CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,445

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

Evolutionary classification of CRISPR–Cas systems: a burst of class 2 and derived variants

Makarova, Kira S., Wolf, Yuri I., Iranzo, Jaime, Shmakov, Sergey A., Alkhnbashi, Omer S., Brouns, Stan J. J., Charpentier, Emmanuelle, Cheng, David, Haft, Daniel H., Horvath, Philippe, Moineau, Sylvain, Mojica, Francisco J. M., Scott, David, Shah, Shiraz A., Siksnys, Virginijus, Terns, Michael P., Venclovas, Česlovas, White, Malcolm F., Yakunin, Alexander F., Yan, Winston, Zhang, Feng, Garrett, Roger A., Backofen, Rolf, van der Oost, John, Barrangou, Rodolphe, Koonin, Eugene V.·2020·Nature Reviews Microbiology
DOI 10.1038/s41579-019-0299-xPMC PMC8905525
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/s41579-019-0299-x

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?

  • All currently known CRISPR-Cas systems are divided into 2 classes and 6 types, further divided into numerous subtypes; Makarova et al. described >30 subtypes.

    “At present, a way of classification is recognized in which all currently known CRISPR–Cas systems are divided into 2 classes and 6 types, which, in turn, are also divided into numerous subtypes: at the time of writing the review, Makarova et al. [25] described >30 subtypes (Fig. 1).”

    From CRISPR–Cas9: A History of Its Discovery and Ethical Considerations of Its Use in Genome Editing (2022) · cites this paper as [25]

