PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Semin Cell Dev Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3201729
NIHMSID: NIHMS316796

Processive Ubiquitin Chain Formation by the Anaphase-Promoting Complex

Abstract

Progression through mitosis requires the sequential ubiquitination of cell cycle regulators by the anaphase-promoting complex, resulting in their proteasomal degradation. Although several mechanisms contribute to APC/C regulation during mitosis, the APC/C is able to discriminate between its many substrates by exploiting differences in the processivity of ubiquitin chain assembly. Here, we discuss how the APC/C achieves processive ubiquitin chain formation to trigger the sequential degradation of cell cycle regulators during mitosis.

Keywords: ubiquitin, anapahase-promoting complex, APC/C, Ube2C, Ube2S, processivity

Introduction

During mitosis, eukaryotic cells undergo dramatic structural reorganizations that allow them to evenly distribute the genetic material between their daughter cells. To accomplish this with high precision, the dividing cells need to adhere to a carefully scripted and highly conserved program that starts with nuclear envelope breakdown and chromosome condensation and proceeds through spindle formation, sister chromatid separation and cytokinesis. How the sequence of mitotic reactions is established is an area of intense research.

Among the many pathways controlling mitosis, protein degradation has emerged as a key player in orchestrating the series of events that leads to successful cell division. In eukaryotes, most proteins are degraded by the 26S proteasome [1]. This tightly regulated, compartmentalized protease recognizes its substrates after these have been covalently modified with ubiquitin chains connected through Lys11 or Lys48 of one ubiquitin molecule and the C-terminus of the next ubiquitin [2-4]. Underscoring the importance of protein degradation for mitosis, the inhibition of the 26S proteasome or loss of K11- or K48-linked ubiquitin chain formation interfere with cell division in multiple organisms [4, 5].

The attachment of proteolytic ubiquitin chains to cell cycle regulators requires the collaborative effort of at least three enzymatic activities, referred to as E1, E2, and E3. An E1 activates ubiquitin in an ATP-dependent reaction by forming a thioester bond between a Cys residue at its active site and the C-terminus of ubiquitin [6]. Following activation, ubiquitin is transferred to a Cys residue in an E2 active site [7]. Ubiquitin-charged E2 enzymes are then recognized by E3s, the majority of which contain a signature RING-domain [8, 9]. These RING-E3s bind a charged E2 and a specific substrate at the same time, thereby promoting the transfer of ubiquitin from the E2 active site to a substrate lysine. When these reactions are repeated, but Lys residues in substrate-attached ubiquitin molecules are modified, polymeric ubiquitin chains are being generated.

Although several of the ~600 human E3s have been ascribed critical roles during mitosis [10], it is one RING-E3, the anaphase-promoting complex (APC/C), that is essential for establishing the correct temporal order of mitotic events [11]. Rather than degrading all its substrates at the same time, the APC/C ubiquitinates its targets only after they have fulfilled their mitotic functions. This creates a sequence of APC/C-dependent degradation reactions: inhibitors of sister chromatid separation are degraded prior to proteins required for spindle elongation, and those are ubiquitinated before components of the cytokinetic machinery (Figure 1; [12-14]). At the end of this proteolytic sequence, the APC/C promotes the degradation of its own E2 enzymes to shut off its mitotic activity [15, 16]. By degrading key regulators at specific times during cell division, the APC/C orchestrates progression of cells through mitosis.

Figure 1
Sequential degradation of APC/C substrates during mitosis

Given its many substrates, determining the proper time of substrate degradation is no easy task for the APC/C. Based on the current literature and unpublished screens performed in this laboratory, the human APC/C can be estimated to have more than 100 substrates (Table S1), and indeed, activation of this global mitotic player leads to a dramatic increase in the abundance of K11-linked ubiquitin chains, the product of human APC/C-activity [17]. Due to its importance for accurate cell division, the ability of the APC/C to discriminate between its substrates is controlled by multiple mechanisms. Early in mitosis, the spindle assembly checkpoint inhibits the APC/C to prevent chromosome missegregation [18]. However, few APC/C-substrates, such as cyclin A or Nek2A, are degraded under these conditions, thereby moving these proteins to the top of the proteolytic line [19, 20]. Once the spindle checkpoint has been satisfied, the APC/C ubiquitinates a small number of proteins, including cyclin B1, that are delivered by a WD40-repeat protein, Cdc20 [21, 22]. This burst in APC/C-activity results in a drop in cyclin B1-levels and leads to the activation of a different APC/C-adaptor with much broader substrate spectrum, Cdh1 [23-25]. Thus, the switch from Cdc20 to Cdh1 provides another layer of ordering mitotic degradation events. Finally, fully active APC/CCdh1 degrades cell cycle regulators in a defined sequence, which is required for coordinating spindle elongation, cytokinesis, and APC/C-inactivation in cells. APC/CCdh1 achieves this feat by exploiting differences in the processivity of ubiquitin chain formation between substrates [26].

To comprehend the complexity and regulation of mitotic degradation reactions, the mechanism of ubiquitin chain formation by the APC/C has to be fully understood. Here, we discuss how the APC/C catalyzes processive ubiquitin chain formation and how differences in substrate recognition and ubiquitin transfer can be translated into sequential substrate degradation during mitosis. Integrating intrinsic means of substrate discrimination by the APC/C with pathways of APC/C-regulation allows us to propose a comprehensive model of temporal APC/C-control during mitosis.

The APC/C requires multiple E2 enzymes to catalyze ubiquitin chain formation

The RING-E3 APC/C catalyzes ubiquitin chain formation by simultaneously recruiting substrates and cognate E2 enzymes [7]. In both yeast and human cells, distinct E2s collaborate with the APC/C to initiate and elongate ubiquitin chains, respectively. In S. cerevisiae, Ubc4, Ubc5 or Ubc11 are able to catalyze the transfer of the first ubiquitin to substrate Lys residues to initiate chain formation [5]. Ubc4 is expressed in proliferating cells, while Ubc5 and Ubc11 are upregulated during meiosis [27-29]. Following initiation, the E2 Ubc1 promotes the elongation of K48-specific ubiquitin chains [5, 30]. Similar to the well-characterized E2 Cdc34 [31], Ubc1 is capable of modifying substrate Lys residues, but chain elongation is kinetically preferred over initiation. Both Ubc4 and Ubc1 need to bind the RING-domain of APC11 for activation, and thus cannot be active simultaneously on the same APC/C.

In fission yeast, the APC/C also promotes ubiquitin chain formation by employing two distinct E2 enzymes, UbcP1 and UbcP4 [32, 33]. While it has not been reconstituted in vitro, several observations suggest that UbcP4 and UbcP1 act during chain initiation and elongation, respectively. Deletion of UbcP1 or UbcP4 both stabilize the S. pombe cyclin B1-homolog, and the resulting cell cycle arrest is not rescued by overexpression of the respective remaining E2 [32, 33]. Furthermore, while no chains were detected in strains lacking UbcP4, the deletion of UbcP1 led to the accumulation of short chains on APC/C-substrates [33]. These phenotypes are consistent with UbcP4 modifying Lys residues in substrates, while UbcP1 might extend ubiquitin chains. Both UbcP1 and UbcP4 are “classical” E2 enzymes that contain all elements required for recognition by RING-E3s [7], suggesting that these E2s also act sequentially to catalyze ubiquitin chain formation by the S. pombe APC/C.

