Nanoscale structural organization and stoichiometry of the budding yeast kinetochore

  1. Konstanty Cieslinski
  2. Yu-Le Wu
  3. Lisa Nechyporenko
  4. Sarah Janice Hörner
  5. Duccio Conti
  6. Michal Skruzny
  7. Jonas Ries

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Proper chromosome segregation is crucial for cell division. In eukaryotes, this is achieved by the kinetochore, an evolutionarily conserved multiprotein complex that physically links the DNA to spindle microtubules and takes an active role in monitoring and correcting erroneous spindle–chromosome attachments. Our mechanistic understanding of these functions and how they ensure an error-free outcome of mitosis is still limited, partly because we lack a complete understanding of the kinetochore structure in the cell. In this study, we use single-molecule localization microscopy to visualize individual kinetochore complexes in situ in budding yeast. For major kinetochore proteins, we measured their abundance and position within the metaphase kinetochore. Based on this comprehensive dataset, we propose a quantitative model of the budding yeast kinetochore. While confirming many aspects of previous reports based on bulk imaging, our results present a unifying nanoscale model of the kinetochore in budding yeast.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1083/jcb.202209094
  2. Review Commons

    Note: This rebuttal was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Reply to the reviewers

    1. General Statements [optional]

    In our work, we quantified the abundance and positions of major kinetochore proteins within the metaphase kinetochore in budding yeast using single-molecule localization microscopy. Based on these measures, we revised the current model of the kinetochore and provided a nanoscale view of the complex.

    We now revised our manuscript according to reviewers’ points. We performed new analyses to quantify the measurement errors and to justify our data analysis workflows. We further exploited the correlation-based analysis and found a correlation between the spreads of kinetochore proteins perpendicular to the spindle axis and their positions along the axis. We also discussed the potential non-centromeric pools and revised our model of the kinetochore. Further information on our analyses was now provided to improve the clarity. Changes to the text were implemented to better reflect our data. Information from relevant works was incorporated to better connect this work to the field.

    We thank the reviewers for their points, which help us show the rigorousness of our analyses, further demonstrate the potential of our work, and improve clarity.

    2. Point-by-point description of the revisions

    Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    The authors have developed a rigorous methodology for using single-molecule imaging of exogenously labeled kinetochore proteins to count and estimate their copy numbers and the average distance from the kinetochore protein Spc105. Although the method is technically sound, its application to the kinetochore raises some crucial questions below. My biggest concern is the effect of non-centromeric pools of the centromeric proteins Cse4, Cep3, and Ctf19 on the estimated copy number per kinetochore. The authors should be able to address most, if not all, questions by presenting a more in-depth data analysis.

    Major points

    1. Accounting for tilt of the yeast spindle relative to the image plane: It is not clear to me how the authors ascertain whether the spindle being imaged is nearly parallel to the image plane. In the companion fission yeast study, spindle poles are used for this purpose, but this study seems to rely only on the labeled kinetochore proteins. The criteria used to select the in-plane spindles should be clearly defined.

    We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We selected the in-plane spindles based on their average PSF size, which informs the z positions of the center of the kinetochore cluster (for simplicity, now all ’half-spindle’ was changed to ‘kinetochore cluster’). To calibrate the z position of kinetochore clusters, we first measured the width of the kinetochore cluster by fitting a cylindrical distribution. Overall, the kinetochores are likely symmetrically distributed around the spindle axes. Therefore, the height and the width of a kinetochore cluster should be the same. We then calibrated the z positions of the PSF size based on fluorescent bead data. Next, we plugged in the cylindrical distribution to the calibration curve to correlate the mean PSF size and position of the kinetochore cluster. We only took the kinetochore clusters with a mean PSF size

    1. The effects of PSF depth on counting kinetochore proteins: The authors use a well-characterized nuclear pore protein as the reference to estimate kinetochore protein counts per half-spindle. Although this method appears rigorous in principle, I am unsure about the effect of the spatial distribution of kinetochores on the accuracy of the estimated number. Nuclear pore proteins are all localized within an 100 nm away from the focal plane even when the spindle is perfectly parallel to the focal plane. A discussion of this possibility, its effect on the protein count/distance estimates, and any mitigating factors is essential to highlight the caveats associated with the conclusions.