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: 94

  1. Komor, A. C., Badran, A. H. & Liu, D. R. CRISPR-based technologies for the manipulation of eukaryotic genomes. Cell 168, 20–36 (2017). · DOI
  2. Pickar-Oliver, A. & Gersbach, C. A. The next generation of CRISPR–Cas technologies and applications. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 490–507 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Mohanraju, P. et al. Diverse evolutionary roots and mechanistic variations of the CRISPR–Cas systems. Science 353, aad5147 (2016). · DOI
  4. Jackson, S. A. et al. CRISPR–Cas: adapting to change. Science 356, eaal5056 (2017). · DOI
  5. Barrangou, R. & Horvath, P. A decade of discovery: CRISPR functions and applications. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17092 (2017). · DOI
  6. Jiang, F. & Doudna, J. A. CRISPR–Cas9 structures and mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 46, 505–529 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  7. Faure, G., Makarova, K. S. & Koonin, E. V. CRISPR–Cas: complex functional networks and multiple roles beyond adaptive immunity. J. Mol. Biol. 431, 3–20 (2019). · DOI
  8. McGinn, J. & Marraffini, L. A. Molecular mechanisms of CRISPR–Cas spacer acquisition. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17, 7–12 (2019). · DOI
  9. Koonin, E. V., Makarova, K. S. & Wolf, Y. I. Evolutionary genomics of defense systems in archaea and bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 71, 233–261 (2017). · DOI
  10. Hille, F. & Charpentier, E. CRISPR–Cas: biology, mechanisms and relevance. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150496 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Wright, A. V., Nunez, J. K. & Doudna, J. A. Biology and applications of CRISPR systems: harnessing nature’s toolbox for genome engineering. Cell 164, 29–44 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Klompe, S. E. & Sternberg, S. H. Harnessing ‘a billion years of experimentation’: the ongoing exploration and exploitation of CRISPR–Cas immune systems. CRISPR J. 1, 141–158 (2018). · DOI
  13. Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. Classification and nomenclature of CRISPR–Cas systems: where from here? CRISPR J. 1, 325–336 (2018). · DOI
  14. Makarova, K. S. et al. Evolution and classification of the CRISPR–Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 9, 467–477 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Makarova, K. S. et al. An updated evolutionary classification of CRISPR–Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 722–736 (2015). · 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). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Shmakov, S. et al. Diversity and evolution of class 2 CRISPR–Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15, 169–182 (2017). This work demonstrates the relationships between the effectors of different types and subtypes of class 2 CRISPR–Cas systems and nucleases encoded by mobile genetic elements. On the basis of sequence comparison and phylogenetic analysis of Cas12 (type V effectors) and TnpB nucleases encoded by transposons, a scenario of independent recruitment of distinct TnpB variants, giving rise to different type V subtypes, is proposed. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Burstein, D. et al. New CRISPR–Cas systems from uncultivated microbes. Nature 542, 237–241 (2017). This work describes the metagenomic discovery of two new subtypes of type V CRISPR–Cas systems and experimental validation of their activity. · DOI
  19. Harrington, L. B. et al. Programmed DNA destruction by miniature CRISPR–Cas14 enzymes. Science 362, 839–842 (2018). This work experimentally validates the enzymatic activity of small predicted effectors that have been assigned to subtype V-U by Shmakov et al. (2017) and are here reclassified as subtype V-F. It shows that these enzymes differ substantially from the previously characterized large type II and type V effectors and catalyse both crRNA-specific and non-specific cleavage of single-stranded DNA. · DOI
  20. Yan, W. X. et al. Functionally diverse type V CRISPR–Cas systems. Science 363, 88–91 (2019). This article reports the experimental characterization of CRISPR–Cas subtypes V-C, V-G, V-H and V-I. Whereas Cas12c, Cas12h and Cas12i proteins all demonstrate RNA-guided double-stranded DNA interference similar to that in previously described CRISPR–Cas effectors, Cas12g is shown to function as an RNase with collateral RNase and single-strand DNase activities. · DOI
  21. Abudayyeh, O. O. et al. C2c2 is a single-component programmable RNA-guided RNA-targeting CRISPR effector. Science 353, aaf5573 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  22. 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 65, 618–630.e7 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  23. Yan, W. X. et al. Cas13d is a compact RNA-targeting type VI CRISPR effector positively modulated by a WYL-domain-containing accessory protein. Mol. Cell 70, 327–339.e5 (2018). This study demonstrates RNA targeting by the smallest known type VI effector, Cas13d, and shows that the accessory WYL domain-containing protein stimulates this activity. · DOI
