Genome editing in mammalian cells using the CRISPR type I-D nuclease

Adoption of CRISPR–Cas systems, such as CRISPR–Cas9 and CRISPR–Cas12a, has revolutionized genome engineering in recent years; however, application of genome editing with CRISPR type I—the most abundant CRISPR system in bacteria—remains less developed. Type I systems, such as type I-E, and I-F, comprise the CRISPR-associated complex for antiviral defense (‘Cascade’: Cas5, Cas6, Cas7, Cas8 and the small subunit) and Cas3, which degrades the target DNA; in contrast, for the sub-type CRISPR–Cas type I-D, which lacks a typical Cas3 nuclease in its CRISPR locus, the mechanism of target DNA degradation remains unknown. Here, we found that Cas10d is a functional nuclease in the type I-D system, performing the role played by Cas3 in other CRISPR–Cas type I systems. The type I-D system can be used for targeted mutagenesis of genomic DNA in human cells, directing both bi-directional long-range deletions and short insertions/deletions. Our findings suggest the CRISPR–Cas type I-D system as a unique effector pathway in CRISPR that can be repurposed for genome engineering in eukaryotic cells.     

Expanding the plant genome editing toolbox with recently developed CRISPR–Cas systems

Since its first appearance, CRISPR–Cas9 has been developed extensively as a programmable genome-editing tool, opening a new era in plant genome engineering. However, CRISPR–Cas9 still has some drawbacks, such as limitations of the protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM) sequence, target specificity, and the large size of the cas9 gene. To combat invading bacterial phages and plasmid DNAs, bacteria and archaea have diverse and unexplored CRISPR–Cas systems, which have the potential to be developed as a useful genome editing tools. Recently, discovery and characterization of additional CRISPR–Cas systems have been reported. Among them, several CRISPR–Cas systems have been applied successfully to plant and human genome editing. For example, several groups have achieved genome editing using CRISPR–Cas type I-D and type I-E systems, which had never been applied for genome editing previously. In addition to higher specificity and recognition of different PAM sequences, recently developed CRISPR–Cas systems often provide unique characteristics that differ from well-known Cas proteins such as Cas9 and Cas12a. For example, type I CRISPR–Cas10 induces small indels and bi-directional long-range deletions ranging up to 7.2 kb in tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Type IV CRISPR–Cas13 targets RNA, not double-strand DNA, enabling highly specific knockdown of target genes. In this article, we review the development of CRISPR–Cas systems, focusing especially on their application to plant genome engineering. Recent CRISPR–Cas tools are helping expand our plant genome engineering toolbox.

Recently discovered and characterized clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats-CRISPR associated (CRISPR–Cas) systems allow additional applications to plant genome editing.     

DNA targeting by the type I-G and type I-A CRISPR–Cas systems of Pyrococcus furiosus

CRISPR–Cas systems silence plasmids and viruses in prokaryotes. CRISPR–Cas effector complexes contain CRISPR RNAs (crRNAs) that include sequences captured from invaders and direct CRISPR-associated (Cas) proteins to destroy corresponding invader nucleic acids. Pyrococcus furiosus (Pfu) harbors three CRISPR–Cas immune systems: a Cst (Type I-G) system with an associated Cmr (Type III-B) module at one locus, and a partial Csa (Type I-A) module (lacking known invader sequence acquisition and crRNA processing genes) at another locus. The Pfu Cmr complex cleaves complementary target RNAs, and Csa systems have been shown to target DNA, while the mechanism by which Cst complexes silence invaders is unknown. In this study, we investigated the function of the Cst as well as Csa system in Pfu strains harboring a single CRISPR–Cas system. Plasmid transformation assays revealed that the Cst and Csa systems both function by DNA silencing and utilize similar flanking sequence information (PAMs) to identify invader DNA. Silencing by each system specifically requires its associated Cas3 nuclease. crRNAs from the 7 shared CRISPR loci in Pfu are processed for use by all 3 effector complexes, and Northern analysis revealed that individual effector complexes dictate the profile of mature crRNA species that is generated.     

