The control of cell proliferation under steady-state conditions in the budding yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is well described by either the tandem or sloppy size control models, both of which suggest that differences in cycle time between individual cells or between parents and daughters is largely due to differences in birth size. These models have been investigated further under conditions in which cell size has not been a rate-determining factor for cell cycle initiation. Two approaches have been used. The first involves the growth of cells in low concentrations of hydroxyurea (HU), which has the effect of prolonging the duration of DNA synthesis. This leads to a lengthening of the budded period, which in turn leads to daughter cells being larger at division than the normal cell cycle initiation size of daughters in steady-state populations. The second approach involves the accumulation of cells at the key control point of the cycle, called start, using the pheromone alpha-factor. Since growth is unaffected, all cells eventually become larger than the volume at which they would normally initiate the cell cycle. The kinetics of proliferation were followed after release from alpha-factor arrest. The results from both approaches were broadly consistent with the predictions of both models. However, abolition of birth-size differences between parents and daughters in the presence of HU did not lead to a complete disappearance of differences in either cycle time or proliferation kinetics. Furthermore, following release from alpha-factor arrest, the rate of cell cycle initiation of parent cells was slower than in steady-state culture and the daughters' cells behaved as if comprising two separate populations. These discrepancies suggest that besides a size difference, there are additional physiological differences between parent and daughter cells.
Rate of cell cycle initiation of yeast cells when cell size is not a rate-determining factor
P.G. Lord, A.E. Wheals; Rate of cell cycle initiation of yeast cells when cell size is not a rate-determining factor. J Cell Sci 1 January 1983; 59 (1): 183–201. doi: https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.59.1.183
Download citation file:
Advertisement
Cited by
Call for papers: Cell Biology of Motors
(update)-MotorCFPExtended.jpg?versionId=3964)
Journal of Cell Science is pleased to welcome submissions for consideration for an upcoming special issue, Cell Biology of Motors. The deadline for submitting articles has been extended to 30 August 2022.
Find out more about our preprint policies
-bioRxiv.jpg?versionId=3964)
Last year, 47% of the manuscripts published in Journal of Cell Science were posted as preprints on bioRxiv. You can find our preprint policies here.
Cell scientist to watch: Jeremy Carlton
(update)-CSTW.png?versionId=3964)
Journal of Cell Science caught up with Jeremy Carlton, who established his independent research group in 2012 at the Division of Cancer Studies, King's College London. His lab is currently seconded to the Francis Crick Institute and is investigating membrane and organelle remodelling during cell division. This year, he was awarded the Hooke Medal by the British Society for Cell Biology (BSCB).
The FocalPlane Network
-FocalPlaneNetwork.png?versionId=3964)
The FocalPlane Network is an international directory of researchers with microscopy expertise including developers, imaging scientists and bioimage analysts. It is designed to help you find speakers, committee members, reviewers and potential collaborators. Find out more about the FocalPlane Network.
The Corona Files
-Mole.png?versionId=3964)
“We were not ready for a pandemic, despite decades of warnings.”
Our resident insectivore, Mole, continues his latest series – The Corona Files. This time, Mole reflects on what we have learned from the pandemic.