  24. Murugan, K., Babu, K., Sundaresan, R., Rajan, R. & Sashital, D. G. The revolution continues: newly discovered systems expand the CRISPR–Cas toolkit. Mol. Cell 68, 15–25 (2017). · DOI
  25. Stella, S., Alcon, P. & Montoya, G. Class 2 CRISPR–Cas RNA-guided endonucleases: Swiss army knives of genome editing. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 24, 882–892 (2017). · DOI
  26. Koonin, E. V. & Makarova, K. S. Mobile genetic elements and evolution of CRISPR–Cas systems: all the way there and back. Genome Biol. Evol. 9, 2812–2825 (2017). · DOI
  27. Faure, G. et al. CRISPR–Cas in mobile genetic elements: counter-defense and beyond. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17, 513–525 (2019). · DOI
  28. Shah, S. A. et al. Comprehensive search for accessory proteins encoded with archaeal and bacterial type III CRISPR-cas gene cassettes reveals 39 new cas gene families. RNA Biol. 16, 530–542 (2019). Along with Shmakov et al. (2018), this study describes a computational approach to predict proteins that are functionally linked to CRISPR–Cas systems and applies this approach to type III systems. · DOI
  29. Shmakov, S. A., Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I., Severinov, K. V. & Koonin, E. V. Systematic prediction of genes functionally linked to CRISPR–Cas systems by gene neighborhood analysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E5307–E5316 (2018). Along with Shah et al. (2019), this article describes a computational approach for the systematic prediction of proteins that are functionally linked to CRISPR–Cas systems (‘CRISPRicity’ protocol) and applies that approach to all CRISPR–Cas types and subtypes. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Peters, J. E., Makarova, K. S., Shmakov, S. & Koonin, E. V. Recruitment of CRISPR–Cas systems by Tn7-like transposons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E7358–E7366 (2017). This study describes, for the first time, defective CRISPR–Cas systems encoded in Tn7-like transposons and predicts their function in RNA-guided transposition. · DOI
  31. Strecker, J. et al. RNA-guided DNA insertion with CRISPR-associated transposases. Science 365, 48–53 (2019). This work validates the prediction made in Shmakov et al. (2017), by showing that V-U5 variant effector proteins, which are inactivated TnpB homologues encoded in Tn7-like transposons, form a complex with the transposase subunit and enable crRNA-dependent transposition. · DOI
  32. Klompe, S. E., Vo, P. L. H., Halpin-Healy, T. S. & Sternberg, S. H. Transposon-encoded CRISPR–Cas systems direct RNA-guided DNA integration. Nature 571, 219–225 (2019). This work complements Strecker et al. (2019) by experimentally validating the prediction made in Peters et al. (2017) that interference-deficient subtype I-F CRISPR–Cas systems encoded in Tn7-like transposons enable crRNA-dependent transposition. · DOI
  33. Kazlauskiene, M., Kostiuk, G., Venclovas, C., Tamulaitis, G. & Siksnys, V. A cyclic oligonucleotide signaling pathway in type III CRISPR-Cas systems. Science 357, 605–609 (2017). Along with Niewoehner et al. (2017), this article describes the signalling pathway involved in the function of type III CRISPR–Cas systems, which involves the synthesis of cyclic oligoA molecules by Cas10, binding of these signalling molecules to the CARF domain of Csm6 and activation of the second domain of Casm6, the HEPN nuclease that catalyses promiscuous RNA cleavage. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Niewoehner, O. et al. Type III CRISPR–Cas systems produce cyclic oligoadenylate second messengers. Nature 548, 543–548 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  35. Makarova, K. S. & Koonin, E. V. Annotation and classification of CRISPR–Cas systems. Methods Mol. Biol. 1311, 47–75 (2015). · DOI
  36. Iranzo, J., Krupovic, M. & Koonin, E. V. The double-stranded DNA virosphere as a modular hierarchical network of gene sharing. MBio 7, e00978-16 (2016). · DOI
  37. Iranzo, J., Martincorena, I. & Koonin, E. V. Cancer-mutation network and the number and specificity of driver mutations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E6010–E6019 (2018). · DOI
  38. 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 · Paper page
  39. Koonin, E. V. & Makarova, K. S. Discovery of oligonucleotide signaling mediated by CRISPR-associated polymerases solves two puzzles but leaves an enigma. ACS Chem. Biol. 13, 309–312 (2018). · DOI
  40. Silas, S. et al. On the origin of reverse transcriptase-using CRISPR–Cas systems and their hyperdiverse, enigmatic spacer repertoires. MBio 8, e00897-17 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  41. Puigbo, P., Makarova, K. S., Kristensen, D. M., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. Reconstruction of the evolution of microbial defense systems. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 94 (2017). · DOI
  42. Garrett, R. A., Vestergaard, G. & Shah, S. A. Archaeal CRISPR-based immune systems: exchangeable functional modules. Trends Microbiol. 19, 549–556 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  43. Reeks, J., Naismith, J. H. & White, M. F. CRISPR interference: a structural perspective. Biochem. J. 453, 155–166 (2013). · DOI