Structural basis for inhibition of the type I-F CRISPR–Cas surveillance complex by AcrIF4, AcrIF7 and AcrIF14

CRISPR–Cas systems are adaptive immune systems in bacteria and archaea to defend against mobile genetic elements (MGEs) and have been repurposed as genome editing tools. Anti-CRISPR (Acr) proteins are produced by MGEs to counteract CRISPR–Cas systems and can be used to regulate genome editing by CRISPR techniques. Here, we report the cryo-EM structures of three type I-F Acr proteins, AcrIF4, AcrIF7 and AcrIF14, bound to the type I-F CRISPR–Cas surveillance complex (the Csy complex) from Pseudomonas aeruginosa. AcrIF4 binds to an unprecedented site on the C-terminal helical bundle of Cas8f subunit, precluding conformational changes required for activation of the Csy complex. AcrIF7 mimics the PAM duplex of target DNA and is bound to the N-terminal DNA vise of Cas8f. Two copies of AcrIF14 bind to the thumb domains of Cas7.4f and Cas7.6f, preventing hybridization between target DNA and the crRNA. Our results reveal structural detail of three AcrIF proteins, each binding to a different site on the Csy complex for inhibiting degradation of MGEs.     

Foreign DNA acquisition by the I-F?CRISPR–Cas system requires all components of the interference machinery

CRISPR immunity depends on acquisition of fragments of foreign DNA into CRISPR arrays. For type I-E CRISPR–Cas systems two modes of spacer acquisition, naïve and primed adaptation, were described. Naïve adaptation requires just two most conserved Cas1 and Cas2 proteins; it leads to spacer acquisition from both foreign and bacterial DNA and results in multiple spacers incapable of immune response. Primed adaptation requires all Cas proteins and a CRISPR RNA recognizing a partially matching target. It leads to selective acquisition of spacers from DNA molecules recognized by priming CRISPR RNA, with most spacers capable of protecting the host. Here, we studied spacer acquisition by a type I-F CRISPR–Cas system. We observe both naïve and primed adaptation. Both processes require not just Cas1 and Cas2, but also intact Csy complex and CRISPR RNA. Primed adaptation shows a gradient of acquisition efficiency as a function of distance from the priming site and a strand bias that is consistent with existence of single-stranded adaption intermediates. The results provide new insights into the mechanism of spacer acquisition and illustrate surprising mechanistic diversity of related CRISPR–Cas systems.     

Mobile element warfare via CRISPR and anti-CRISPR in Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Bacteria deploy multiple defenses to prevent mobile genetic element (MGEs) invasion. CRISPR–Cas immune systems use RNA-guided nucleases to target MGEs, which counter with anti-CRISPR (Acr) proteins. Our understanding of the biology and co-evolutionary dynamics of the common Type I-C CRISPR–Cas subtype has lagged because it lacks an in vivo phage-host model system. Here, we show the anti-phage function of a Pseudomonas aeruginosa Type I-C CRISPR–Cas system encoded on a conjugative pKLC102 island, and its Acr-mediated inhibition by distinct MGEs. Seven genes with anti-Type I-C function (acrIC genes) were identified, many with highly acidic amino acid content, including previously described DNA mimic AcrIF2. Four of the acr genes were broad spectrum, also inhibiting I-E or I-F P. aeruginosa CRISPR–Cas subtypes. Dual inhibition comes at a cost, however, as simultaneous expression of Type I-C and I-F systems renders phages expressing the dual inhibitor AcrIF2 more sensitive to targeting. Mutagenesis of numerous acidic residues in AcrIF2 did not impair anti-I-C or anti-I-F function per se but did exacerbate inhibition defects during competition, suggesting that excess negative charge may buffer DNA mimics against competition. Like AcrIF2, five of the Acr proteins block Cascade from binding DNA, while two function downstream, likely preventing Cas3 recruitment or activity. One such inhibitor, AcrIC3, is found in an ‘anti-Cas3’ cluster within conjugative elements, encoded alongside bona fide Cas3 inhibitors AcrIF3 and AcrIE1. Our findings demonstrate an active battle between an MGE-encoded CRISPR–Cas system and its diverse MGE targets.     

Anti-CRISPR AcrIF9 functions by inducing the CRISPR–Cas complex to bind DNA non-specifically

Phages and other mobile genetic elements express anti-CRISPR proteins (Acrs) to protect their genomes from destruction by CRISPR–Cas systems. Acrs usually block the ability of CRISPR–Cas systems to bind or cleave their nucleic acid substrates. Here, we investigate an unusual Acr, AcrIF9, that induces a gain-of-function to a type I-F CRISPR–Cas (Csy) complex, causing it to bind strongly to DNA that lacks both a PAM sequence and sequence complementarity. We show that specific and non-specific dsDNA compete for the same site on the Csy:AcrIF9 complex with rapid exchange, but specific ssDNA appears to still bind through complementarity to the CRISPR RNA. Induction of non-specific DNA-binding is a shared property of diverse AcrIF9 homologues. Substitution of a conserved positively charged surface on AcrIF9 abrogated non-specific dsDNA-binding of the Csy:AcrIF9 complex, but specific dsDNA binding was maintained. AcrIF9 mutants with impaired non-specific dsDNA binding activity in vitro displayed a reduced ability to inhibit CRISPR–Cas activity in vivo. We conclude that misdirecting the CRISPR–Cas complex to bind non-specific DNA is a key component of the inhibitory mechanism of AcrIF9. This inhibitory mechanism is distinct from a previously characterized anti-CRISPR, AcrIF1, that sterically blocks DNA-binding, even though AcrIF1and AcrIF9 bind to the same site on the Csy complex.     

