Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • NEWS AND VIEWS

Bacteria use a decoy defence molecule to set a trap for viruses

Some bacterial-infecting viruses use ‘sponges’ to mop up defence molecules, but bacteria can fight back by responding when a sponge captures decoy molecules.
By
  1. Malcolm F. White

    1. Malcolm F. White is in the School of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9ST, UK.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

New components of bacterial defence systems are rapidly being discovered. The average bacterium encodes seven systems that target invaders such as bacteria-infecting viruses, which are known as bacteriophages or phages1. However, the question remains whether these mechanisms work together to form an immune system that is more than the sum of its parts. Writing in Nature, Doherty et al.2 and Sullivan et al.3 report the discovery of an antiviral defence system that was named Panoptes, after the many-eyed giant of Greek mythology who was a watchman for the gods. This defence specifically targets viruses that can evade another common bacterial defence system, revealing a sophisticated and layered antiviral protection network for bacteria.

Access options

Access through your institution

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03125-1

References

  1. Clabby, T., Tesson, F., Gaborieau, B. & Bernheim, A. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 380, 20240082 (2025).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Doherty, E. E. et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09569-9 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sullivan, A. E. et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09557-z (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lopatina, A., Tal, N. & Sorek, R. Annu. Rev. Virol. 7, 371–384 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cao, X. et al. Mol. Cell 84, 375–385 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kazlauskiene, M., Kostiuk, G., Venclovas, C., Tamulaitis, G. & Siksnys, V. Science 357, 605–609 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Burroughs, A. M., Zhang, D., Schäffer, D. E., Iyer, L. M. & Aravind, L. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 10633–10654 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Makarova, K. S. et al. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 8828–8847 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rousset, F. et al. Cell Host Microbe 30, 740–753 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wu, Y. et al. Cell Host Microbe 32, 557–572 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links