  44. Özcan, A. et al. Type IV CRISPR RNA processing and effector complex formation in Aromatoleum aromaticum. Nat. Microbiol. 19, 89–96 (2019). · DOI
  45. 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
  46. Venclovas, C. Structure of Csm2 elucidates the relationship between small subunits of CRISPR–Cas effector complexes. FEBS Lett. 590, 1521–1529 (2016). · DOI
  47. 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
  48. Briner, A. E. & Barrangou, R. Guide RNAs: a glimpse at the sequences that drive CRISPR–Cas systems. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2016, pdb.top090902 (2016). · DOI
  49. Faure, G. et al. Comparative genomics and evolution of trans-activating RNAs in Class 2 CRISPR–Cas systems. RNA Biol. 16, 435–448 (2019). · DOI
  50. Chyou, T. Y. & Brown, C. M. Prediction and diversity of tracrRNAs from type II CRISPR–Cas systems. RNA Biol. 16, 423–434 (2019). · DOI
  51. 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). · DOI · Paper page
  52. East-Seletsky, A. et al. Two distinct RNase activities of CRISPR–C2c2 enable guide-RNA processing and RNA detection. Nature 538, 270–273 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  53. Liu, L. et al. Two distant catalytic sites are responsible for C2c2 RNase activities. Cell 168, 121–134 (2017). · DOI
  54. Kunin, V., Sorek, R. & Hugenholtz, P. Evolutionary conservation of sequence and secondary structures in CRISPR repeats. Genome Biol. 8, R61 (2007). · DOI
  55. Lange, S. J., Alkhnbashi, O. S., Rose, D., Will, S. & Backofen, R. CRISPRmap: an automated classification of repeat conservation in prokaryotic adaptive immune systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 8034–8044 (2013). · DOI
  56. Almendros, C., Nobrega, F. L., McKenzie, R. E. & Brouns, S. J. J. Cas4–Cas1 fusions drive efficient PAM selection and control CRISPR adaptation. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, 5223–5230 (2019). · DOI
  57. Koonin, E. V. & Aravind, L. Origin and evolution of eukaryotic apoptosis: the bacterial connection. Cell Death Differ. 9, 394–404 (2002). · DOI
  58. Vestergaard, G., Garrett, R. A. & Shah, S. A. CRISPR adaptive immune systems of Archaea. RNA Biol. 11, 156–167 (2014). · DOI
  59. Sinkunas, T. et al. Cas3 is a single-stranded DNA nuclease and ATP-dependent helicase in the CRISPR/Cas immune system. EMBO J. 30, 1335–1342 (2011). · DOI
  60. Al-Shayeb, B. et al. Clades of huge phage from across Earth’s ecosystems. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/572362 (2019). · DOI
  61. Leipe, D. D., Koonin, E. V. & Aravind, L. STAND, a class of P-loop NTPases including animal and plant regulators of programmed cell death: multiple, complex domain architectures, unusual phyletic patterns, and evolution by horizontal gene transfer. J. Mol. Biol. 343, 1–28 (2004). · DOI
  62. Newire, E., Aydin, A., Juma, S., Enne, V. & Roberts, A. P. Identification of a Type IV CRISPR–Cas system located exclusively on IncHI1B/IncFIB plasmids in Enterobacteriaceae. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/536375 (2019). · DOI
  63. Makarova, K. S. et al. Predicted highly derived class 1 CRISPR–Cas system in Haloarchaea containing diverged Cas5 and Cas7 homologs but no CRISPR array. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 366, fnz079 (2019).
  64. Strecker, J. et al. Engineering of CRISPR–Cas12b for human genome editing. Nat. Commun. 10, 212 (2019). · DOI
  65. Swarts, D. C. & Jinek, M. Mechanistic insights into the cis- and trans-acting DNase activities of Cas12a. Mol. Cell 73, 589–600.e584 (2019). · DOI
  66. Meeske, A. J., Nakandakari-Higa, S. & Marraffini, L. A. Cas13-induced cellular dormancy prevents the rise of CRISPR-resistant bacteriophage. Nature 570, 241–245 (2019). · DOI
  67. Karvelis, T. et al. PAM recognition by miniature CRISPR–Cas14 triggers programmable double-stranded DNA cleavage. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/654897 (2019). · DOI
  68. 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
  69. Hudaiberdiev, S. et al. Phylogenomics of Cas4 family nucleases. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 232 (2017). · DOI
  70. Charpentier, E., Richter, H., van der Oost, J. & White, M. F. Biogenesis pathways of RNA guides in archaeal and bacterial CRISPR-Cas adaptive immunity. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 39, 428–441 (2015). · DOI
  71. Dudek, N. K. et al. Novel microbial diversity and functional potential in the marine mammal oral microbiome. Curr. Biol. 27, 3752–3762 e3756 (2017). · DOI
  72. Castelle, C. J. et al. Biosynthetic capacity, metabolic variety and unusual biology in the CPR and DPANN radiations. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 629–645 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  73. Burstein, D. et al. Major bacterial lineages are essentially devoid of CRISPR–Cas viral defence systems. Nat. Commun. 7, 10613 (2016). · DOI
  74. Levin, B. R. Nasty viruses, costly plasmids, population dynamics, and the conditions for establishing and maintaining CRISPR-mediated adaptive immunity in bacteria. PLOS Genet. 6, e1001171 (2010). · DOI