In higher eukaryotes, the APC/C appears to have evolved mechanisms that increase the efficiency of ubiquitin chain formation. At least in Drosophila, Xenopus, and human cells, the APC/C utilizes specialized E2 enzymes that so far have only been shown to function with the APC/C, but no other E3 [4, 15, 16, 34-38]. In addition, the two APC/C-specific E2s of higher eukaryotes do not compete for the same binding site on the APC/C, suggesting that they can truly cooperate during chain formation [16, 39].

The first of the APC/C-specific E2s, Ube2C (UbcH10, UbcX, Vihar), acts as the chain-initiating enzyme that links the first ubiquitin molecules to the substrate [4, 16]. To achieve this with high efficiency, Ube2C requires degenerate sequence motifs in APC/C-substrates, the TEK-boxes, which help to expose substrate Lys-residues to the active site of Ube2C [4]. Interestingly, ubiquitin contains a similar TEK-box surface close to Lys11, allowing Ube2C to assemble short chains that are preferentially linked through K11 of ubiquitin [4, 39]. Besides Ube2C, the Ube2D/UbcH5-family of E2s can initiate chain formation on APC/C-substrates in vitro [16, 37, 38]. However, these E2s interact with hundreds of E3s in human cells, suggesting that their available concentration for the APC/C is very low [40]. Furthermore, Ube2D does not display any specificity for ubiquitin Lys residues and thus generates linkages that are not readily susceptible to elongation by Ube2S [41]. Finally, the depletion of all four Ube2D-family members by siRNAs did not yield mitotic phenotypes [16, 42], in contrast to reduced levels of Ube2C [15, 32, 34-36, 43-45]. These observations suggest that the majority of initiation events for human APC/C depend on a specific E2, Ube2C.

Chain elongation by the APC/C of higher eukaryotes is specifically catalyzed by a second dedicated E2, Ube2S [16, 37, 38]. Ube2S binds to a different site on the APC/C than Ube2C, suggesting that it acts independently of the RING-domain [16, 39]. Under normal conditions, Ube2S exclusively modifies Lys11 of ubiquitin, but no other residue [16, 38, 39]. To achieve linkage-specificity, Ube2S recognizes the TEK-box in the acceptor ubiquitin, which is fully exposed in K11-linked ubiquitin chains, but not necessarily in chains of other topologies [39]. The recognition of this acceptor ubiquitin surface around Lys11 brings Glu34 of ubiquitin in proximity to the catalytic cysteine of Ube2S, which is required to form a catalytically competent active site composed of residues of Ube2S and ubiquitin itself; thus, linkage-specific chain formation by Ube2S occurs through substrate-assisted catalysis [39]. The co-depletion of Ube2C and Ube2S ablates formation of K11-linked ubiquitin chains in mitotic cells, strongly stabilizes APC/C-substrates, and results in cell cycle arrest [16, 17, 39]. Similar to loss of Ube2C and Ube2S, the inhibition of K11-linked chain formation by injection of a ubiquitin mutant lacking Lys11 blocked cell division in Xenopus embryos [4]. These observations lend strong support to the notion that Ube2C and Ube2S form the physiological E2 module of the APC/C in higher eukaryotes. Together, the APC/C, Ube2C, and Ube2S catalyze the formation of K11-linked ubiquitin chains to orchestrate progression of cells through mitosis.

The APC/C catalyzes processive ubiquitin chain formation

Both yeast and human APC/C catalyze ubiquitin chain formation processively, in that they are able to transfer more than one ubiquitin molecule to a growing chain within a single substrate-binding event [26, 46]. The processivity of ubiquitin chain formation by the APC/C is determined by the ratio between the catalytic rates of ubiquitin chain initiation and elongation (kcat, initiation + kcat, elongation) and the rate for substrate dissociation (koff) [47]. Differences in the rates of catalysis and dissociation can lead to distinct degrees of processivity for various substrates.

The most straightforward way to generate processivity in chain formation is to limit the dissociation of a substrate from the APC/C. This has been demonstrated for yeast Hsl1, which binds APC/CCdh1 with high affinity and is ubiquitinated with high processivity [48-50]. The APC/C engages its substrates through a core subunit, APC10, and its adaptors Cdc20 or Cdh1 [23, 49, 51]. Together, APC10 and Cdc20/Cdh1 bind to sequence motifs, the D-boxes, which can be found in almost every APC/C-substrate [49, 51, 52]. Accordingly, the deletion of APC10, alterations in its conserved ligand binding loop, or mutations in the D-box sequence of a substrate abolish processive chain formation by the APC/C [26, 46, 48]. In addition to their association via a D-box, some human APC/C substrates, such as cyclin B or Nek2A, engage in additional interactions with core subunits of the APC/C, and the resulting multivalent binding to the APC/C results in an increase in their processivity of ubiquitin chain formation [20, 53].

Besides substrate dissociation, the catalytic rate of ubiquitin transfer is crucial to determining the processivity of chain formation. For yeast APC/C, the initiating E2 Ubc4 can modify several substrate Lys residues during a single substrate-binding event [46, 48]. Similar to Ubc4, the human initiating E2 Ube2C can transfer multiple ubiquitin molecules in a single substrate-binding event, which results in the modification of several substrate Lys residues or the formation of short K11-linked ubiquitin chains [4, 26, 46]. Recent experiments showed that the rate of chain initiation differs between APC/C-substrates, depending on the presence of TEK-box sequences that help expose substrate Lys residues to the active site of Ube2C ([4]; Williamson et al., in revision). In addition, the capacity of Ube2C to assemble short ubiquitin chains can vary between substrates, potentially due to differences in their mode of interaction with the APC/C [26]. Qualitative analyses suggested that initiation by Ube2C occurs much more slowly than chain elongation by Ube2S [16], an observation that is consistent with a recent detailed kinetic analysis of chain formation by a related cell-cycle E3, the SCF [54]. Moreover, the addition of Ube2C to cell extracts can dramatically increase the degradation rate for several APC/C-substrates, while the loss of Ube2C during G1 coincides with the APC/C-substrate stabilization [4, 15]. Thus, initiation by Ube2C appears to be a rate-limiting step for chain formation by the APC/C. As a result, substrate motifs that promote ubiquitin chain initiation are likely to have strong effects on the processivity of ubiquitin chain formation by the APC/C.

Following initiation, the elongating E2s of yeast and human APC/C, Ubc1 and Ube2S, catalyze chain elongation with high processivity [5, 16, 39]. Ube2S, for example, is able to add up to 13 ubiquitin molecules to cyclin A in a single substrate-binding event [39]. The efficiency of Ube2S to extend ubiquitin chains is comparable to the SCF-E2 Cdc34, which can transfer up to 14 ubiquitin molecules to a growing chain within a single binding event of its substrate -catenin [54]. The high processivity of Ube2S and the human homolog of Cdc34, Ube2R1, depend on a non-covalent interaction between the donor ubiquitin molecule and the E2 to which this donor is connected via the thioester bond [39]. This interaction ensures that the donor ubiquitin molecule does not interfere with recognition of the acceptor ubiquitin, and it also places the donor ubiquitin into a perfect position for nucleophilic attack by the acceptor Lys11. NMR-based docking analyses suggested that Ubc1 engages in a similar non-covalent interaction with the donor ubiquitin [55]. Ubc1 also utilizes a second non-covalent ubiquitin-binding site, its UBA-domain, to increase the processivity of chain elongation [5], while comparable interactions with donor ubiquitin appear to be less important for the function of chain-initiating E2s [56]. Consistent with being a highly efficient enzyme, the addition of Ube2S to extracts does not further accelerate protein degradation [38], and reducing Ube2S levels in cells produces weaker phenotypes as observed upon Ube2C-depletion [16].