Discovery of potent and versatile CRISPR–Cas9 inhibitors engineered for chemically controllable genome editing

Anti-CRISPR (Acr) proteins are encoded by many mobile genetic elements (MGEs) such as phages and plasmids to combat CRISPR–Cas adaptive immune systems employed by prokaryotes, which provide powerful tools for CRISPR–Cas-based applications. Here, we discovered nine distinct type II-A anti-CRISPR (AcrIIA24–32) families from Streptococcus MGEs and found that most Acrs can potently inhibit type II-A Cas9 orthologs from Streptococcus (SpyCas9, St1Cas9 or St3Cas9) in bacterial and human cells. Among these Acrs, AcrIIA26, AcrIIA27, AcrIIA30 and AcrIIA31 are able to block Cas9 binding to DNA, while AcrIIA24 abrogates DNA cleavage by Cas9. Notably, AcrIIA25.1 and AcrIIA32.1 can inhibit both DNA binding and DNA cleavage activities of SpyCas9, exhibiting unique anti-CRISPR characteristics. Importantly, we developed several chemically inducible anti-CRISPR variants based on AcrIIA25.1 and AcrIIA32.1 by comprising hybrids of Acr protein and the 4-hydroxytamoxifen-responsive intein, which enabled post-translational control of CRISPR–Cas9-mediated genome editing in human cells. Taken together, our work expands the diversity of type II-A anti-CRISPR families and the toolbox of Acr proteins for the chemically inducible control of Cas9-based applications.     

CRISPR–Cas9-assisted recombineering in Lactobacillus reuteri

Clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPRs) and the CRISPR-associated (Cas) nuclease protect bacteria and archeae from foreign DNA by site-specific cleavage of incoming DNA. Type-II CRISPR–Cas systems, such as the Streptococcus pyogenes CRISPR–Cas9 system, can be adapted such that Cas9 can be guided to a user-defined site in the chromosome to introduce double-stranded breaks. Here we have developed and optimized CRISPR–Cas9 function in the lactic acid bacterium Lactobacillus reuteri ATCC PTA 6475. We established proof-of-concept showing that CRISPR–Cas9 selection combined with single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) recombineering is a realistic approach to identify at high efficiencies edited cells in a lactic acid bacterium. We show for three independent targets that subtle changes in the bacterial genome can be recovered at efficiencies ranging from 90 to 100%. By combining CRISPR–Cas9 and recombineering, we successfully applied codon saturation mutagenesis in the L. reuteri chromosome. Also, CRISPR–Cas9 selection is critical to identify low-efficiency events such as oligonucleotide-mediated chromosome deletions. This also means that CRISPR–Cas9 selection will allow identification of recombinant cells in bacteria with low recombineering efficiencies, eliminating the need for ssDNA recombineering optimization procedures. We envision that CRISPR–Cas genome editing has the potential to change the landscape of genome editing in lactic acid bacteria, and other Gram-positive bacteria.     

Structural basis for the endoribonuclease activity of the type III-A CRISPR-associated protein Csm6

Prokaryotic CRISPR–Cas systems provide an RNA-guided mechanism for genome defense against mobile genetic elements such as viruses and plasmids. In type III-A CRISPR–Cas systems, the RNA-guided multisubunit Csm effector complex targets both single-stranded RNAs and double-stranded DNAs. In addition to the Csm complex, efficient anti-plasmid immunity mediated by type III-A systems also requires the CRISPR-associated protein Csm6. Here we report the crystal structure of Csm6 from Thermus thermophilus and show that the protein is a ssRNA-specific endoribonuclease. The structure reveals a dimeric architecture generated by interactions involving the N-terminal CARF and C-terminal HEPN domains. HEPN domain dimerization leads to the formation of a composite ribonuclease active site. Consistently, mutations of invariant active site residues impair catalytic activity in vitro. We further show that the ribonuclease activity of Csm6 is conserved across orthologs, suggesting that it plays an important functional role in CRISPR–Cas systems. The dimer interface of the CARF domains features a conserved electropositive pocket that may function as a ligand-binding site for allosteric control of ribonuclease activity. Altogether, our work suggests that Csm6 proteins provide an auxiliary RNA-targeting interference mechanism in type III-A CRISPR–Cas systems that operates in conjunction with the RNA- and DNA-targeting endonuclease activities of the Csm effector complex.     