  75. Iranzo, J., Lobkovsky, A. E., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. Evolutionary dynamics of the prokaryotic adaptive immunity system CRISPR–Cas in an explicit ecological context. J. Bacteriol. 195, 3834–3844 (2013). · DOI
  76. 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
  77. Gurney, J., Pleska, M. & Levin, B. R. Why put up with immunity when there is resistance: an excursion into the population and evolutionary dynamics of restriction-modification and CRISPR–Cas. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20180096 (2019). · DOI
  78. Garcia-Martinez, J., Maldonado, R. D., Guzman, N. M. & Mojica, F. J. M. The CRISPR conundrum: evolve and maybe die, or survive and risk stagnation. Microb. Cell 5, 262–268 (2018). · DOI
  79. van Houte, S. et al. The diversity-generating benefits of a prokaryotic adaptive immune system. Nature 532, 385–388 (2016). · DOI
  80. Weinberger, A. D., Wolf, Y. I., Lobkovsky, A. E., Gilmore, M. S. & Koonin, E. V. Viral diversity threshold for adaptive immunity in prokaryotes. MBio 3, e00456-12 (2012). · DOI
  81. Westra, E. R. et al. Parasite exposure drives selective evolution of constitutive versus inducible defense. Curr. Biol. 25, 1043–1049 (2015). · DOI
  82. Bernheim, A., Bikard, D., Touchon, M. & Rocha, E. P. C. A matter of background: DNA repair pathways as a possible cause for the sparse distribution of CRISPR–Cas systems in bacteria. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20180088 (2019). · DOI
  83. Koonin, E. V. & Krupovic, M. Evolution of adaptive immunity from transposable elements combined with innate immune systems. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16, 184–192 (2015). · DOI
  84. Krupovic, M., Beguin, P. & Koonin, E. V. Casposons: mobile genetic elements that gave rise to the CRISPR–Cas adaptation machinery. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 38, 36–43 (2017). · DOI
  85. Krupovic, M., Makarova, K. S., Forterre, P., Prangishvili, D. & Koonin, E. V. Casposons: a new superfamily of self-synthesizing DNA transposons at the origin of prokaryotic CRISPR–Cas immunity. BMC Biol. 12, 36 (2014). · DOI
  86. Kieper, S. N. et al. Cas4 facilitates PAM-compatible spacer selection during CRISPR adaptation. Cell Rep. 22, 3377–3384 (2018). · DOI
  87. Lee, H., Zhou, Y., Taylor, D. W. & Sashital, D. G. Cas4-dependent prespacer processing ensures high-fidelity programming of CRISPR arrays. Mol. Cell 70, 48–59.e45 (2018). · DOI
  88. Shiimori, M., Garrett, S. C., Graveley, B. R. & Terns, M. P. Cas4 nucleases define the pam, length, and orientation of DNA fragments integrated at CRISPR loci. Mol. Cell 70, 814–824.e816 (2018). This work reveals the molecular details of the involvement of Cas4, an ancillary protein that cooperates with Cas1 and Cas2 in several CRISPR–Cas subtypes, in the process of adaptation. · DOI
  89. Burroughs, A. M., Zhang, D., Schaffer, D. E., Iyer, L. M. & Aravind, L. Comparative genomic analyses reveal a vast, novel network of nucleotide-centric systems in biological conflicts, immunity and signaling. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 10633–10654 (2015). · DOI
  90. Rostol, J. T. & Marraffini, L. A. Non-specific degradation of transcripts promotes plasmid clearance during type III-A CRISPR-Cas immunity. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 656–662 (2019). This work demonstrates that indiscriminate RNA cleavage by the HEPN RNase domain of the Csm6 protein of type III CRISPR–Cas systems induces growth arrest in the host bacteria, providing a backup defence mechanism. · DOI
  91. Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I., Snir, S. & Koonin, E. V. Defense islands in bacterial and archaeal genomes and prediction of novel defense systems. J. Bacteriol. 193, 6039–6056 (2011). · DOI
  92. 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). · DOI
  93. Athukoralage, J. S., Rouillon, C., Graham, S., Gruschow, S. & White, M. F. Ring nucleases deactivate type III CRISPR ribonucleases by degrading cyclic oligoadenylate. Nature 562, 277–280 (2018). This works expands the characterization of the signalling pathway in type III CRISPR–Cas sequences by showing that a distinct variety of CARF domain cleaves the cyclic oligoA molecules produced by Cas10 and thus regulates the pathway. · DOI
  94. Shmakov, S. A. et al. Systematic prediction of functionally linked genes in bacterial and archaeal genomes. Nat. Protoc. 14, 3013–3031 (2019). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I., Iranzo, J., Shmakov, S. A., Alkhnbashi, O. S., Brouns, S. J. J., Charpentier, E., Cheng, D., Haft, D. H., Horvath, P., Moineau, S., Mojica, F. J. M., Scott, D., Shah, S. A., Siksnys, V., Terns, M. P., Venclovas, Č., White, M. F., Yakunin, A. F., Yan, W., Zhang, F., Garrett, R. A., Backofen, R., van der Oost, J., Barrangou, R., & Koonin, E. V.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Reviews Microbiology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-12-19
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
67-83
ISSN
  • 1740-1526
  • 1740-1534
DOI
10.1038/s41579-019-0299-x
PMC
PMC8905525
Cited by
2,445
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