ArticlePLoS genetics2025
Probing the molecular determinants of Ty1 retrotransposon restriction specificity in yeast.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Capsid flexibility during Ty1 virus-like particle assembly.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Co-expression of a retrotransposon and re-targeted restriction factor impairs yeast growth.microPublication biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The evolutionary history of retrotransposons and their hosts shapes the dynamics of transposition and restriction. The Pseudoviridae of yeast includes multiple Ty1 LTR-retrotransposon subfamilies. Saccharomyces cerevisiae prevents uncontrolled retrotransposition of Ty1 subfamilies using distinct mechanisms: canonical Ty1 is inhibited by a self-encoded restriction factor, p22/p18, whereas Ty1' is inhibited by an endogenized restriction factor, Drt2. The minimal inhibitory fragment of both restriction factors (p18m and Drt2m) is a conserved C-terminal capsid domain. Here, we use biophysical and genetic approaches to demonstrate that p18m and Drt2m are highly specific to their subfamilies. Although the crystal structures of p18m and Drt2m are similar, three divergent residues found in a conserved hydrophobic interface direct restriction specificity. By mutating these three residues, we re-target each restriction factor to the opposite transposon. Our work highlights how a common lattice-poisoning mechanism of restriction evolved from independent evolutionary trajectories in closely related retrotransposon subfamilies. These data raise the possibility that similar capsid-capsid interactions may exist in other transposons/viruses and that highly specific inhibitors could be engineered to target capsid interfaces.
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.