CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,029

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diversity and evolution of class 2 CRISPR–Cas systems

Shmakov, Sergey, Smargon, Aaron, Scott, David, Cox, David, Pyzocha, Neena, Yan, Winston, Abudayyeh, Omar O., Gootenberg, Jonathan S., Makarova, Kira S., Wolf, Yuri I., Severinov, Konstantin, Zhang, Feng, Koonin, Eugene V.·2017·Nature Reviews Microbiology
DOI 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.184PMC PMC5851899
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.184

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cas13 contains higher eukaryotes and prokaryotes nucleotide (HEPN)-binding domains, which are ubiquitous in RNases.

    “This protein contains higher eukaryotes and prokaryotes nucleotide (HEPN)-binding domains, which are ubiquitous in RNases [16,18].”

    From CRISPR-Cas: Converting A Bacterial Defence Mechanism into A State-of-the-Art Genetic Manipulation Tool (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Comparative genomics and evolution section says type VI effectors contain two HEPN domains, and the Note added in proof confirms two in Cas13a. It says HEPN domains are common in various defence systems and that experimentally characterized examples have RNase activity; it does not say HEPN domains are ubiquitous in RNases. The supplied copy gives no page number for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Type VI is defined by the presence of the Cas13 protein (formerly C2c2).

    “The recently characterised type VI is defined by the presence of the Cas13 protein (formerly C2c2).”

    From CRISPR-Cas: Converting A Bacterial Defence Mechanism into A State-of-the-Art Genetic Manipulation Tool (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

    The 'Amended classification and proposed nomenclature' section identifies Cas13a, Cas13b and Cas13c as type VI effectors. The 'Subtypes VI-B and VI-C' section specifies that C2c2-encoding loci are subtype VI-A, and the 'Note added in proof' calls C2c2 Cas13a. Thus, the Cas13 identification is supported, but 'formerly C2c2' applies specifically to Cas13a, not to all type VI effectors. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Class 1 CRISPR-Cas systems include types I, III, and IV, which all depend on multiprotein crRNA-complexes to execute their function; class 2 systems encompass types II, V, and VI, whose effector complex is composed of a single multi-domain protein.

    “Class 1 systems include types I, III, and IV, which all depend on multiprotein crRNA-complexes to execute their function; class 2 systems encompass types II, V, and VI, whose effector complex is composed of a single multi-domain protein [14,16].”

    From CRISPR-Cas: Converting A Bacterial Defence Mechanism into A State-of-the-Art Genetic Manipulation Tool (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

  • Some CRISPR systems work with RNA molecules directly.

    “Interestingly, later studies demonstrated that some of the described CRISPR systems do work with RNA molecules directly [12, 13]”

