
2010
, vol. 
467
 (pg. 
719
-
723
)
[PubMed]
110
Yamagishi
 
Y.
Honda
 
T.
Tanno
 
Y.
Watanabe
 
Y.
 
Two histone marks establish the inner centromere and chromosome bi-orientation
Science
2010
, vol. 
330
 (pg. 
239
-
243
)
[PubMed]
111
Gruneberg
 
U.
Neef
 
R.
Honda
 
R.
Nigg
 
E.A.
Barr
 
F.A.
 
Relocation of Aurora B from centromeres to the central spindle at the metaphase to anaphase transition requires MKlp2
J. Cell Biol.
2004
, vol. 
166
 (pg. 
167
-
172
)
[PubMed]