Finally, dimerization of the APC/C has been proposed to increase the processivity of chain formation [51, 57]. The dimerization of an E3 can provide multiple interaction sites for substrates that have more than one E3-binding motif. Even if one substrate motif disengages from the E3, the substrate remains bound to the dimer and might still be competent for ubiquitination, a feature known to contribute to the processivity of ubiquitin chain formation by the E3 SCFCdc4 [58]. The dimerization of an E3 might also increase the local concentration of E2s that participate in chain formation. Consistent with these hypotheses, APC/C-dimers have been observed in vitro [51, 57], and many APC/C-substrates have multiple interaction motifs, such as D- and KEN-boxes [24, 50, 59-66] (Table S1). However, whether APC/C dimerizes in cells and whether this event plays a general role in determining the processivity of chain formation remains unclear.

The processivity of ubiquitin chain formation by the APC/C provides a blueprint for substrate degradation during mitosis

An in vitro-analysis of APC/C-dependent ubiquitination reactions found that differences in the processivity of chain formation between substrates correlate well with the timing of their degradation [26]. Processive substrates, such as cyclin B1 or securin, are rapidly degraded upon full APC/C-activation at the metaphase-anaphase transition, whereas distributive substrates, such as Aurora A or Plk1, are degraded much later in mitosis [21, 22, 67, 68]. The most distributive substrate of the APC/C, its E2 Ube2C, is degraded even later during G1 [15]. These findings suggest that the processivity of ubiquitin chain formation provides a blueprint for the sequence of APC/C-dependent degradation reactions during mitosis.

How can variations in the processivity of ubiquitin chain formation be translated into differences in the timing of degradation? The proteasome recognizes its substrates only after these have been modified with ubiquitin chains of at least four molecules [2, 3]. The assembly of such a polymeric ubiquitin chain is slower for a distributive substrate, which has to undergo multiple association and dissociation events for chain buildup, as opposed to a processive substrate that needs to bind the APC/C only once. This situation is reminiscent to multisite-phosphorylation, which is completed much more rapidly on processive than on distributive substrates [69]. Thus, the requirement for a ubiquitin chain, rather than a single ubiquitin, to trigger degradation introduces a delay between the initial recognition of a distributive substrate by the APC/C and its turnover by the proteasome [67].

Distributive substrates, therefore, need to associate with the APC/C multiple times to obtain a proteolytic ubiquitin chain. The initial excess of substrates (estimated concentration of the >100 substrates: ~5-10μM) over active APC/C (concentration in human cells ~80nM; [70, 71]) generates a competitive environment that impedes the rebinding of a dissociated substrate during early stages of mitosis. Indeed, global interaction studies found evidence for the preferential binding of processive over distributive substrates to the APC/C [72], and even slight increases in the levels of a processive substrate, such as securin, result in a block of APC/C-substrate degradation and mitotic arrest [73]. This type of regulation can also be reconstituted in vitro: if identical levels of a processive and a distributive substrate are exposed to the APC/C at the same time, ubiquitin chains will almost exclusively be formed on the processive substrate [26]. As a result, the probability of degrading a distributive substrate increases at later stages of mitosis, when the levels of competing substrates have been reduced.

Reminiscent of phosphatases in multisite phosphorylation [74], deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBs) enhance differences in the rate of APC/C-binding between distributive substrates [75]. By contrast, processive substrates that only require a single APC/C-binding event to obtain a degradation-competent ubiquitin chain are less sensitive to DUB-activity. Several DUBs were found to play important roles in mitotic control [76-82]. Furthermore, DUBs were shown to associate with the APC/C, as seen in proteomic analyses [83] or as implicated by functional studies that found DUB-activity to co-purify with APC/C from human or Xenopus sources [5, 26]. However, DUBs that are specific for K11-linked ubiquitin chains and have an important role in mitosis, remain unknown, leaving the importance of this class of enzymes for the correct timing of APC/C-substrate degradation poorly understood.

In the presence of DUBs, the activity of an E3 has to be above a certain threshold to achieve the degradation of distributive substrates [47]. If the activity of an E3 is too low, chain formation is slow compared to deubiquitination and substrates are stabilized. During G1, the activity of the APC/C is strongly reduced by the degradation of its E2s Ube2C and Ube2S and its activator Cdh1 [15, 16, 84]. As a result, distributive substrates are stabilized under these conditions, while processive substrates can still be degraded [15] (Williamson et al., in revision). This type of regulation allows APC/C-substrates with roles in S phase entry or DNA replication, such as cyclin A, Cdc6 or Cdt1, to accumulate already during late G1 [15, 26, 85].

Together, variations in the processivity of ubiquitin chain formation, amplified by a limiting APC/C-concentration and counteracting DUBs, can lead to differences in the timing of APC/C-substrate degradation. This mechanism, akin to kinetic proofreading [86], thus provides a blueprint for substrate degradation during mitosis.

Substrate-specific mechanisms to regulate processive ubiquitin chain formation by the APC/C

To achieve precise control over the degradation time for specific APC/C-substrates, differences in the processivity of chain formation or the sensitivity towards DUBs can be further modulated [87]. Increasing the affinity of a substrate for the APC/C, for example, should improve the processivity of ubiquitin chain formation and accelerate degradation. A point in case is made by the APC/C-substrate cyclin B1, which is found in complexes with the kinase Cdk1 and the accessory factors Cks1 or Cks2 [88]. Cyclin B1 is recognized by the APC/C through a canonical degron, the D-box [89]. In addition, Cks1/2 contains a phosphorylation-binding motif that enables the cyclin B/Cdk1/Cks-complex to associate with APC/C-subunits that are phosphorylated during mitosis [72, 90-92]. In fact, the interaction between the fission yeast Cks1-homolog p13Suc1 and phosphorylated APC/C is sufficiently stable to allow purification of the APC/C [90]. The two independent APC/C-binding motifs in the cyclin B1/Cdk1/Cks-complex lead to a multivalent interaction that is required for the very rapid degradation of cyclin B1 in early anaphase [88].

Similar to cyclin B1, cyclin A also requires Cdk1- and Cks-binding for its correctly timed degradation during mitosis [53, 93]. Cyclin A can also be degraded during activation of the spindle checkpoint, which prevents the recognition of most competing substrates by the APC/C [19, 94]. Together, the increase in affinity upon Cks-binding to phosphorylated APC/C and the lack of competition due to checkpoint activation might allow cyclin A to be turned over among the very first APC/C-substrates. Cyclin A is already re-synthesized during late G1, when it binds Cdk2 to phosphorylate Cdh1 and inhibit the APC/C [15, 26, 95, 96]. At this time of the cell cycle, Cks has been degraded by the APC/C [97], and APC/C has been dephosphorylated [98-100]. The APC/C has also turned over its own E2s Ube2C and Ube2S, which reduces the catalytic rate of APC/C-dependent ubiquitination reactions [15, 16]. Finally, reports suggest that early synthesis of an S-phase APC/C-inhibitor, Emi1, during late G1 would further inactivate APC/C [101, 102]. Together, the decrease in APC/C-affinity of cyclin A and the reduction in general APC/C-activity turn cyclin A into a distributive substrate that is able to bind APC/CCdh1 without being degraded [26]. Fine-tuning the processivity of chain formation can, therefore, affect the timing of degradation during mitosis as well as that of substrate accumulation during G1.