    Based on the cylindrical distribution (see please the reply to point 1) of kinetochore clusters and their positions in z, we calculated the upper and lower boundaries of the distribution of kinetochore proteins in z, given a specific mean PSF size cutoff of a kinetochore cluster. Regardless of how stringent the cutoff is (130 and 135 nm), we made sure the boundaries do not exceed the imaging depth defined by our choice of the PSF size filtering (

    1. Presentation of the cross-correlation analysis: The authors use cross-correlation for an unbiased calculation of the axial separation between a protein of interest and Cse4, but I am curious about the structure of the underlying data, and the intensity image in Figure 1 is not easy to examine. It will be helpful to include more analysis of the underlying data for at least a subset of the proteins (e.g., proteins at short, intermediate, and long distances from Cse4) as supplementary data.
    • The authors should include X and Y projections of the cross-correlation function.
    • Do the widths of cross-correlation functions (i.e., their spread perpendicular to the spindle axis) match across all proteins and experiments? This should be an almost invariant characteristic of the measurements, assuming that proteins within each kinetochore tightly cluster around the 25 nm microtubule. This line of thinking makes the large width of the cross-correlation shown in Figure 1 somewhat surprising.
    • It will also be interesting to test if the correlation between the positions of Spc105 molecules, especially perpendicular to the spindle axis, is comparable to the known separations between adjacent microtubules in the yeast spindle (the authors could use Winey et al. 1995 for serial-section EM of yeast spindles for comparison).

    The reviewer is interested in the spread, or the size of the distribution, of a protein in a kinetochore along and perpendicular to the spindle axis. This is an interesting idea and can be done practically. However, the information can be more easily obtained based on auto-correlation instead of cross-correlation, due to its better signal-to-noise ratio along the dimension perpendicular to the spindle axis. Cross-correlations in that dimension are convoluted with background localizations and different localization precisions of the two channels. These factors are hard to interpret and disentangled. In auto-correlations, although the background is still present, it can be modeled and then removed easily, as now mentioned on page 15 lines 500-516.

    Accordingly, we performed auto-correlation analysis on all the proteins and compared them to simulations representing different sizes. We find that the size of the distribution correlates to the position of the protein along the spindle axis. The results are now included as the new Fig. S5 and discussed on page 6 lines 169-176.

    The cross-correlation analysis was based on only the position of the maximum value, not the projections. To keep the figure concise, we decided not to include the projections. However, the auto-correlation analysis was indeed based on projections, which we now included in Fig. S5.

    Regarding the correlation between the positions of Spc105 molecules, we believe the reviewer actually refers to the correlation between the positions of kinetochores. Auto-/cross-correlations contain the information of the cluster sizes, based on the first peak (as shown in Fig. S5), and the relative distance (if the pattern is periodic). Unfortunately, the positions of kinetochores perpendicular to the spindle axis are not periodically distributed. Therefore, we cannot comment on the separations between adjacent microtubules.

    1. Cse4 count (4 per kinetochore) and the model presented: One of the surprising conclusions of the study is that there are two nucleosomes associated with each microtubule attachment, with Mif2/CENP-C potentially interacting with both nucleosomes. There are two critical issues that the authors must consider.

    (1) Fluorescent protein chimeras of Cse4 and CBF3 and COMA complex members do not exclusively localize to kinetochores. Biochemical studies show that both Cse4 and CBF3 proteins interact with non-centromeric DNA, e.g., see work from the Biggins lab regarding Cse4 over-expression and also from the Henikoff group that used ChIP-seq. I can't think of a similar reference for the CBF3 complex, but the DNA-binding proteins are also likely to interact with other parts of the genome. The non-centromeric protein is visible as a significant background fluorescence in wide-field microscopy, e.g., see Cep3 localization here: https://images.yeastrc.org/imagerepo/viewExperiment.do?id=202308&experimentGroupOffset=3&experimentOffset=0&experimentGroupSize=3

    Similar background fluorescence can be detected for Cse4 and Ctf19. This extra-centromeric localization of Cse4, Cep3, and Ctf19 makes it possible that the protein counts included by the authors are "contaminated" to some extent by the extra-centromeric protein. The authors should discuss this possibility and how it might affect their counts.