    From CRISPR–Cas9: A History of Its Discovery and Ethical Considerations of Its Use in Genome Editing (2022) · cites this paper as [13]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. Makarova, K. S., Grishin, N. V., Shabalina, S. A., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. A putative RNA-interference-based immune system in prokaryotes: computational analysis of the predicted enzymatic machinery, functional analogies with eukaryotic RNAi, and hypothetical mechanisms of action. Biol. Direct 1, 7 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Barrangou, R. et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315, 1709–1712 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Barrangou, R. CRISPR–Cas systems and RNA-guided interference. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. RNA 4, 267–278 (2013). · DOI
  4. Marraffini, L. A. CRISPR–Cas immunity in prokaryotes. Nature 526, 55–61 (2015). · DOI
  5. Mohanraju, P. et al. Diverse evolutionary roots and mechanistic variations of the CRISPR–Cas systems. Science 353, aad5147 (2016). · DOI
  6. Van der Oost, J., Westra, E. R., Jackson, R. N. & Wiedenheft, B. Unravelling the structural and mechanistic basis of CRISPR–Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12, 479–492 (2014). · DOI
  7. Makarova, K. S., Aravind, L., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. Unification of Cas protein families and a simple scenario for the origin and evolution of CRISPR–Cas systems. Biol. Direct 6, 38 (2011). · DOI
  8. Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. The basic building blocks and evolution of CRISPR–Cas systems. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 41, 1392–1400 (2013). · DOI
  9. Takeuchi, N., Wolf, Y. I., Makarova, K. S. & Koonin, E. V. Nature and intensity of selection pressure on CRISPR-associated genes. J. Bacteriol. 194, 1216–1225 (2012). · DOI
  10. Bondy-Denomy, J. & Davidson, A. R. To acquire or resist: the complex biological effects of CRISPR–Cas systems. Trends Microbiol. 22, 218–225 (2014). · DOI
  11. Bondy-Denomy, J. et al. Multiple mechanisms for CRISPR–Cas inhibition by anti-CRISPR proteins. Nature 526, 136–139 (2015). · DOI
  12. van Houte, S. et al. The diversity-generating benefits of a prokaryotic adaptive immune system. Nature 532, 385–388 (2016). · DOI
  13. Makarova, K. S. et al. Evolution and classification of the CRISPR–Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 9, 467–477 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Makarova, K. S. & Koonin, E. V. Annotation and classification of CRISPR–Cas systems. Methods Mol. Biol. 1311, 47–75 (2015). · DOI
  15. Makarova, K. S. et al. An updated evolutionary classification of CRISPR–Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 722–736 (2015). This paper presents the latest classification of the CRISPR–Cas systems, prior to the application of the pipeline described here, along with computational approaches for the identification and quantitative comparison of CRISPR– cas loci. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Shmakov, S. et al. Discovery and functional characterization of diverse class 2 CRISPR–Cas systems. Mol. Cell 60, 385–397 (2015). This paper presents the first instalment of the computational pipeline that is described in this article, using Cas1 as the seed, and experimental validation of the activity of subtype V-B. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Chylinski, K., Makarova, K. S., Charpentier, E. & Koonin, E. V. Classification and evolution of type II CRISPR–Cas systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 6091–6105 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  18. Brouns, S. J. et al. Small CRISPR RNAs guide antiviral defense in prokaryotes. Science 321, 960–964 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  19. Jore, M. M. et al. Structural basis for CRISPR RNA-guided DNA recognition by Cascade. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 529–536 (2011). · DOI
  20. Beloglazova, N. et al. CRISPR RNA binding and DNA target recognition by purified Cascade complexes from Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 530–543 (2015). · DOI
  21. Jackson, R. N. et al. Structural biology. Crystal structure of the CRISPR RNA-guided surveillance complex from Escherichia coli. Science 345, 1473–1479 (2014). · DOI
  22. Rouillon, C. et al. Structure of the CRISPR interference complex CSM reveals key similarities with cascade. Mol. Cell 52, 124–134 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  23. Staals, R. H. et al. RNA targeting by the type III-A CRISPR–Cas Csm complex of Thermus thermophilus. Mol. Cell 56, 518–530 (2014). · DOI
  24. Osawa, T., Inanaga, H., Sato, C. & Numata, T. Crystal structure of the CRISPR–Cas RNA silencing Cmr complex bound to a target analog. Mol. Cell 58, 418–430 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  25. Taylor, D. W. et al. Structural biology. Structures of the CRISPR–Cmr complex reveal mode of RNA target positioning. Science 348, 581–585 (2015). · DOI
