Back

Cell size reduction scales spindle elongation but not chromosome segregation in C. elegans

Okafornta, C. W.; Farhadifar, R.; Fabig, G.; Wu, H.-Y.; Köckert, M.; Vogel, M.; Baum, D.; Haase, R.; Shelley, M. J.; Needleman, D. J.; Müller-Reichert, T.

2025-10-14 cell biology
10.1101/2025.10.13.681585 bioRxiv
Show abstract

How embryos adapt their internal cellular machinery to reductions in cell size during development remains a fundamental question in cell biology1-11. Here, we use high-resolution lattice light-sheet fluorescence microscopy and automated image analysis to quantify lineage-resolved mitotic spindle and chromosome segregation dynamics from the 2-to 64-cell stages in Caenorhabditis elegans embryos. While spindle length scales with cell size across both wild-type and size-perturbed embryos, chromosome segregation dynamics remain largely invariant, suggesting that distinct mechanisms govern these mitotic processes. Combining femtosecond laser ablation12,13 with large-scale electron tomography14, we find that central spindle microtubules mediate chromosome segregation dynamics and remain uncoupled from cell size across all stages of early development. In contrast, spindle elongation is driven by cortically anchored motor proteins and astral microtubules, rendering it sensitive to cell size12,13,15-17. Incorporating these experimental results into an extended stoichiometric model for both the spindle and chromosomes, we find that allowing only cell size and microtubule catastrophe rates to vary reproduces elongation dynamics across development. The same model also accounts for centrosome separation and pronuclear positioning in the one-cell C. elegans embryo18, spindle-length scaling across nematode species spanning ~100 million years of divergence17, and spindle rotation in human cells19. Thus, a unified stoichiometric framework provides a predictive, mechanistic account of spindle and nuclear dynamics across scales and species.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.