The evolution of CRISPR-cas loci, which encode adaptive immune systems in archaea and bacteria, involves rapid changes, in particular numerous rearrangements of the locus architecture and horizontal transfer of complete loci or individual modules. These dynamics complicate straightforward phylogenetic classification, but here we present an approach combining the analysis of signature protein families and features of the architecture of cas loci that unambiguously partitions most CRISPR-cas loci into distinct classes, types and subtypes. The new classification retains the overall structure of the previous version but is expanded to now encompass two classes, five types and 16 subtypes. The relative stability of the classification suggests that the most prevalent variants of CRISPR-Cas systems are already known. However, the existence of rare, currently unclassifiable variants implies that additional types and subtypes remain to be characterized.


Makarova, Kira S.;  Wolf, Yuri I.;  Alkhnbashi, Omer S.;  Costa, Fabrizio;  Shah, Shiraz A.;  Saunders, Sita J.;  Barrangou, Rodolphe;  Brouns, Stan J. J.;  Charpentier, Emmanuelle;  Haft, Daniel H.;  Horvath, Philippe;  Moineau, Sylvain;  Mojica, Francisco J. M.;  Terns, Rebecca M.;  Terns, Michael P.;  White, Malcolm F.;  Yakunin, Alexander F.;  Garrett, Roger A.;  van der Oost, John;  Backofen, Rolf;  Koonin, Eugene V.

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author
Contributors on Publons
  • 11 authors
  • 1 reviewer
Publons score (from 3 scores)
Web of Science Core Collection Citations
  • Abstract, title and references ● Is the aim clear? Yes ● Is it clear what the study found and how they did it? Yes ● Is the title informative and relevant? Yes ● Are the references: ● Relevant? Yes ● Recent? Yes ● Referenced correctly? Yes ● Are appropriate key studies included? Yes Introduction/ background ● Is it clear what is already known about this topic? Yes ● Is the research question clearly outlined? Yes ● Is the research question justified given what is already known about the topic? Yes Methods ● Is the process of subject selection clear? Yes ● Are the variables defined and measured appropriately? Yes ● Are the study methods valid and reliable? To some Extent ● Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study? Yes Results ● Is the data presented in an appropriate way? Yes ● Tables and figures relevant and clearly presented? Yes ● Appropriate units, rounding, and number of decimals? Yes ● Titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly? Yes ● Categories grouped appropriately? Yes ● Does the text in the results add to the data or is it repetitive? repetitive ● Are you clear about what is a statistically significant result? Yes ● Are you clear about what is a practically meaningful result? Yes Discussion and Conclusions ● Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being over interpreted? Yes ● Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study? To some extent ● Are the conclusions supported by references or results? Yes ● Are the limitations of the study fatal or are they opportunities to inform future research? Needs Future Research.

All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.