Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35881633›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Epidemiological and evolutionary consequences of different types of CRISPR-Cas systems.

Hélène Chabas, Viktor Müller, Sebastian Bonhoeffer, Roland R Regoes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Hélène ChabasInstitute for Integrative Biology, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9792-3589
Viktor MüllerInstitute of Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-8212-4880
Sebastian BonhoefferInstitute for Integrative Biology, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8052-3925
Roland R RegoesInstitute for Integrative Biology, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8319-5293

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacteria have adaptive immunity against viruses (phages) in the form of CRISPR-Cas immune systems. Currently, 6 types of CRISPR-Cas systems are known and the molecular study of three of these has revealed important molecular differences. It is unknown if and how these molecular differences change the outcome of phage infection and the evolutionary pressure the CRISPR-Cas systems faces. To determine the importance of these molecular differences, we model a phage outbreak entering a population defending exclusively with a type I/II or a type III CRISPR-Cas system. We show that for type III CRISPR-Cas systems, rapid phage extinction is driven by the probability to acquire at least one resistance spacer. However, for type I/II CRISPR-Cas systems, rapid phage extinction is characterized by an a threshold-like behaviour: any acquisition probability below this threshold leads to phage survival whereas any acquisition probability above it, results in phage extinction. We also show that in the absence of autoimmunity, high acquisition rates evolve. However, when CRISPR-Cas systems are prone to autoimmunity, intermediate levels of acquisition are optimal during a phage outbreak. As we predict an optimal probability of spacer acquisition 2 factors of magnitude above the one that has been measured, we discuss the origin of such a discrepancy. Finally, we show that in a biologically relevant parameter range, a type III CRISPR-Cas system can outcompete a type I/II CRISPR-Cas system with a slightly higher probability of acquisition.

Indexed as

BacteriophagesCRISPR-Cas SystemsBacteriaBiological Evolution

Identifiers

PMID35881633
PMCPMC9355216

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.