CoCoNuTs are a diverse subclass of Type IV restriction systems predicted to target RNA
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
A comprehensive census of McrBC systems, among the most common forms of prokaryotic Type IV restriction systems, followed by phylogenetic analysis, reveals their enormous abundance in diverse prokaryotes and a plethora of genomic associations. We focus on a previously uncharacterized branch, which we denote co iled- co il nu clease t andems (CoCoNuTs) for their salient features: the presence of extensive coiled-coil structures and tandem nucleases. The CoCoNuTs alone show extraordinary variety, with three distinct types and multiple subtypes. All CoCoNuTs contain domains predicted to interact with translation system components, such as OB-folds resembling the SmpB protein that binds bacterial transfer-messenger RNA (tmRNA), YTH-like domains that might recognize methylated tmRNA, tRNA, or rRNA, and RNA-binding Hsp70 chaperone homologs, along with RNases, such as HEPN domains, all suggesting that the CoCoNuTs target RNA. Many CoCoNuTs might additionally target DNA, via McrC nuclease homologs. Additional restriction systems, such as Type I RM, BREX, and Druantia Type III, are frequently encoded in the same predicted superoperons. In many of these superoperons, CoCoNuTs are likely regulated by cyclic nucleotides, possibly, RNA fragments with cyclic termini, that bind associated CARF ( C RISPR- A ssociated R ossmann F old) domains. We hypothesize that the CoCoNuTs, together with the ancillary restriction factors, employ an echeloned defense strategy analogous to that of Type III CRISPR-Cas systems, in which an immune response eliminating virus DNA and/or RNA is launched first, but then, if it fails, an abortive infection response leading to PCD/dormancy via host RNA cleavage takes over.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Paircoil2: improved prediction of coiled coils from sequence.
McDonnell, A. V., Jiang, T., Keating, A. E., & Berger, B. (2006) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bti797 · Cited by 424 · see citing works
Trigg, J., Gutwin, K., Keating, A. E., & Berger, B. (2011) · PLoS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023519 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Bell, R. T., Sahakyan, H., Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I., & Koonin, E. V.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Venue
- eLife
- Publisher
- eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
- Published
- 2024-05-13
- Volume
- 13
- ISSN
- 2050-084X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4396856628
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 0.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (Intramural Research Program)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Bacteriophages and microbial interactions
- Keywords
- coconut, OB-fold, SmpB, tmRNA, YTH domain, cyclic nucleotides, type III CRISPR-Cas, abortive infection, programmed cell death
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