Rather than stimulating ubiquitin chain formation, reversible protein interactions are also able to decrease the affinity of substrates for the APC/C to prevent premature degradation. This regulatory mechanism has been described for the spindle assembly factors HURP and NuSAP, which are stabilized through their binding to importin-β [103]. Importin-β associates with motifs in HURP and NuSAP that overlap with D-, KEN-, and TEK-boxes, thereby blocking the recognition of these degrons by the APC/C. The small GTPase Ran, which accumulates in an active, GTP-charged state close to chromatin [104], can dissociate HURP or NuSAP from importin-β, thereby allowing for their ubiquitination by the APC/C. Similarly, modifications occurring in the proximity of D- or KEN-boxes can protect substrates from ubiquitination by the APC/C, as described for phosphorylation of securin during metaphase or of Cdc6 during G1 [85, 105]. These observations suggest that several mechanisms can impinge on the processivity blueprint for mitotic protein ubiquitination to fine-tune the timing of substrate degradation.

As Ube2C appears to be rate limiting for APC/C-dependent protein degradation, it can be predicted that regulating the efficiency of chain initiation should also affect the processivity of chain formation and timing of substrate degradation. Although this has yet to be demonstrated experimentally, it is possible that phosphorylation events or protein interactions that occur close to the TEK-boxes in APC/C-substrates impede recognition of substrate Lys residues by Ube2C, thereby delaying ubiquitin chain formation and substrate degradation. Controlling ubiquitin chain formation in this manner would be highly reminiscent of the prevailing types of regulation for other processive reactions, such as transcription or translation [106].

Conclusions

Ubiquitin chain formation by the APC/C and subsequent protein degradation by the 26S proteasome are critical reactions regulating the progression of cells through mitosis. By targeting its many substrates at defined times during cell division, the APC/C establishes a crude order of events, thereby helping to coordinate many structural reorganizations that occur in a mitotic cell. Although its activity is regulated on many levels, the APC/C has the inherent capability to discriminate between substrates based on differences in the processivity of ubiquitin chain formation. These differences can result from variations in the affinity of substrates to the APC/C or the efficiency of ubiquitin chain initiation by the specific E2, Ube2C. By contrast, the chain-elongating E2, Ube2S, is highly processive, thus ensuring protein degradation once initiation has been accomplished. The intrinsic capacity of the APC/C to discriminate between substrates is overlaid by several mechanisms that ensure more precise temporal control of mitotic degradation: global mechanisms of APC/C-regulation, such as the spindle checkpoint or the availability of adaptors, E2 enzymes, and DUBs, determine the overall level of APC/C-activity, whereas substrate-specific mechanisms control APC/C-affinity or processivity of chain formation for small groups of important cell cycle regulators, including the cyclins or spindle assembly factors. Together, these tightly interwoven regulatory mechanisms allow the APC/C to establish the conserved sequence of degradation events that steers cells through the complex processes that make up mitosis.

Figure 2
Mechanism of processive ubiquitin chain formation by the APC/C
Table 1
Reported APC/C substrates

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all members of the Rape lab for advice and for many stimulating discussions. We thank Julia Schaletzky for discussions and for reading the manuscript. Research in our lab is funded by grants from the NIH (5R01GM083064-03; 1DP2OD003088) and the March of Dimes Foundation. MR is a Pew Fellow.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