    After consideration, we agree with the reviewer that, specifically, a fraction of counted Cse4 molecules should be considered non-centromeric. We agree that the previous data is certainly sufficient to conclude it. The reviewer made a similar suggestion about COMA and CBF3 subcomplexes. In recent years a substantial portion of inner kinetochore components has been reconstituted. In Harrison et al. 2019, the Ctf19 complex structure has been solved. Two copies of the complex were observed. Therefore, the non-centromeric pool of COMA is certainly possible and we now made the adjustments to the text (page 8, lines 219-225) and Fig. 4. Accordingly, we now also modified the abstract (page 1, lines 26-27) and restructured the sections (page 10) to accommodate the different possibility of Cse4 copy numbers. While, fluorescence imaging of CBF3 presents a signal throughout the nuclear region we observed only four copies of Cep3 (part of CBF3). A CBF3 structure also has been resolved by Yan et al. 2018, in which the complex was proposed to exist as a dimer. This translates into four copies of Cep3. Therefore, we find it more suitable to leave all observed Cep3 (CBF3) molecules within a kinetochore model.

    (2) The model drawn in Figure 4 makes explicit assumptions about the positioning of the four Cse4 molecules (or two nucleosomes) in each kinetochore relative to the rest of the kinetochore components. Yet, the data shown do not justify this specific arrangement. Lawrimore et al. 2011 claim that the non-centromeric Cse4 nucleosomes must be randomly distributed in the pericentromeric chromatin to evade detection in biochemical tests. Therefore, the nearest-neighbor analysis suggested above will be valuable for gaining new insights into the relative positioning of the centromeric- and non-centromeric Cse4 nucleosomes. A similar analysis for Cep3 and Ctf19 will also be helpful. If stereotypical positioning of these molecules cannot be detected, then the model should be revised accordingly (alternative models that are also consistent with the data can be included).

    The reviewer has pointed out that Lawrimore et al. 2011 proposed and justified the existence of a non-centromeric Cse4 pool. This arrangement, also potentially along other inner kinetochore components, makes sense and our data did not indicate it otherwise. Therefore, we now revised our model accordingly by applying changes in the main text on page __10 lines 302-305 __as well as in Fig. 4.

    (3) I suggest one experiment that can help the authors better understand protein organization in one kinetochore. Joglekar et al. 2006 used a dicentric chromosome to isolate single kinetochores on the spindle axis to test the assumption that each kinetochore consists of approximately the same number of molecules of kinetochore proteins. The strains are easy to construct (transform existing strains with a linearized plasmid). Single kinetochores can be seen with a low but reasonable frequency. I leave the decision to perform the experiment to the authors' discretion depending on whether the experiment will be worth the effort in strengthening or enhancing their conclusions.

    We performed the suggested experiment using the strain published in Joglekar et al. 2006 (kindly provided by Prof. Kerry Bloom) with Cse4 additionally tagged with mMaple. However, we always observed several super-resolved Cse4 clusters (likely of several kinetochores) overlapping with Nuf2-GFP diffraction-limited signal, therefore unable to assign a single isolated kinetochore to the lagging centromere.

    1. Information regarding the degree of correction applied to calculate protein count per half-spindle: It will be helpful to include data regarding the degree of correction applied to the expected and measured numbers of NPC protein as supplementary data so that the readers can see the magnitude of this correction relative to the measured counts.

    We would like to clarify that we did not correct the data. Instead, we calibrate the copy number, given that the copy number of Nup188 per NPC is known. We assume the same ratio between localization and copy number applies to both Nup188 and the kinetochore proteins. We now include a new Table S4 listing calibration factors of all experiments shown in Fig. 3.

    Minor points:

    1. McIntosh et al. JCB 2013 used microtubule plus-ends in serial section electron micrographs of yeast spindles to align the centromeric region and found a disk-shaped structure that roughly corresponds to the size of a single nucleosome ~ 80 nm away from the tip of the microtubule and centered the microtubule axis. The authors should refer to this finding in their discussion of the model that they present with two nucleosomes. In my opinion, this is compelling evidence for a nucleosome-like structure serving as the kinetochore foundation.

