Quantitative Mass Spectrometry Analysis Reveals Similar Substrate Consensus Motif for Human Mps1 Kinase and Plk1

Background Members of the Mps1 kinase family play an essential and evolutionarily conserved role in the spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC), a surveillance mechanism that ensures accurate chromosome segregation during mitosis. Human Mps1 (hMps1) is highly phosphorylated during mitosis and many phosphorylation sites have been identified. However, the upstream kinases responsible for these phosphorylations are not presently known. Methodology/Principal Findings Here, we identify 29 in vivo phosphorylation sites in hMps1. While in vivo analyses indicate that Aurora B and hMps1 activity are required for mitotic hyper-phosphorylation of hMps1, in vitro kinase assays show that Cdk1, MAPK, Plk1 and hMps1 itself can directly phosphorylate hMps1. Although Aurora B poorly phosphorylates hMps1 in vitro, it positively regulates the localization of Mps1 to kinetochores in vivo. Most importantly, quantitative mass spectrometry analysis demonstrates that at least 12 sites within hMps1 can be attributed to autophosphorylation. Remarkably, these hMps1 autophosphorylation sites closely resemble the consensus motif of Plk1, demonstrating that these two mitotic kinases share a similar substrate consensus. Conclusions/Significance hMps1 kinase is regulated by Aurora B kinase and its autophosphorylation. Analysis on hMps1 autophosphorylation sites demonstrates that hMps1 has a substrate preference similar to Plk1 kinase

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field