Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41570921›Full record

ArticleVirus research2026

Paradoxical G-quadruplex distribution in coronavirus genomes reveals functional constraints and antiviral therapeutic opportunities.

Masato Tanigawa, Takafumi Iwaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Virus research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Masato TanigawaDepartment of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Oita University, Yufu City, Japan. Electronic address: tanigawa@oita-u.ac.jp.
Takafumi IwakiDepartment of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Oita University, Yufu City, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We computationally characterized G-quadruplex (G4) distributions across 31 coronavirus genomes to identify conserved structural features as potential antiviral therapeutic targets. Through an integrated approach combining consensus G4 detection, dinucleotide-preserving null models, and pooled Poisson rate ratios, we identified a paradoxical G4 distribution pattern: genome-wide depletion (mean fold change = 0.56) coupled with strong regional enrichment in Spike (S) protein (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 17.9; 95% CI: 11.7-27.6) and Nucleocapsid (N) protein (IRR = 15.2; 95% CI: 8.7-26.6), while untranslated regions (UTRs) showed complete G4 absence. Thermodynamic stability assessment identified 38 stable G4 candidates (ΔG < -5 kcal/mol), with 52.6% concentrated in Nucleocapsid protein regions, suggesting candidates for structure-based antiviral drug development awaiting experimental confirmation. This paradoxical distribution pattern-genome-wide depletion coupled with strong regional enrichment in functionally critical proteins (Spike and Nucleocapsid)-provides a mechanistic framework for developing betacoronavirus-targeted therapeutics based on conserved G4 structures.

Indexed as

Antiviral AgentsBetacoronavirusCoronavirusGenome, ViralG-QuadruplexesCoronavirus InfectionsCoronavirus Nucleocapsid ProteinsHumansNucleocapsid ProteinsPhosphoproteinsSARS-CoV-2Spike Glycoprotein, CoronavirusThermodynamicsUntranslated RegionsAntiviral AgentsCoronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteinsnucleocapsid phosphoprotein, SARS-CoV-2Nucleocapsid ProteinsPhosphoproteinsSpike Glycoprotein, Coronavirusspike protein, SARS-CoV-2Untranslated Regionsantiviral therapeuticsbetacoronaviruscoronavirus antiviralsdrug targetG-quadruplexNucleocapsid proteinSARS-CoV-2Spike protein

Identifiers

PMID41570921
PMCPMC12860367

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.