ArticleiScience2020
Compatibility of Site-Specific Recombination Units between Mobile Genetic Elements.
Article in iScience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- On the Low Abundance of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Bacteriophage Genomes and Their Random Acquisition via Specialized Transduction.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Intercellular signal transduction within the mother cell compartment during Bacillus subtilis sporulation.FEMS microbiology letters · 2026Article
- Genomic and functional characterization of a novel temperate Coventryvirus phage infecting Staphylococcus pseudintermedius.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mechanisms of Arsenic Interaction inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Lysogenic control of Bacillus subtilis morphology and fitness by Spbetavirus phi3T.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Identification of cognate recombination directionality factors for large serine recombinases by virtual pulldown.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Rapid formulation of a genetically diverse phage cocktail targeting uropathogenic Escherichia coli infections using the UTI89 model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- IntrinsicFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Archaeal tyrosine recombinases.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2021Review
- The life cycle of SPβ and related phages.Archives of virology · 2021Review
- Distribution of Prophages in theMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- The Age of Phage: Friend or Foe in the New Dawn of Therapeutic and Biocontrol Applications?Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Phylogenetic Analysis and Genome-Wide Association Study Applied to an ItalianFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Site-specific recombination (SSR) systems are employed for transfer of mobile genetic elements (MGEs), such as lysogenic phages and integrative conjugative elements (ICEs). SSR between attP/I and attB sites is mediated by an integrase (Int) and a recombination directionality factor (RDF). The genome of Bacillus subtilis 168 contains SPβ, an active prophage, skin, a defective prophage, and ICEBs1, an integrative conjugative element. Each of these MGEs harbors the classic SSR unit attL-int-rdf-attR. Here, we demonstrate that these SSR units are all compatible and can substitute for one another. Specifically, when SPβ is turned into a defective prophage by deletion of its SSR unit, introduction of the SSR unit of skin or ICE converts it back to an active prophage. We also identified closely related prophages with distinct SSR units that control developmentally regulated gene rearrangements of kamA (L-lysine 2,3-aminomutase). These results suggest that SSR units are interchangeable components of MGEs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.