  26. Gasiunas, G., Barrangou, R., Horvath, P. & Siksnys, V. Cas9–crRNA ribonucleoprotein complex mediates specific DNA cleavage for adaptive immunity in bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E2579–E2586 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  27. Nishimasu, H. et al. Crystal structure of Staphylococcus aureus Cas9. Cell 162, 1113–1126 (2015). · DOI
  28. Sternberg, S. H., LaFrance, B., Kaplan, M. & Doudna, J. A. Conformational control of DNA target cleavage by CRISPR–Cas9. Nature 527, 110–113 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  29. Sapranauskas, R. et al. The Streptococcus thermophilus CRISPR/Cas system provides immunity in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 9275–9282 (2011). · DOI
  30. Chylinski, K., Le Rhun, A. & Charpentier, E. The tracrRNA and Cas9 families of type II CRISPR–Cas immunity systems. RNA Biol. 10, 726–737 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  31. Briner, A. E. et al. Guide RNA functional modules direct Cas9 activity and orthogonality. Mol. Cell 56, 333–339 (2014). · DOI
  32. Schunder, E., Rydzewski, K., Grunow, R. & Heuner, K. First indication for a functional CRISPR/Cas system in Francisella tularensis. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 303, 51–60 (2013). · DOI
  33. Zetsche, B. et al. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR–Cas system. Cell 163, 759–771 (2015). This work demonstrates the interference activity of Cpf1 and shows that Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease that does not require tracrRNA. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Dong, D. et al. The crystal structure of Cpf1 in complex with CRISPR RNA. Nature 532, 522–526 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  35. Yamano, T. et al. Crystal structure of Cpf1 in complex with guide RNA and target DNA. Cell 165, 949–962 (2016). Together with reference 39, this paper presents the structure of Cpf1 in complex with crRNA and target DNA, demonstrating that, despite similar overall shapes, the domain architectures of Cpf1 and Cas9 differ substantially. · DOI
  36. Fonfara, I., Richter, H., Bratovic, M., Le Rhun, A. & Charpentier, E. The CRISPR-associated DNA-cleaving enzyme Cpf1 also processes precursor CRISPR RNA. Nature 532, 517–521 (2016). This work demonstrates that Cpf1 is responsible not only for interference but also for pre-crRNA processing. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Abudayyeh, O. O. et al. C2c2 is a single-component programmable RNA-guided RNA-targeting CRISPR effector. Science 353, aaf5573 (2016). This paper describes the first CRISPR–Cas system that exclusively cleaves RNA, and demonstrates the switch from specific to non-specific RNA cleavage following target recognition. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Pasternak, C. et al. ISDra2 transposition in Deinococcus radiodurans is downregulated by TnpB. Mol. Microbiol. 88, 443–455 (2013). · DOI
  39. Bao, W. & Jurka, J. Homologues of bacterial TnpB_IS605 are widespread in diverse eukaryotic transposable elements. Mob. DNA 4, 12 (2013). · DOI
  40. Kapitonov, V. V., Makarova, K. S. & Koonin, E. V. ISC, a novel group of bacterial and archaeal DNA transposons that encode Cas9 homologs. J. Bacteriol. 198, 797–807 (2015). In this work, the direct evolutionary ancestors of Cas9 are identified. · DOI
  41. Gomes-Filho, J. V. et al. Sense overlapping transcripts in IS1341-type transposase genes are functional non-coding RNAs in archaea. RNA Biol. 12, 490–500 (2015). This work demonstrates that TnpB proteins bind to RNA, which is compatible with their role as ancestors of class 2 CRISPR–Cas effectors. · DOI
  42. Westra, E. R., Buckling, A. & Fineran, P. C. CRISPR–Cas systems: beyond adaptive immunity. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12, 317–326 (2014). · DOI
  43. Anantharaman, V., Makarova, K. S., Burroughs, A. M., Koonin, E. V. & Aravind, L. Comprehensive analysis of the HEPN superfamily: identification of novel roles in intra-genomic conflicts, defense, pathogenesis and RNA processing. Biol. Direct 8, 15 (2013). · DOI
  44. Makarova, K. S., Anantharaman, V., Grishin, N. V., Koonin, E. V. & Aravind, L. CARF and WYL domains: ligand-binding regulators of prokaryotic defense systems. Front. Genet. 5, 102 (2014). · DOI
  45. Makarova, K. S., Anantharaman, V., Aravind, L. & Koonin, E. V. Live virus-free or die: coupling of antivirus immunity and programmed suicide or dormancy in prokaryotes. Biol. Direct 7, 40 (2012). · DOI
  46. Iranzo, J., Lobkovsky, A. E., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. Immunity, suicide or both? Ecological determinants for the combined evolution of anti-pathogen defense systems. BMC Evol. Biol. 15, 43 (2015). · DOI
  47. East-Seletsky, A. et al. Two distinct RNase activities of CRISPR-C2c2 enable guide-RNA processing and RNA detection. Nature 538, 270–273 (2016). This paper describes experiments that show that, similar to Cpf1, C2c2, the subtype VI-A effector, catalyses pre-crRNA processing. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Koonin, E. V., Dolja, V. V. & Krupovic, M. Origins and evolution of viruses of eukaryotes: the ultimate modularity. Virology 479–480, 2–25 (2015). · DOI