1. Finley D. Recognition and processing of ubiquitin-protein conjugates by the proteasome. Annu Rev Biochem. 2009;78:477–513. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Chau V, et al. A multiubiquitin chain is confined to specific lysine in a targeted short-lived protein. Science. 1989;243(4898):1576–83. [PubMed]
3. Thrower JS, et al. Recognition of the polyubiquitin proteolytic signal. EMBO J. 2000;19(1):94–102. [PubMed]
4. Jin L, et al. Mechanism of ubiquitin-chain formation by the human anaphase-promoting complex. Cell. 2008;133(4):653–65. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Rodrigo-Brenni MC, Morgan DO. Sequential E2s drive polyubiquitin chain assembly on APC targets. Cell. 2007;130(1):127–39. [PubMed]
6. Schulman BA, Harper JW. Ubiquitin-like protein activation by E1 enzymes: the apex for downstream signalling pathways. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009;10(5):319–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Ye Y, Rape M. Building ubiquitin chains: E2 enzymes at work. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009;10(11):755–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Deshaies RJ, Joazeiro CA. RING domain E3 ubiquitin ligases. Annu Rev Biochem. 2009;78:399–434. [PubMed]
9. Rotin D, Kumar S. Physiological functions of the HECT family of ubiquitin ligases. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009;10(6):398–409. [PubMed]
10. Wickliffe K, et al. The multiple layers of ubiquitin-dependent cell cycle control. Chem Rev. 2009;109(4):1537–48. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Peters JM. The anaphase promoting complex/cyclosome: a machine designed to destroy. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006;7(9):644–56. [PubMed]
12. Zou H, et al. Identification of a vertebrate sister-chromatid separation inhibitor involved in transformation and tumorigenesis. Science. 1999;285(5426):418–22. [PubMed]
13. Stewart S, Fang G. Anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome controls the stability of TPX2 during mitotic exit. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25(23):10516–27. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Zhao WM, Fang G. Anillin is a substrate of anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome (APC/C) that controls spatial contractility of myosin during late cytokinesis. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(39):33516–24. [PubMed]
15. Rape M, Kirschner MW. Autonomous regulation of the anaphase-promoting complex couples mitosis to S-phase entry. Nature. 2004;432(7017):588–95. [PubMed]
16. Williamson A, et al. Identification of a physiological E2 module for the human anaphase-promoting complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106(43):18213–8. [PubMed]
17. Matsumoto ML, et al. K11-linked polyubiquitination in cell cycle control revealed by a K11 linkage-specific antibody. Mol Cell. 2010;39(3):477–84. [PubMed]
18. Musacchio A, Salmon ED. The spindle-assembly checkpoint in space and time. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007;8(5):379–93. [PubMed]
19. Geley S, et al. Anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome-dependent proteolysis of human cyclin A starts at the beginning of mitosis and is not subject to the spindle assembly checkpoint. J Cell Biol. 2001;153(1):137–48. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. Hayes MJ, et al. Early mitotic degradation of Nek2A depends on Cdc20-independent interaction with the APC/C. NatCell Biol. 2006;8(6):607–14. [PubMed]
21. Cohen-Fix O, et al. Anaphase initiation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is controlled by the APC-dependent degradation of the anaphase inhibitor Pds1p. Genes Dev. 1996;10(24):3081–93. [PubMed]
22. Clute P, Pines J. Temporal and spatial control of cyclin B1 destruction in metaphase. Nat Cell Biol. 1999;1(2):82–7. [PubMed]
23. Visintin R, Prinz S, Amon A. CDC20 and CDH1: a family of substrate-specific activators of APC-dependent proteolysis. Science. 1997;278(5337) [PubMed]
24. Pfleger CM, Kirschner MW. The KEN box: an APC recognition signal distinct from the D box targeted by Cdh1. Genes Dev. 2000;14(6):655–65. [PubMed]
25. Schwab M, et al. Yeast Hct1 recognizes the mitotic cyclin Clb2 and other substrates of the ubiquitin ligase APC. EMBO J. 2001;20(18):5165–75. [PubMed]
26. Rape M, Reddy SK, Kirschner MW. The processivity of multiubiquitination by the APC determines the order of substrate degradation. Cell. 2006;124(1):89–103. [PubMed]
27. Chu S, et al. The transcriptional program of sporulation in budding yeast. Science. 1998;282(5389):699–705. [PubMed]
28. Seufert W, Jentsch S. Ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes UBC4 and UBC5 mediate selective degradation of short-lived and abnormal proteins. EMBO J. 1990;9(2):543–50. [PubMed]
29. Townsley FM, Ruderman JV. Functional analysis of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae UBC11 gene. Yeast. 1998;14(8):747–57. [PubMed]
30. Rodrigo-Brenni MC, Foster SA, Morgan DO. Catalysis of lysine 48-specific ubiquitin chain assembly by residues in E2 and ubiquitin. Mol Cell. 2010;39(4):548–59. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. Petroski MD, Deshaies RJ. Mechanism of lysine 48-linked ubiquitin-chain synthesis by the cullin-RING ubiquitin-ligase complex SCF-Cdc34. Cell. 2005;123(6):1107–20. [PubMed]
32. Osaka F, et al. A ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme in fission yeast that is essential for the onset of anaphase in mitosis. Mol Cell Biol. 1997;17(6):3388–97. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33. Seino H, et al. Two ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes, UbcP1/Ubc4 and UbcP4/Ubc11, have distinct functions for ubiquitination of mitotic cyclin. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23(10):3497–505. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Aristarkhov A, et al. E2-C, a cyclin-selective ubiquitin carrier protein required for the destruction of mitotic cyclins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93(9):4294–9. [PubMed]
35. Yu H, et al. Identification of a novel ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme involved in mitotic cyclin degradation. Curr Biol. 1996;6(4):455–66. [PubMed]
36. Mathe E, et al. The E2-C vihar is required for the correct spatiotemporal proteolysis of cyclin B and itself undergoes cyclical degradation. Curr Biol. 2004;14(19):l723–33. [PubMed]
37. Garnett MJ, et al. UBE2S elongates ubiquitin chains on APC/C substrates to promote mitotic exit. Nat Cell Biol. 2009;11(11):1363–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
38. Wu T, et al. UBE2S drives elongation of K11-linked ubiquitin chains by the anaphase-promoting complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(4):1355–60. [PubMed]
39. Wickliffe KE, et al. The Mechanism of Linkage-Specific Ubiquitin Chain Elongation by a Single-Subunit E2. Cell. 2011 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
40. van Wijk SJ, et al. A comprehensive framework of E2-RING E3 interactions of the human ubiquitin-proteasome system. Mol Syst Biol. 2009;5:295. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
41. Kirkpatrick DS, et al. Quantitative analysis of in vitro ubiquitinated cyclin B1 reveals complex chain topology. Nat Cell Biol. 2006;8(7):700–10. [PubMed]
42. Machida YJ, et al. Targeted comparative RNA interference analysis reveals differential requirement of genes essential for cell proliferation. Mol Biol Cell. 2006;17(11):4837–45. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
43. Townsley FM, et al. Dominant-negative cyclin-selective ubiquitin carrier protein E2-C/UbcH10 blocks cells in metaphase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94(6):2362–7. [PubMed]
44. Chen SM, et al. RNA INTERFERENCE-MEDIATED SILENCING OF UBCH10 GENE INHIBITS COLORECTAL CANCER CELL GROWTH IN VITRO AND IN VIVO. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2009 [PubMed]
45. Jiang L, et al. Knockdown of ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2C/UbcH10 expression by RNA interference inhibits glioma cell proliferation and enhances cell apoptosisin vitro. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010;136(2):211–7. [PubMed]
