ArticleThe ISME journal2024
Escherichia coli CRISPR arrays from early life fecal samples preferentially target prophages.
Article in The ISME journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization of bacterial colonization in the gut of axenic and conventional zebrafish larvae using live food.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- CRISPR spacer profiling and prophage mining reveal diverse bacteriophages associated withJournal of oral microbiology · 2026Article
- TheEcoSal Plus · 2025Review
- Diversity of CRISPR-Cas Systems Identified in UrologicalMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Article
- Bacteria exploit viral dormancy to establish CRISPR-Cas immunity.Cell host & microbe · 2025Article
- Relationship between pediatric asthma and respiratory microbiota, intestinal microbiota: a narrative review.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Interrelation Between Pathoadaptability Factors and Crispr-Element Patterns in the Genomes ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Dynamics of CRISPR-mediated virus-host interactions in the human gut microbiome.The ISME journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
CRISPR-Cas systems are defense mechanisms against phages and other nucleic acids that invade bacteria and archaea. In Escherichia coli, it is generally accepted that CRISPR-Cas systems are inactive in laboratory conditions due to a transcriptional repressor. In natural isolates, it has been shown that CRISPR arrays remain stable over the years and that most spacer targets (protospacers) remain unknown. Here, we re-examine CRISPR arrays in natural E. coli isolates and investigate viral and bacterial genomes for spacer targets using a bioinformatics approach coupled to a unique biological dataset. We first sequenced the CRISPR1 array of 1769 E. coli isolates from the fecal samples of 639 children obtained during their first year of life. We built a network with edges between isolates that reflect the number of shared spacers. The isolates grouped into 34 modules. A search for matching spacers in bacterial genomes showed that E. coli spacers almost exclusively target prophages. While we found instances of self-targeting spacers, those involving a prophage and a spacer within the same bacterial genome were rare. The extensive search for matching spacers also expanded the library of known E. coli protospacers to 60%. Altogether, these results favor the concept that E. coli's CRISPR-Cas is an antiprophage system and highlight the importance of reconsidering the criteria use to deem CRISPR-Cas systems active.
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.