This association is displayed in a clustergram

the kinetochore triggered by microtubule binding. The first hypothesis is reinforced by the observation that microtubule binding is by itself insufficient to cause full intrakinetochore stretching and that dynamic micro tubules are required for full stretching. The AURORA B kinase has emerged as a key regulator of the error correction pathway. It has been proposed that AURORA B may monitor variations in the distance from its substrates as microtubules attach to kinetochores. Strong experimental evidence in favor of this idea is emerging. Tension exerted by bound microtubules may contribute to the gradual displacement of substrates from AURORA B, re sulting in turn in substrate dephosphorylation. We have recently proposed a speculative model picturing INCENP as a “dog leash” whose limited extension limits the ability of AURORA B to reach its substrates within the kinetochore. Previous experiments with a deletion mutant of INCENP are indeed consistent with this idea. We provide evidence that AURORA B acts upstream of MPS1 and that the perturbation of MPS1 activity does not grossly alter the buy CJ-023423 phosphorylation of AURORA B substrates or the localization of AURORA B. Similar results are reported in an accompanying paper describing the effects from targeting an analoguesensitized allele of MPS1. Similarly, no effects on the levels of AURORA B substrates are observed with an additional MPS1 inhibitor, AZ3146. If inhibition of MPS1 does not result in overt changes in AURORA B activity, we show instead that inhibition of AURORA B causes a mislocalization of MPS1 and a reduction of its phosphorylation, suggesting that AURORA B acts upstream of MPS1. This possibility is also consistent with the pattern of recruitment of spindle checkpoint proteins in different systems. Because MPS1 turns over rapidly at kinetochores, its activation at kinetochores, which probably involves dimerization and auto phosphorylation, may precede its release in the cytosol in an active form. Overall, these results may appear inconsistent with the recent proposal that MPS1 controls AURORA B through phos phorylation of BOREALIN, a subunit of the chromosome passenger complex. Because a phosphomimicking mutant of BOREALIN simulating MPS1 phosphorylation rescues the effects on biorientation from loosing MPS1, MPS1 and BOREALIN may participate in an AURORA Bindependent pathway implicated in biorientation. More studies will be required to assess this idea. If MPS1, which is implicated in error correction and in the checkpoint, acts downstream from AURORA B and is activated by it, then AURORA B is also expected to control both error correction and the spindle checkpoint. Although the involve ment of AURORA B in error correction is widely accepted, its participation in the PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19833994 spindle checkpoint is more controversial. In at least two model systems, Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Xenopus laevis, Aurora B is required for the checkpoint response to unattached kinetochores. Direct involvement of AURORA B in checkpoint signaling has also been observed upon expression of an INCENP mutant deleted of the coiledcoil domain of INCENP. This mutant does not affect the ability of AURORA B to Error bars are mean SEM. Cells arrested with a double thymidine arrest procedure were released in the cell cycle, and the number of centrosomes was measured in the subsequent mitosis. In all cases, two centrosomes were measured, indicating that centrosome duplication takes place normally in the presence of reversi