    We agree with this reviewer's comment. The study, among others, present compelling evidence for a point-centromere. We now included the finding in the discussion on page 10, lines 293-294.

    1. As discussed by the authors, the number of Cse4 molecules per kinetochore has been the subject of some controversy. Biochemical data from the Biggins group and ChIPseq data from the Westermann group (Altunkaya et al. 2016 Current Biology) strongly suggest that Cse4 molecules can only be found centered on the centromeric sequence. The latter reference should be included in the discussion.

    Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, this is important. We have now added the relevant reference in the discussion on__ page 10 lines 291-292__.

    1. Although microscopy-based methods have estimated anywhere from 1, 2, to 6 Cse4 molecules per kinetochore, these studies generally agree on the stoichiometry between Cse4 and the rest of the kinetochore proteins, e.g., Ndc80 complex proteins are ~ 4-fold more abundant that Cse4, etc. The present study seems to disagree with protein stoichiometry. The authors may find it worthwhile to note this feature of their data.

    We now discuss the stoichiometry difference between our results and others on page 11 lines 322-324.

    1. Omission of the Dam1 complex from this study is disappointing to me personally, but I am sure that the authors have good reasons for this. They should briefly comment on the absence of the Dam1 complex in this study.

    To provide information on the Dam1 complex, we imaged Ask1, a component of the complex. The measured positioning and copy number of the protein are now included in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 respectively, and described and discussed in respective parts of the manuscript.

    Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

    Cieslinski and colleagues present a single-molecule localization-based study to define the copy numbers and relative organization of kinetochore proteins in budding yeast. These numbers confirm and significantly refine prior measurements of the same aspects of the kinetochore. They also raise new questions and point to new research directions. The measurements also reveal a model of the protein organization of the budding yeast kinetochore in metaphase. For these reasons, the manuscript is of significant interest to the cell division field.

    Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    In this study, Cielinski and colleagues have applied single molecule localization microscopy to map the positions of proteins in the yeast kinetochore. This has not been reported previously and this study is both well-conducted and the data appear solid. They also use a modification of this technique to assess the stoichiometry of kinetochore proteins. The results that they obtain are broadly in line with several previous studies that use other methodology. There may be an improvement in accuracy using this new approach that has not been obtained previously and there are some important novel conclusions from this work. I would like the authors to address the following concerns prior to publication:

    Major points

    1. One interesting finding is that there is a discrepancy in the length of both the MIND and NDC80 complexes (from crystallographic data) with their relative positions. The authors suggest that the outer complexes could be twisted or rotated in respect of the spindle axis. It would be great if the authors could illustrate this in their model (or discuss it in the text), to demonstrate the required angle of twist/rotation of both complexes to account for the discrepancy. A twisted filament structure to the outer kinetochore does have some implications for its response to tension - a key determinant of kinetochore-microtubule attachment. It also may provide some flexibility to the structure under tension.

    The discussion about this discrepancy has now been incorporated in the main text, page 9 lines 263-267. For clarity, we only partially reflect this in our schematic model (Fig. 4A; the MIND complex) but we already reflected this in the illustrative structural model in Fig. 4B.

    1. For the experiment with cycloheximide, the authors state "Although we observed minor changes in copy numbers, the overall effect of CHX was small." For some proteins, Cse4i for example, there appears to be a significant decrease in intensity (30-40%) after cycloheximide treatment, see Figure S3. While the conclusion that tag maturation does not affect copy number measurements is sound, I suggest modifying this section to reflect the data.

    We now modified the section accordingly by pointing out that Cse4i under CHX measurements led to reduction of the signal. The modification can be found on page 8 lines 207-211.

    1. Page 5. The statement "These data agree reasonably well with previous diffraction-limited dual-color microscopy studies ..." provides readers with little ability to compare the data. I would like to see a supplementary figure comparing these new data with previous studies, especially those of Joglekar et al 2009, see Figure 3 in this paper.

    We thank the reviewer for suggesting such a table. This will allow readers a direct comparison of the data between our study and Joglekar at al. 2009. The comparison can be found in new __Table S1 __and Fig. S4, which are now mentioned on page 5.