46. Carroll CW, Morgan DO. The Doc1 subunit is a processivity factor for the anaphase-promoting complex. Nat Cell Biol. 2002;4(11):880–7. [PubMed]
47. Goldbeter A, Koshland DE., Jr. An amplified sensitivity arising from covalent modification in biological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1981;78(11):6840–4. [PubMed]
48. Carroll CW, Enquist-Newman M, Morgan DO. The APC subunit Doc1 promotes recognition of the substrate destruction box. Curr Biol. 2005;15(1):11–8. [PubMed]
49. da Fonseca PC, et al. Structures of APC/C(Cdh1) with substrates identify Cdh1 and Apc10 as the D-box co-receptor. Nature. 2011;470(7333):274–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
50. Burton JL, Solomon MJ. D box and KEN box motifs in budding yeast Hsl1p are required for APC-mediated degradation and direct binding to Cdc20p and Cdh1p. Genes Dev. 2001;15(18):2381–95. [PubMed]
51. Buschhorn BA, et al. Substrate binding on the APC/C occurs between the coactivator Cdh1 and the processivity factor Doc1. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2011;18(1):6–13. [PubMed]
52. Kraft C, et al. The WD40 propeller domain of Cdh1 Junctions as a destruction box receptor for APC/C substrates. Mol Cell. 2005;18(5):543–53. [PubMed]
53. Wolthuis R, et al. Cdc20 and Cks direct the spindle checkpoint-independent destruction of cyclin A. Mol Cell. 2008;30(3):290–302. [PubMed]
54. Pierce NW, et al. Detection of sequential polyubiquitylation on a millisecond timescale. Nature. 2009;462(7273):615–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
55. Hamilton KS, et al. Structure of a conjugating enzyme-ubiquitin thiolester intermediate reveals a novel role for the ubiquitin tail. Structure. 2001;9(10):897–904. [PubMed]
56. Pruneda JN, et al. Ubiquitin in Motion: Structural studies of the E2~Ub conjugate. Biochemistry. 2011 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
57. Passmore LA, et al. Structural analysis of the anaphase-promoting complex reveals multiple active sites and insights into polyubiquitylation. Mol Cell. 2005;20(6):855–66. [PubMed]
58. Tang X, et al. Suprafacial orientation of the SCFCdc4 dimer accommodates multiple geometries for substrate ubiquitination. Cell. 2007;129(6):1165–76. [PubMed]
59. Leismann O, Lehner CF. Drosophila securin destruction involves a D-box and a KEN-box and promotes anaphase in parallel with Cyclin A degradation. J Cell Sci. 2003;116(Pt 12):2453–60. [PubMed]
60. Yamano H, et al. The role of the destruction box and its neighbouring lysine residues in cyclin B for anaphase ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis in fission yeast: defining the D-box receptor. EMBO J. 1998;17(19):5670–8. [PubMed]
61. Zur A, Brandeis M. Timing of APC/C substrate degradation is determined by fzy/fzr specificity of destruction boxes. EMBO J. 2002;21(17):4500–10. [PubMed]
62. Yamano H, et al. Cell cycle-regulated recognition of the destruction box of cyclin B by the APC/C in Xenopus egg extracts. Mol Cell. 2004;13(1):137–47. [PubMed]
63. Stewart S, Fang G. Destruction box-dependent degradation of aurora B is mediated by the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome and Cdh1. Cancer Res. 2005;65(19):8730–5. [PubMed]
64. Nguyen HG, et al. Mechanism of Aurora-B degradation and its dependency on intact KEN and A-boxes: identification of an aneuploidy-promoting property. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25(12):4977–92. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
65. Fu G, et al. D-box is required for the degradation of human Shugoshin and chromosome alignment. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007;357(3):672–8. [PubMed]
66. Qi W, Yu H. KEN-box-dependent degradation of the Bub1 spindle checkpoint kinase by the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome. J Biol Chem. 2007;282(6):3672–9. [PubMed]
67. Lindon C, Pines J. Ordered proteolysis in anaphase inactivates Plk1 to contribute to proper mitotic exit in human cells. J Cell Biol. 2004;164(2):233–41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
68. Littlepage LE, Ruderman JV. Identification of a new APC/C recognition domain, the A box, which is required for the Cdh1-dependent destruction of the kinase Aurora-A during mitotic exit. Genes Dev. 2002;16(17):2274–85. [PubMed]
69. Salazar C, Hofer T. Multisite protein phosphorylation--from molecular mechanisms to kinetic models. FEBS J. 2009;276(12):3177–98. [PubMed]
70. Tang Z, et al. Mad2-lndependent inhibition of APCCdc20 by the mitotic checkpoint protein BubR1. Dev Cell. 2001;1(2):227–37. [PubMed]
71. Wang Z, et al. In vivo quantitative studies of dynamic intracellular processes using fluorescence correlation spectroscopy. Biophys J. 2006;91(1):343–51. [PubMed]
72. Hutchins JR, et al. Systematic analysis of human protein complexes identifies chromosome segregation proteins. Science. 2010;328(5978):593–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
73. Marangos P, Carroll J. Securin regulates entry into M-phase by modulating the stability of cyclin B. Nat Cell Biol. 2008;10(4):445–51. [PubMed]
74. Gunawardena J. Multisite protein phosphorylation makes a good threshold but can be a poor switch. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102(41):14617–22. [PubMed]
75. Reyes-Turcu FE, Ventii KH, Wilkinson KD. Regulation and cellular roles of ubiquitin-specific deubiquitinating enzymes. Annu Rev Biochem. 2009;78:363–97. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
76. Stegmeier F, et al. Anaphase initiation is regulated by antagonistic ubiquitination and deubiquitination activities. Nature. 2007;446(7138):876–81. [PubMed]
77. Song EJ, et al. The Prp19 complex and the Usp4Sart3 deubiquitinating enzyme control reversible ubiquitination at the spliceosome. Genes Dev. 2010;24(13):1434–47. [PubMed]
78. van Leuken RJ, et al. Usp39 is essential for mitotic spindle checkpoint integrity and controls mRNA-levels of aurora B. Cell Cycle. 2008;7(17):2710–9. [PubMed]
79. Joo HY, et al. Regulation of cell cycle progression and gene expression by H2A deubiquitination. Nature. 2007;449(7165):1068–72. [PubMed]
80. Zhang D, et al. A role for the deubiquitinating enzyme USP28 in control of the DNA-damage response. Cell. 2006;126(3):529–42. [PubMed]
81. Huang TT, et al. Regulation of monoubiquitinated PCNA by DUB autocleavage. Nat Cell Biol. 2006;8(4):339–47. [PubMed]
82. Nicassio F, et al. Human USP3 is a chromatin modifier required for S phase progression and genome stability. Curr Biol. 2007;17(22):1972–7. [PubMed]
83. Sowa ME, et al. Defining the human deubiquitinating enzyme interaction landscape. Cell. 2009;138(2):389–403. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
84. Listovsky T, et al. Mammalian Cdh1/Fzr mediates its own degradation. EMBO J. 2004;23(7):1619–26. [PubMed]
85. Mailand N, Diffley JF. CDKs promote DNA replication origin licensing in human cells by protecting Cdc6 from APC/C-dependent proteolysis. Cell. 2005;122(6):915–26. [PubMed]
86. Hopfield JJ. Kinetic proofreading: a new mechanism for reducing errors in biosynthetic processes requiring high specificity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1974;71(10):4135–9. [PubMed]
87. Song L, Rape M. Regulated degradation of spindle assembly factors by the anaphase-promoting complex. Mol Cell. 2010;38(3):369–82. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
88. van Zon W, et al. The APC/C recruits cyclin Bl-Cdk1-Cks in prometaphase before D box recognition to control mitotic exit. J Cell Biol. 2010;190(4):587–602. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
89. King RW, et al. A 20S complex containing CDC27 and CDC16 catalyzes the mitosis-specific conjugation of ubiquitin to cyclin B. Cell. 1995;81(2):279–88. [PubMed]
90. Hershko A. Affinity purification of mitotic anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosomeon p13Suc1. Methods Enzymol. 2005;398:170–5. [PubMed]
91. Patra D, Dunphy WG. Xe-p9, a Xenopus Suc1/Cks protein, is essential for the Cdc2-dependent phosphorylation of the anaphase- promoting complex at mitosis. Genes Dev. 1998;12(16):2549–59. [PubMed]