  49. Sheppard, N. F., Glover, C. V., Terns, R. M. & Terns, M. P. The CRISPR-associated Csx1 protein of Pyrococcus furiosus is an adenosine-specific endoribonuclease. RNA 22, 216–224 (2016). · DOI
  50. Niewoehner, O. & Jinek, M. Structural basis for the endoribonuclease activity of the type III-A CRISPR-associated protein Csm6. RNA 22, 318–329 (2016). · DOI
  51. Curtis, T. P., Sloan, W. T. & Scannell, J. W. Estimating prokaryotic diversity and its limits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 10494–10499 (2002). · DOI
  52. Curtis, T. P. et al. What is the extent of prokaryotic diversity? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 361, 2023–2037 (2006). · DOI
  53. Fraser, C., Alm, E. J., Polz, M. F., Spratt, B. G. & Hanage, W. P. The bacterial species challenge: making sense of genetic and ecological diversity. Science 323, 741–746 (2009). · DOI
  54. Quince, C., Curtis, T. P. & Sloan, W. T. The rational exploration of microbial diversity. ISME J. 2, 997–1006 (2008). · DOI
  55. Chavez, A. et al. Comparison of Cas9 activators in multiple species. Nat. Methods 13, 563–567 (2016). · DOI
  56. Thakore, P. I., Black, J. B., Hilton, I. B. & Gersbach, C. A. Editing the epigenome: technologies for programmable transcription and epigenetic modulation. Nat. Methods 13, 127–137 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  57. Chen, B. et al. Dynamic imaging of genomic loci in living human cells by an optimized CRISPR/Cas system. Cell 155, 1479–1491 (2013). · DOI
  58. Knight, S. C. et al. Dynamics of CRISPR–Cas9 genome interrogation in living cells. Science 350, 823–826 (2015). · DOI
  59. Nelles, D. A. et al. Programmable RNA tracking in live cells with CRISPR/Cas9. Cell 165, 488–496 (2016). · DOI
  60. Hsu, P. D., Lander, E. S. & Zhang, F. Development and applications of CRISPR–Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157, 1262–1278 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  61. Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. Genome-wide specificities of CRISPR–Cas Cpf1 nucleases in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 869–874 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  62. Kim, Y. et al. Generation of knockout mice by Cpf1-mediated gene targeting. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 808–810 (2016). · DOI
  63. Hur, J. K. et al. Targeted mutagenesis in mice by electroporation of Cpf1 ribonucleoproteins. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 807–808 (2016). · DOI
  64. Kim, D. et al. Genome-wide analysis reveals specificities of Cpf1 endonucleases in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 863–868 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  65. Li, S. Y., Zhao, G. P. & Wang, J. C-Brick: a new standard for assembly of biological parts using Cpf1. ACS Synth. Biol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.6b00114 (2016). · DOI
  66. O'Connell, M. R. et al. Programmable RNA recognition and cleavage by CRISPR/Cas9. Nature 516, 263–266 (2014). · DOI
  67. Edgar, R. C. PILER-CR: fast and accurate identification of CRISPR repeats. BMC Bioinformatics 8, 18 (2007). · DOI
  68. Grissa, I., Vergnaud, G. & Pourcel, C. CRISPRFinder: a web tool to identify clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, W52–W57 (2007). · DOI
  69. Almendros, C., Guzman, N. M., Garcia-Martinez, J. & Mojica, F. J. Anti-cas spacers in orphan CRISPR4 arrays prevent uptake of active CRISPR–Cas I-F systems. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16081 (2016). · DOI
  70. Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. Comparative genomics of defense systems in archaea and bacteria. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 4360–4377 (2013). · DOI
  71. Liu, L. et al. C2c1–sgRNA complex structure reveals RNA-guided DNA cleavage mechanism. Mol. Cell http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.11.040 (2016). · DOI
  72. Yang, H., Gao, P., Rajashankar, K. R. & Patel, D. J. PAM-dependent target DNA recognition and cleavage by C2c1 CRISPR–Cas endonuclease. Cell 167, 1814–1828.e12 (2016). · DOI
  73. Liu, L. et al. Two distant catalytic sites are responsible for C2c2 RNase activities. Cell 168, 121–134.e12. (2017). · DOI
  74. Smargon, A. A. et al. Cas13b is a type VI-B CRISPR-associated RNA-guided RNase differentially regulated by accessory proteins Csx27 and Csx28. Mol. Cell http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.12.023 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  75. Burstein, D. et al. New CRISPR–Cas systems from uncultivated microbes. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature21059 (2016). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shmakov, S., Smargon, A., Scott, D., Cox, D., Pyzocha, N., Yan, W., Abudayyeh, O. O., Gootenberg, J. S., Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I., Severinov, K., Zhang, F., & Koonin, E. V.
Venue
Nature Reviews Microbiology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-01-23
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
169-182
ISSN
  • 1740-1526
  • 1740-1534
DOI
10.1038/nrmicro.2016.184
PMC
PMC5851899
Cited by
1,029
References
5
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review