    1. In terms of the distances quoted, are they in one dimension (as per Jogelkar et al 2009) or in three? The results section is entitled "...positions of kinetochore proteins along the metaphase spindle axis", which suggests a single dimension. Please make this very clear in the results section. In the discussion, is the statement "we mapped the relative positions of 15 kinetochore proteins along the kinetochore axis", which is not entirely clear. It seems from the methods that this is one dimension "...we determined the average distance between the two proteins along the spindle axis. “I suggest clarifying the results section briefly and clearly to indicate that this is a single dimension being measured and also using consistent wording of the axis measured throughout the text.

    We agree the previous description may not be clear to the viewers. We now changed the text accordingly in the results section, page 5 lines 129-130.

    Minor points:

    Abstract: I would drop "all" from "For all major kinetochore proteins...", since full characterisation was performed on 14 proteins (9 in terms of copy number).

    We now deleted “all” in the abstract as the reviewer suggested__.__

    Page 2: "trough" to through.

    Corrected.

    Page 2 "S. cerevisiae" to italics

    Corrected.

    Methods p11. How do the MKY strains relate to common yeast genetic backgrounds? (e.g. are they S288C?).

    MKY strains are derivative of S288C. The information was now updated in the Methods section and in Table S2.

    Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

    This manuscript, together with an accompanying one from Virat et al., are nice complementary studies that provide the first single molecule localization studies of the yeast kinetochore. Although other labs have used super-resolution methods to study individual kinetochore proteins; both of these new studies map distances between many proteins at the kinetochore and thus are able to produce maps of the overall kinetochore structure. Like the previous study using standard resolution methods (Joglekar et al, 2009. Current Biology 19, 694-699); these studies will likely provide a benchmark for future studies on eukaryotic kinetochore architecture, including those in mammalian systems. Additionally, this work will appeal to super-resolution microscopists.

    My expertise is as a yeast kinetochore cell biologist.

  3. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #2

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    In this study, Cielinski and colleagues have applied single molecule localization microscopy to map the positions of proteins in the yeast kinetochore. This has not been reported previously and this study is both well-conducted and the data appear solid. They also use a modification of this technique to assess the stoichiometry of kinetochore proteins. The results that they obtain are broadly in line with several previous studies that use other methodology. There may be an improvement in accuracy using this new approach that has not been obtained previously and there are some important novel conclusions from this work. I would like the authors to address the following concerns prior to publication:

    Major points

    1. One interesting finding is that there is a discrepancy in the length of both the MIND and NDC80 complexes (from crystallographic data) with their relative positions. The authors suggest that the outer complexes could be twisted or rotated in respect of the spindle axis. It would be great if the authors could illustrate this in their model (or discuss it in the text), to demonstrate the required angle of twist/rotation of both complexes to account for the discrepancy. A twisted filament structure to the outer kinetochore does have some implications for its response to tension - a key determinant of kinetochore-microtubule attachment. It also may provide some flexibility to the structure under tension.
    2. For the experiment with cycloheximide, the authors state "Although we observed minor changes in copy numbers, the overall effect of CHX was small." For some proteins, Cse4i for example, there appears to be a significant decrease in intensity (30-40%) after cycloheximide treatment, see Figure S3. While the conclusion that tag maturation does not affect copy number measurements is sound, I suggest modifying this section to reflect the data.
    3. Page 5. The statement "These data agree reasonably well with previous diffraction-limited dual-color microscopy studies ..." provides readers with little ability to compare the data. I would like to see a supplementary figure comparing these new data with previous studies, especially those of Joglekar et al 2009, see Figure 3 in this paper.
    4. In terms of the distances quoted, are they in one dimension (as per Jogelkar et al 2009) or in three? The results section is entitled "...positions of kinetochore proteins along the metaphase spindle axis", which suggests a single dimension. Please make this very clear in the results section. In the discussion, is the statement "we mapped the relative positions of 15 kinetochore proteins along the kinetochore axis", which is not entirely clear. It seems from the methods that this is one dimension "...we determined the average distance between the two proteins along the spindle axis."I suggest clarifying the results section briefly and clearly to indicate that this is a single dimension being measured and also using consistent wording of the axis measured throughout the text.