92. Shteinberg M, Hershko A. Role of Suc1 in the activation of the cyclosome by protein kinase Cdk1/cyclin B. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1999;257(1):12–8. [PubMed]
93. Stewart E, et al. Destruction of Xenopus cyclins A and B2, but not B1, requires binding to p34cdc2. EMBO J. 1994;13(3):584–94. [PubMed]
94. den Elzen N, Pines J. Cyclin A is destroyed in prometaphase and can delay chromosome alignmentand anaphase. J Cell Biol. 2001;153(1):121–36. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
95. Kramer ER, et al. Mitotic regulation of the APC activator proteins CDC20 and CDH1. Mol Biol Cell. 2000;11(5):1555–69. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
96. Lukas C, et al. Accumulation of cyclin B1 requires E2F and cyclin-A-dependent rearrangement of the anaphase-promoting complex. Nature. 1999;401(6755):815–8. [PubMed]
97. Bashir T, et al. Control of the SCF(Skp2-Cks1) ubiquitin ligase by the APC/C(Cdh1) ubiquitin ligase. Nature. 2004;428(6979):190–3. [PubMed]
98. Visintin R, et al. The phosphatase Cdc14 triggers mitotic exit by reversal of Cdk-dependent phosphorylation. Mol Cell. 1998;2(6):709–18. [PubMed]
99. Jaspersen SL, Charles JF, Morgan DO. Inhibitory phosphorylation of the APC regulator Hct1 is controlled by the kinase Cdc28 and the phosphatase Cdc14. Curr Biol. 1999;9(5):227–36. [PubMed]
100. Shou W, et al. Exit from mitosis is triggered by Tem1-dependent release of the protein phosphatase Cdc14 from nucleolar RENT complex. Cell. 1999;97(2):233–44. [PubMed]
101. Reimann JD, et al. Emi1 is a mitotic regulator that interacts with Cdc20 and inhibits the anaphase promoting complex. Cell. 2001;105(5):645–55. [PubMed]
102. Hsu JY, et al. E2F-dependent accumulation of hEmi1 regulates S phase entry by inhibiting APC(Cdh1). Nat Cell Biol. 2002;4(5):358–66. [PubMed]
103. Song L, Rape M. Substrate-specific regulation of ubiquitination by the anaphase-promoting complex. Cell Cycle. 2011;10(1):52–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
104. Kalab P, et al. Analysis of a RanGTP-regulated gradient in mitotic somatic cells. Nature. 2006;440(7084):697–701. [PubMed]
105. Holt LJ, Krutchinsky AN, Morgan DO. Positive feedback sharpens the anaphase switch. Nature. 2008;454(7202):353–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
106. Sonenberg N, Hinnebusch AG. Regulation of translation initiation in eukaryotes: mechanisms and biological targets. Cell. 2009;136(4):731–45. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
1. Zhao WM, Fang G. Anillin is a substrate of anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome (APC/C) that controls spatial contractility of myosin during late cytokinesis. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(39):33516–24. [PubMed]
2. Littlepage LE, Ruderman JV. Identification of a new APC/C recognition domain, the A box, which is required for the Cdh1-dependent destruction of the kinase Aurora-A during mitotic exit. Genes Dev. 2002;16(17):2274–85. [PubMed]
3. Crane R, Kloepfer A, Ruderman JV. Requirements for the destruction of human Aurora-A. J Cell Sci. 2004;117(Pt 25):5975–83. [PubMed]
4. Floyd S, Pines J, Lindon C. APC/C Cdh1 targets aurora kinase to control reorganization of the mitotic spindle at anaphase. Curr Biol. 2008;18(21):1649–58. [PubMed]
5. Lindon C, Pines J. Ordered proteolysis in anaphase inactivates Plk1 to contribute to proper mitotic exit in human cells. J Cell Biol. 2004;164(2):233–41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
6. Stewart S, Fang G. Destruction box-dependent degradation of aurora B is mediated by the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome and Cdh1. Cancer Res. 2005;65(19):8730–5. [PubMed]
7. Feine O, et al. Human Kid is degraded by the APC/C(Cdh1) but not by the APC/C(Cdc20). Cell Cycle. 2007;6(20):2516–23. [PubMed]
8. Pfleger CM, Kirschner MW. The KEN box: an APC recognition signal distinct from the D box targeted by Cdh1. Genes Dev. 2000;14(6):655–65. [PubMed]
9. Song L, Rape M. Regulated degradation of spindle assembly factors by the anaphase-promoting complex. Mol Cell. 2010;38(3):369–82. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Qi W, Yu H. KEN-box-dependent degradation of the Bub1 spindle checkpoint kinase by the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome. J Biol Chem. 2007;282(6):3672–9. [PubMed]
11. Petersen BO, et al. Cell cycle- and cell growth-regulated proteolysis of mammalian CDC6 is dependent on APC-CDH1. Genes Dev. 2000;14(18):2330–43. [PubMed]
12. Mailand N, Diffley JF. CDKs promote DNA replication origin licensing in human cells by protecting Cdc6 from APC/C-dependent proteolysis. Cell. 2005;122(6):915–26. [PubMed]
13. Ge S, Skaar JR, Pagano M. APC/C- and Mad2-mediated degradation of Cdc20 during spindle checkpoint activation. Cell Cycle. 2009;8(1):167–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Listovsky T, et al. Mammalian Cdh1/Fzr mediates its own degradation. EMBO J. 2004;23(7):1619–26. [PubMed]
15. O'Donovan KJ, et al. The onconeural antigen cdr2 is a novel APC/C target that acts in mitosis to regulate c-myc target genes in mammalian tumor cells. PLoS One. 2010;5(4):e10045. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16. Gurden MD, et al. Cdc20 is required for the post-anaphase, KEN-dependent degradation of centromere protein F. J Cell Sci. 2010;123(Pt 3):321–30. [PubMed]
17. Donzelli M, et al. Dual mode of degradation of Cdc25 A phosphatase. EMBO J. 2002;21(18):4875–84. [PubMed]
18. Visintin C, et al. APC/C-Cdh1-mediated degradation of the Polo kinase Cdc5 promotes the return of Cdc14 into the nucleolus. Genes Dev. 2008;22(1):79–90. [PubMed]
19. Sugimoto N, et al. Identification of novel human Cdt1-binding proteins by a proteomics approach: proteolytic regulation by APC/CCdh1. Mol Biol Cell. 2008;19(3):1007–21. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. Seki A, Fang G. CKAP2 is a spindle-associated protein degraded by APC/C-Cdh1 during mitotic exit. J Biol Chem. 2007;282(20):15103–13. [PubMed]
21. Bashir T, et al. Control of the SCF(Skp2-Cks1) ubiquitin ligase by the APC/C(Cdh1) ubiquitin ligase. Nature. 2004;428(6979):190–3. [PubMed]
22. Bassermann F, et al. The Cdc14B-Cdh1-Plk1 axis controls the G2 DNA-damage-response checkpoint. Cell. 2008;134(2):256–67. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
23. Sudakin V, et al. The cyclosome, a large complex containing cyclin-selective ubiquitin ligase activity, targets cyclins for destruction at the end of mitosis. Mol Biol Cell. 1995;6(2):185–97. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. King RW, et al. A 20S complex containing CDC27 and CDC16 catalyzes the mitosis-specific conjugation of ubiquitin to cyclin B. Cell. 1995;81(2):279–88. [PubMed]
25. Scaria GS, Ramsay G, Katzen AL. Two components of the Myb complex, DMyb and Mip130, are specifically associated with euchromatin and degraded during prometaphase throughout development. Mech Dev. 2008;125(7):646–61. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Yamanaka A, et al. Cell cycle-dependent expression of mammalian E2-C regulated by the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome. Mol Biol Cell. 2000;11(8):2821–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Peart MJ, et al. APC/C(Cdc20) targets E2F1 for degradation in prometaphase. Cell Cycle. 2010;9(19):3956–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Laoukili J, et al. FoxM1 is degraded at mitotic exit in a Cdh1-dependent manner. Cell Cycle. 2008;7(17):2720–6. [PubMed]
29. Park HJ, et al. Anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome-CDH1-mediated proteolysis of the forkhead box M1 transcription factor is critical for regulated entry into S phase. Mol Cell Biol. 2008;28(17):5162–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. McGarry TJ, Kirschner MW. Geminin, an inhibitor of DNA replication, is degraded during mitosis. Cell. 1998;93(6):1043–53. [PubMed]
31. Colombo SL, et al. Anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome-Cdh1 coordinates glycolysis and glutaminolysis with transition to S phase in human T lymphocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(44):18868–73. [PubMed]
32. Li L, et al. Anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome controls HEC1 stability. Cell Prolif. 2011;44(1):1–9. [PubMed]