Prophages are associated with extensive CRISPR–Cas auto-immunity

CRISPR–Cas systems require discriminating self from non-self DNA during adaptation and interference. Yet, multiple cases have been reported of bacteria containing self-targeting spacers (STS), i.e. CRISPR spacers targeting protospacers on the same genome. STS has been suggested to reflect potential auto-immunity as an unwanted side effect of CRISPR–Cas defense, or a regulatory mechanism for gene expression. Here we investigated the incidence, distribution, and evasion of STS in over 100 000 bacterial genomes. We found STS in all CRISPR–Cas types and in one fifth of all CRISPR-carrying bacteria. Notably, up to 40% of I-B and I-F CRISPR–Cas systems contained STS. We observed that STS-containing genomes almost always carry a prophage and that STS map to prophage regions in more than half of the cases. Despite carrying STS, genetic deterioration of CRISPR–Cas systems appears to be rare, suggesting a level of escape from the potentially deleterious effects of STS by other mechanisms such as anti-CRISPR proteins and CRISPR target mutations. We propose a scenario where it is common to acquire an STS against a prophage, and this may trigger more extensive STS buildup by primed spacer acquisition in type I systems, without detrimental autoimmunity effects as mechanisms of auto-immunity evasion create tolerance to STS-targeted prophages.     

Customized optical mapping by CRISPR–Cas9 mediated DNA labeling with multiple sgRNAs

Whole-genome mapping technologies have been developed as a complementary tool to provide scaffolds for genome assembly and structural variation analysis (1,2). We recently introduced a novel DNA labeling strategy based on a CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing system, which can target any 20bp sequences. The labeling strategy is specifically useful in targeting repetitive sequences, and sequences not accessible to other labeling methods. In this report, we present customized mapping strategies that extend the applications of CRISPR–Cas9 DNA labeling. We first design a CRISPR–Cas9 labeling strategy to interrogate and differentiate the single allele differences in NGG protospacer adjacent motifs (PAM sequence). Combined with sequence motif labeling, we can pinpoint the single-base differences in highly conserved sequences. In the second strategy, we design mapping patterns across a genome by selecting sets of specific single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs) for labeling multiple loci of a genomic region or a whole genome. By developing and optimizing a single tube synthesis of multiple sgRNAs, we demonstrate the utility of CRISPR–Cas9 mapping with 162 sgRNAs targeting the 2Mb Haemophilus influenzae chromosome. These CRISPR–Cas9 mapping approaches could be particularly useful for applications in defining long-distance haplotypes and pinpointing the breakpoints in large structural variants in complex genomes and microbial mixtures.     

No evidence of inhibition of horizontal gene transfer by CRISPR–Cas on evolutionary timescales

The CRISPR (clustered, regularly, interspaced, short, palindromic repeats)–Cas (CRISPR-associated genes) systems of archaea and bacteria provide adaptive immunity against viruses and other selfish elements and are believed to curtail horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Limiting acquisition of new genetic material could be one of the sources of the fitness cost of CRISPR–Cas maintenance and one of the causes of the patchy distribution of CRISPR–Cas among bacteria, and across environments. We sought to test the hypothesis that the activity of CRISPR–Cas in microbes is negatively correlated with the extent of recent HGT. Using three independent measures of HGT, we found no significant dependence between the length of CRISPR arrays, which reflects the activity of the immune system, and the estimated number of recent HGT events. In contrast, we observed a significant negative dependence between the estimated extent of HGT and growth temperature of microbes, which could be explained by the lower genetic diversity in hotter environments. We hypothesize that the relevant events in the evolution of resistance to mobile elements and proclivity for HGT, to which CRISPR–Cas systems seem to substantially contribute, occur on the population scale rather than on the timescale of species evolution.     