    Minor points:

    Abstract: I would drop "all" from "For all major kinetochore proteins...", since full characterisation was performed on 14 proteins (9 in terms of copy number).

    Page 2: "trough" to through.

    Page 2 "S. cerevisiae" to italics

    Methods p11. How do the MKY strains relate to common yeast genetic backgrounds? (e.g. are they S288C?).

    Significance

    This manuscript, together with an accompanying one from Virat et al., are nice complementary studies that provide the first single molecule localization studies of the yeast kinetochore. Although other labs have used super-resolution methods to study individual kinetochore proteins; both of these new studies map distances between many proteins at the kinetochore and thus are able to produce maps of the overall kinetochore structure. Like the previous study using standard resolution methods (Joglekar et al, 2009. Current Biology 19, 694-699); these studies will likely provide a benchmark for future studies on eukaryotic kinetochore architecture, including those in mammalian systems. Additionally, this work will appeal to super-resolution microscopists.

    My expertise is as a yeast kinetochore cell biologist.

  4. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    The authors have developed a rigorous methodology for using single-molecule imaging of exogenously labeled kinetochore proteins to count and estimate their copy numbers and the average distance from the kinetochore protein Spc105. Although the method is technically sound, its application to the kinetochore raises some crucial questions below. My biggest concern is the effect of non-centromeric pools of the centromeric proteins Cse4, Cep3, and Ctf19 on the estimated copy number per kinetochore. The authors should be able to address most, if not all, questions by presenting a more in-depth data analysis.

    1. Accounting for tilt of the yeast spindle relative to the image plane: It is not clear to me how the authors ascertain whether the spindle being imaged is nearly parallel to the image plane. In the companion fission yeast study, spindle poles are used for this purpose, but this study seems to rely only on the labeled kinetochore proteins. The criteria used to select the in-plane spindles should be clearly defined.
    2. The effects of PSF depth on counting kinetochore proteins: The authors use a well-characterized nuclear pore protein as the reference to estimate kinetochore protein counts per half-spindle. Although this method appears rigorous in principle, I am unsure about the effect of the spatial distribution of kinetochores on the accuracy of the estimated number. Nuclear pore proteins are all localized within an < 100 nm3 volume. Therefore, all proteins within an in-focus nuclear pore will also be in focus. This is not the case with yeast kinetochores, especially in metaphase. A fraction of the kinetochores is likely to be > 100 nm away from the focal plane even when the spindle is perfectly parallel to the focal plane. A discussion of this possibility, its effect on the protein count/distance estimates, and any mitigating factors is essential to highlight the caveats associated with the conclusions.
    3. Presentation of the cross-correlation analysis: The authors use cross-correlation for an unbiased calculation of the axial separation between a protein of interest and Cse4, but I am curious about the structure of the underlying data, and the intensity image in Figure 1 is not easy to examine. It will be helpful to include more analysis of the underlying data for at least a subset of the proteins (e.g., proteins at short, intermediate, and long distances from Cse4) as supplementary data.
      • The authors should include X and Y projections of the cross-correlation function.
      • Do the widths of cross-correlation functions (i.e., their spread perpendicular to the spindle axis) match across all proteins and experiments? This should be an almost invariant characteristic of the measurements, assuming that proteins within each kinetochore tightly cluster around the 25 nm microtubule. This line of thinking makes the large width of the cross-correlation shown in Figure 1 somewhat surprising.
      • It will also be interesting to test if the correlation between the positions of Spc105 molecules, especially perpendicular to the spindle axis, is comparable to the known separations between adjacent microtubules in the yeast spindle (the authors could use Winey et al. 1995 for serial-section EM of yeast spindles for comparison).
    4. Cse4 count (4 per kinetochore) and the model presented: One of the surprising conclusions of the study is that there are two nucleosomes associated with each microtubule attachment, with Mif2/CENP-C potentially interacting with both nucleosomes. There are two critical issues that the authors must consider.
      • (1) Fluorescent protein chimeras of Cse4 and CBF3 and COMA complex members do not exclusively localize to kinetochores. Biochemical studies show that both Cse4 and CBF3 proteins interact with non-centromeric DNA, e.g., see work from the Biggins lab regarding Cse4 over-expression and also from the Henikoff group that used ChIP-seq. I can't think of a similar reference for the CBF3 complex, but the DNA-binding proteins are also likely to interact with other parts of the genome. The non-centromeric protein is visible as a significant background fluorescence in wide-field microscopy, e.g., see Cep3 localization here: https://images.yeastrc.org/imagerepo/viewExperiment.do?id=202308&experimentGroupOffset=3&experimentOffset=0&experimentGroupSize=3 Similar background fluorescence can be detected for Cse4 and Ctf19. This extra-centromeric localization of Cse4, Cep3, and Ctf19 makes it possible that the protein counts included by the authors are "contaminated" to some extent by the extra-centromeric protein. The authors should discuss this possibility and how it might affect their counts.
      • (2) The model drawn in Figure 4 makes explicit assumptions about the positioning of the four Cse4 molecules (or two nucleosomes) in each kinetochore relative to the rest of the kinetochore components. Yet, the data shown do not justify this specific arrangement. Lawrimore et al. 2011 claim that the non-centromeric Cse4 nucleosomes must be randomly distributed in the pericentromeric chromatin to evade detection in biochemical tests. Therefore, the nearest-neighbor analysis suggested above will be valuable for gaining new insights into the relative positioning of the centromeric- and non-centromeric Cse4 nucleosomes. A similar analysis for Cep3 and Ctf19 will also be helpful. If stereotypical positioning of these molecules cannot be detected, then the model should be revised accordingly (alternative models that are also consistent with the data can be included).
      • (3) I suggest one experiment that can help the authors better understand protein organization in one kinetochore. Joglekar et al. 2006 used a dicentric chromosome to isolate single kinetochores on the spindle axis to test the assumption that each kinetochore consists of approximately the same number of molecules of kinetochore proteins. The strains are easy to construct (transform existing strains with a linearized plasmid). Single kinetochores can be seen with a low but reasonable frequency. I leave the decision to perform the experiment to the authors' discretion depending on whether the experiment will be worth the effort in strengthening or enhancing their conclusions.
    5. Information regarding the degree of correction applied to calculate protein count per half-spindle: It will be helpful to include data regarding the degree of correction applied to the expected and measured numbers of NPC protein as supplementary data so that the readers can see the magnitude of this correction relative to the measured counts.

