Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32038537›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2019

CRISPR-Cas Systems and the Paradox of Self-Targeting Spacers.

Franziska Wimmer, Chase L Beisel

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Genome Evolution in Plant Pathogenic Bacteria.Genome biology and evolution · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Unusual Genomic and Biochemical Features ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Impact ofEngineering microbiology · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Franziska WimmerHelmholtz Institute for RNA-Based Infection Research (HIRI), Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (HZI), Würzburg, Germany.
Chase L BeiselHelmholtz Institute for RNA-Based Infection Research (HIRI), Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (HZI), Würzburg, Germany.
Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research · DEHelmholtz Institute for RNA-based Infection Research · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CRISPR-Cas immune systems in bacteria and archaea record prior infections as spacers within each system's CRISPR arrays. Spacers are normally derived from invasive genetic material and direct the immune system to complementary targets as part of future infections. However, not all spacers appear to be derived from foreign genetic material and instead can originate from the host genome. Their presence poses a paradox, as self-targeting spacers would be expected to induce an autoimmune response and cell death. In this review, we discuss the known frequency of self-targeting spacers in natural CRISPR-Cas systems, how these spacers can be incorporated into CRISPR arrays, and how the host can evade lethal attack. We also discuss how self-targeting spacers can become the basis for alternative functions performed by CRISPR-Cas systems that extend beyond adaptive immunity. Overall, the acquisition of genome-targeting spacers poses a substantial risk but can aid in the host's evolution and potentially lead to or support new functionalities.

Indexed as

anti-CRISPR proteinsautoimmunityCRISPR-Casgene regulationspacer acquisition

Identifiers

PMID32038537
PMCPMC6990116
OpenAlexW3000986716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.