33. Ahlskog JK, et al. Anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome participates in the acute response to protein-damaging stress. Mol Cell Biol. 2010;30(24):5608–20. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Lasorella A, et al. Degradation of Id2 by the anaphase-promoting complex couples cell cycle exit and axonalgrowth. Nature. 2006;442(7101):471–4. [PubMed]
35. Gutierrez GJ, et al. Interplay between Cdh1 and JNK activity during the cell cycle. Nat Cell Biol. 2010;12(7):686–95. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
36. van Roessel P, et al. Independent regulation of synaptic size and activity by the anaphase-promoting complex. Cell. 2004;119(5):707–18. [PubMed]
37. Harley ME, et al. Phosphorylation of Mcl-1 by CDK1-cyclin B1 initiates its Cdc20-dependent destruction during mitotic arrest. EMBO J. 2010;29(14):2407–20. [PubMed]
38. Hames RS, et al. APC/C-mediated destruction of the centrosomal kinase Nek2A occurs in early mitosis and depends upon a cyclin A-type D-box. EMBO J. 2001;20(24):7117–27. [PubMed]
39. Ye XS, et al. Regulation of the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome by bimAAPC3 and proteolysis of NIMA. Mol Biol Cell. 1998;9(11):3019–30. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
40. Wang Y, Zhan Q. Cell cycle-dependent expression of centrosomal ninein-like protein in human cells is regulated by the anaphase-promoting complex. J Biol Chem. 2007;282(24):17712–9. [PubMed]
41. Li L, et al. NuSAP is degraded by APC/C-Cdh1 and its overexpression results in mitotic arrest dependent of its microtubules’ affinity. Cell Signal. 2007;19(10):2046–55. [PubMed]
42. Amador V, et al. APC/C(Cdc20) controls the ubiquitin-mediated degradation of p21 in prometaphase. Mol Cell. 2007;27(3):462–73. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
43. Fu D, et al. Cell-cycle-dependent PC-PLC regulation by APC/C(Cdc20)-mediated ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. J Cell Biochem. 2009;107(4):686–96. [PubMed]
44. Herrero-Mendez A, et al. The bioenergetic and antioxidant status of neurons is controlled by continuous degradation of a key glycolytic enzyme by APC/C-Cdh1. Nat Cell Biol. 2009;11(6):747–52. [PubMed]
45. Mateyak MK, Zakian VA. Human PIF helicase is cell cycle regulated and associates with telomerase. Cell Cycle. 2006;5(23):2796–804. [PubMed]
46. Zhao WM, et al. RCS1, a substrate of APC/C, controls the metaphase to anaphase transition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(36):13415–20. [PubMed]
47. Zou H, et al. Identification of a vertebrate sister-chromatid separation inhibitor involved in transformation and tumorigenesis. Science. 1999;285(5426):418–22. [PubMed]
48. Karamysheva Z, et al. Multiple anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome degrons mediate the degradation of human Sgo1. J Biol Chem. 2009;284(3):1772–80. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
49. Fu G, et al. D-box is required for the degradation of human Shugoshin and chromosome alignment. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007;357(3):672–8. [PubMed]
50. Stroschein SL, et al. Smad3 recruits the anaphase-promoting complex for ubiquitination and degradation of SnoN. Genes Dev. 2001;15(21):2822–36. [PubMed]
51. Rankin S, Ayad NG, Kirschner MW. Sororin, a substrate of the anaphase-promoting complex, is required for sister chromatid cohesion in vertebrates. Mol Cell. 2005;18(2):185–200. [PubMed]
52. Ke PY, Chang ZF. Mitotic degradation of human thymidine kinase 1 is dependent on the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome-CDH1-mediated pathway. Mol Cell Biol. 2004;24(2):514–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
53. Ayad NG, et al. Tome-1, a trigger of mitotic entry, is degraded during Gl via the APC. Cell. 2003;113(1):101–13. [PubMed]
54. Ohoka N, et al. Anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome-cdh1 mediates the ubiquitination and degradation of TRB3. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2010;392(3):289–94. [PubMed]
55. Stewart S, Fang G. Anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome controls the stability of TPX2 during mitotic exit. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25(23):10516–27. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
56. Benanti JA, et al. Functionally distinct isoforms of Cik1 are differentially regulated by APC/C-mediated proteolysis. Mol Cell. 2009;33(5):581–90. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
57. Hildebrandt ER, Hoyt MA. Cell cycle-dependent degradation of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae spindle motor Cin8p requires APC(Cdh1) and a bipartite destruction sequence. Mol Biol Cell. 2001;12(11):3402–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
58. Ferreira MF, et al. Dbf4p, an essential S phase-promoting factor, is targeted for degradation by the anaphase-promoting complex. Mol Cell Biol. 2000;20(1):242–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
59. Burton JL, Solomon MJ. Hsl1p, a Swe1p inhibitor, is degraded via the anaphase-promoting complex. Mol Cell Biol. 2000;20(13):4614–25. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
60. Ko N, et al. Identification of yeast IQGAP (Iqg1p) as an anaphase-promoting-complex substrate and its role in actomyosin-ring-independent cytokinesis. Mol Biol Cell. 2007;18(12):5139–53. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
61. Gordon DM, Roof DM. Degradation of the kinesin Kip1p at anaphase onset is mediated by the anaphase-promoting complex and Cdc20p. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(22):12515–20. [PubMed]
62. Cohen-Fix O, et al. Anaphase initiation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is controlled by the APC-dependent degradation of the anaphase inhibitor Pds1p. Genes Dev. 1996;10(24):3081–93. [PubMed]
63. Shirayama M, et al. APC(Cdc20) promotes exit from mitosis by destroying the anaphase inhibitor Pds1 and cyclin Clb5. Nature. 1999;402(6758):203–7. [PubMed]
64. Mallory MJ, Cooper KF, Strich R. Meiosis-specific destruction of the Ume6p repressor by the Cdc20-directed APC/C. Mol Cell. 2007;27(6):951–61. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
65. Juang YL, et al. APC-mediated proteolysis of Ase1 and the morphogenesis of the mitotic spindle. Science. 1997;275(5304):1311–4. [PubMed]
66. Kimata Y, et al. A mutual inhibition between APC/C and its substrate Mes1 required for meiotic progression in fission yeast. Dev Cell. 2008;14(3):446–54. [PubMed]
67. Chu Z, et al. A Cds1-mediated checkpoint protects the MBF activator Rep2 from ubiquitination by anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome-Ste9 at S-phase arrest in fission yeast. Mol Cell Biol. 2009;29(18):4959–70. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
68. Trickey M, Grimaldi M, Yamano H. The anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome controls repair and recombination by ubiquitylating Rhp54 in fission yeast. Mol Cell Biol. 2008;28(12):3905–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
69. Mathe E, et al. The E2-C vihar is required for the correct spatiotemporal proteolysis of cyclin B and itself undergoes cyclical degradation. Curr Biol. 2004;14(19):1723–33. [PubMed]
70. Slack C, et al. Asymmetric localisation of Miranda and its cargo proteins during neuroblast division requires the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome. Development. 2007;134(21):3781–7. [PubMed]
71. Leismann O, et al. Degradation of Drosophila PIM regulates sister chromatid separation during mitosis. Genes Dev. 2000;14(17):2192–205. [PubMed]
72. Leismann O, Lehner CF. Drosophila securin destruction involves a D-box and a KEN-box and promotes anaphase in parallel with Cyclin A degradation. J Cell Sci. 2003;116(Pt 12):2453–60. [PubMed]
73. Stitzel ML, Cheng KC, Seydoux G. Regulation of MBK-2/Dyrk kinase by dynamic cortical anchoring during the oocyte-to-zygote transition. Curr Biol. 2007;17(18):1545–54. [PubMed]
74. Ganner A, et al. Regulation of ciliary polarity by the APC/C. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(42):17799–804. [PubMed]