2022
DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac099
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

cifB-transcript levels largely explain cytoplasmic incompatibility variation across divergentWolbachia

Abstract: Divergent hosts often associate with intracellular microbes that influence their fitness. Maternally transmitted Wolbachia bacteria are the most common of these endosymbionts due largely to cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI) that kills uninfected embryos fertilized by Wolbachia-infected males. Closely related infections in females rescue CI, providing a relative fitness advantage that drives Wolbachia to high frequencies. One prophage-associated gene (cifA) governs rescue and two contribute to CI (cifA and cifB)… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 83 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We observed CI-causing factors ( cifs ) in both the Smith+ and N101 MK assemblies [ 27 , 28 ]. cifs ( cifA/B ) are classified into 5 phylogenetic clades (Types I to V) [ 38 , 39 ]. The Smith+ genome contains 1 Type 1 and 1 Type 2 cif pair.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We observed CI-causing factors ( cifs ) in both the Smith+ and N101 MK assemblies [ 27 , 28 ]. cifs ( cifA/B ) are classified into 5 phylogenetic clades (Types I to V) [ 38 , 39 ]. The Smith+ genome contains 1 Type 1 and 1 Type 2 cif pair.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results showed that the lDDT scores of all of the six Cif proteins of w Ccep and w Mel ranged between 68.4 and 84.0, suggesting a confident structural prediction based on the full‐length sequences using the AlphaFold programme, except for CifB I w Mel containing a DUB domain with a low predicted mass (Table 3; Figure S4). Only two PD‐(D/E)XK‐nuclease domains of CifB were analysed because they were shared across all types of Cif proteins (Shropshire et al, 2022), and it was difficult to make a direct determination of the structure of CifB w Mel because its expression in Escherichia coli was poor (Wang et al, 2022). To evaluate the similarity between the tertiary structures of CIF proteins, the template modelling (TM) scores were calculated (Xu & Zhang, 2010).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CIF proteins were preliminarily analysed using the SMART programme (http://smart.embl-heidelberg.de/; Schultz et al, 1998). The proteins were further analysed for the presence of putative domains using the HHpred protein domain prediction tool (https://toolkit.tuebingen.mpg.de/#/tools/hhpred) (Söding et al, 2005; Zimmermann et al, 2018) with default parameters, and annotations with p > 80% were recorded (Shropshire et al, 2022). The databases SCOPe70 (v.2.07), Pfam (v.33.1), SMART (v6.0) and COG/KOG (v1.0) (Lindsey et al, 2018; Martinez et al, 2022) were used to confirm SMART‐identified domains and identify additional domain structures.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our analyses discovered CI-causing factors ( cifs ) in both the Smith+ and N101 MK draft assemblies [26, 27]. cifs ( cifA/B ) are classified into five phylogenetic clades (Types I–V) [28, 29]. The Smith+ genome contains one set of Type 1 cif loci and one set of the Type 2 loci.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%