    Minor points:

    1. McIntosh et al. JCB 2013 used microtubule plus-ends in serial section electron micrographs of yeast spindles to align the centromeric region and found a disk-shaped structure that roughly corresponds to the size of a single nucleosome ~ 80 nm away from the tip of the microtubule and centered the microtubule axis. The authors should refer to this finding in their discussion of the model that they present with two nucleosomes. In my opinion, this is compelling evidence for a nucleosome-like structure serving as the kinetochore foundation.
    2. As discussed by the authors, the number of Cse4 molecules per kinetochore has been the subject of some controversy. Biochemical data from the Biggins group and ChIPseq data from the Westermann group (Altunkaya et al. 2016 Current Biology) strongly suggest that Cse4 molecules can only be found centered on the centromeric sequence. The latter reference should be included in the discussion.
    3. Although microscopy-based methods have estimated anywhere from 1, 2, to 6 Cse4 molecules per kinetochore, these studies generally agree on the stoichiometry between Cse4 and the rest of the kinetochore proteins, e.g., Ndc80 complex proteins are ~ 4-fold more abundant that Cse4, etc. The present study seems to disagree with protein stoichiometry. The authors may find it worthwhile to note this feature of their data.
    4. Omission of the Dam1 complex from this study is disappointing to me personally, but I am sure that the authors have good reasons for this. They should briefly comment on the absence of the Dam1 complex in this study.

    Significance

    Cieslinski and colleagues present a single-molecule localization-based study to define the copy numbers and relative organization of kinetochore proteins in budding yeast. These numbers confirm and significantly refine prior measurements of the same aspects of the kinetochore. They also raise new questions and point to new research directions. The measurements also reveal a model of the protein organization of the budding yeast kinetochore in metaphase. For these reasons, the manuscript is of significant interest to the cell division field.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.01.469648v3 on bioRxiv
  6. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.01.469648v2 on bioRxiv
  7. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.01.469648v1 on bioRxiv