Detection and characterization of spacer integration intermediates in type I-E CRISPR–Cas system

The adaptation against foreign nucleic acids by the CRISPR–Cas system (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and CRISPR-associated proteins) depends on the insertion of foreign nucleic acid-derived sequences into the CRISPR array as novel spacers by still unknown mechanism. We identified and characterized in Escherichia coli intermediate states of spacer integration and mapped the integration site at the chromosomal CRISPR array in vivo. The results show that the insertion of new spacers occurs by site-specific nicking at both strands of the leader proximal repeat in a staggered way and is accompanied by joining of the resulting 5′-ends of the repeat strands with the 3′-ends of the incoming spacer. This concerted cleavage-ligation reaction depends on the metal-binding center of Cas1 protein and requires the presence of Cas2. By acquisition assays using plasmid-located CRISPR array with mutated repeat sequences, we demonstrate that the primary sequence of the first repeat is crucial for cleavage of the CRISPR array and the ligation of new spacer DNA.     

Integration of diverse DNA substrates by a casposase can be targeted to R-loops in vitro by its fusion to Cas9

CRISPR systems build adaptive immunity against mobile genetic elements by DNA capture and integration catalysed by Cas1–Cas2 protein complexes. Recent studies suggested that CRISPR repeats and adaptation module originated from a novel type of DNA transposons called casposons. Casposons encode a Cas1 homologue called casposase that alone integrates into target molecules single and double-stranded DNA containing terminal inverted repeats (TIRs) from casposons. A recent study showed Methanosarcina mazei casposase is able to integrate random DNA oligonucleotides, followed up in this work using Acidoprofundum boonei casposase, from which we also observe promiscuous substrate integration. Here we first show that the substrate flexibility of Acidoprofundum boonei casposase extends to random integration of DNA without TIRs, including integration of a functional gene. We then used this to investigate targeting of the casposase-catalysed DNA integration reactions to specific DNA sites that would allow insertion of defined DNA payloads. Casposase–Cas9 fusions were engineered that were catalytically proficient in vitro and generated RNA-guided DNA integration products from short synthetic DNA or a gene, with or without TIRs. However, DNA integration could still occur unguided due to the competing background activity of the casposase moiety. Expression of Casposase-dCas9 in Escherichia coli cells effectively targeted chromosomal and plasmid lacZ revealed by reduced β-galactosidase activity but DNA integration was not detected. The promiscuous substrate integration properties of casposases make them potential DNA insertion tools. The Casposase–dCas9 fusion protein may serves as a prototype for development in genetic editing for DNA insertion that is independent of homology-directed DNA repair.     

Decoupling the bridge helix of Cas12a results in a reduced trimming activity,increased mismatch sensitivity and impaired conformational transitions

The widespread and versatile prokaryotic CRISPR–Cas systems (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and associated Cas proteins) constitute powerful weapons against foreign nucleic acids. Recently, the single-effector nuclease Cas12a that belongs to the type V CRISPR–Cas system was added to the Cas enzymes repertoire employed for gene editing purposes. Cas12a is a bilobal enzyme composed of the REC and Nuc lobe connected by the wedge, REC1 domain and bridge helix (BH). We generated BH variants and integrated biochemical and single-molecule FRET (smFRET) studies to elucidate the role of the BH for the enzymatic activity and conformational flexibility of Francisella novicida Cas12a. We demonstrate that the BH impacts the trimming activity and mismatch sensitivity of Cas12a resulting in Cas12a variants with improved cleavage accuracy. smFRET measurements reveal the hitherto unknown open and closed state of apo Cas12a. BH variants preferentially adopt the open state. Transition to the closed state of the Cas12a-crRNA complex is inefficient in BH variants but the semi-closed state of the ternary complex can be adopted even if the BH is deleted in its entirety. Taken together, these insights reveal that the BH is a structural element that influences the catalytic activity and impacts conformational transitions of FnCas12a.     

Global detection of DNA repair outcomes induced by CRISPR–Cas9

CRISPR–Cas9 generates double-stranded DNA breaks (DSBs) to activate cellular DNA repair pathways for genome editing. The repair of DSBs leads to small insertions or deletions (indels) and other complex byproducts, including large deletions and chromosomal translocations. Indels are well understood to disrupt target genes, while the other deleterious byproducts remain elusive. We developed a new in silico analysis pipeline for the previously described primer-extension-mediated sequencing assay to comprehensively characterize CRISPR–Cas9-induced DSB repair outcomes in human or mouse cells. We identified tremendous deleterious DSB repair byproducts of CRISPR–Cas9 editing, including large deletions, vector integrations, and chromosomal translocations. We further elucidated the important roles of microhomology, chromosomal interaction, recurrent DSBs, and DSB repair pathways in the generation of these byproducts. Our findings provide an extra dimension for genome editing safety besides off-targets. And caution should be exercised to avoid not only off-target damages but also deleterious DSB repair byproducts during genome editing.