Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more
Open Access

CRISPR sabotage

Genome Biology201516:248

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0820-0

Published: 9 November 2015

Abstract

The biological arms race generally involves the rapid co-evolution of anti-virus systems in host organisms and of anti-anti-virus systems in their viral parasites. The CRISPR-Cas system is an example of a prokaryotic immune system in which such co-evolution occurs, as was recently demonstrated by the characterization of a set of viral anti-CRISPR proteins.

Introduction

Viruses are mobile genetic elements that rely on infecting cellular organisms (eukaryotes or prokaryotes) for replication and proliferation. These viral invasions often reduce the fitness of their host, sometimes leading to host death. This potential threat generates a selective pressure on host organisms to evolve systems that neutralize viral infections. When a protective barrier is successfully established, the pressure to survive is placed back on the parasite. After the rapidly evolving virus has found a way to counteract the defense barrier, the host has to start all over again. The continuous development and adjustment of appropriate infection and resistance strategies results in a rapid co-evolution of viral offence systems and host defense systems. Such a biological arms race implies that never-ending evolution is required for both predator and prey to maintain a constant fitness level; this situation has been described in evolutionary biology as the Red Queen hypothesis [1, 2].

Interference systems and suppression of RNA interference

To counteract invasions by pathogenic viruses, many vertebrate animals possess adaptive immune systems consisting of specific antibody proteins, whereas many plants and invertebrate animals use RNA-guided RNA interference (RNAi) systems that efficiently recognize and neutralize invading RNA. Likewise, a range of different defense systems to counteract viral attack have been discovered in prokaryotes, both bacteria and archaea. The best-characterized prokaryotic innate immune system concerns restriction/modification (R/M) enzymes. During the past decade, new classes of bacterial defense systems have been discovered that are based on RNA or DNA interference. A ground-breaking discovery has been the elucidation of CRISPR-Cas (clusters of regularly interspaced palindromic repeats and associated proteins), an adaptive immunity system in bacteria and archaea [3]. The CRISPR-Cas system acquires short DNA sequences from invading genetic elements, and stores them in CRISPR arrays in the host genome. Upon an infection by a previously encountered intruder, the CRISPR memory is expressed as small CRISPR RNAs (crRNAs) that guide surveillance complexes to complementary invading nucleic acids, eventually resulting in neutralization of the invasion. CRISPR-Cas systems are classified either as Class-1 systems, which have multi-subunit crRNA–effector complexes (e.g., Cascade and CMR), or as Class-2 systems, which have single protein crRNA–effector complexes (e.g., Cas9 and Cpf1) [4].

Many eukaryotic viruses — for example, plant and insect viruses — carry suppressors of RNAi on their viral genomes to sabotage the RNAi immune system (Fig. 1a). The mechanisms that these suppressors employ are very diverse, ranging from the inhibition of small interfering RNA (siRNA) production, to the formation of unproductive siRNA, sequestering of host siRNA, interference with host gene regulation, and direct inhibition or inactivation of RNAi protein components [57].
Fig. 1

Virus-encoded inhibitors of antiviral defense systems. a RNA viruses that infect various plants, insects and mammals encode proteins that inhibit essential proteins in the RNA interference pathway, such as Dicer and Argonaute (AGO), a subunit of the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC). Furthermore, these viruses may produce proteins that will mask double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) so that Dicer activity does not occur or that will sequester any small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecules produced. b Bacteriophage P1 co-injects DarA and DarB to mask restriction sites in the phage genome. Bacteriophage T7 encodes Ocr, which mimics the DNA phosphate backbone and sequesters both the EcoKI restriction enzyme (R) and its corresponding methylase (M). Bacteriophage Lambda encodes Ral, which hyperactivates the DNA methylase to protect phage DNA before it can be restricted. c Anti-CRISPR proteins encoded by Pseudomonas prophages (AcrF1–AcrF3) bind CRISPR-RNA–effector complexes and the nuclease Cas3 to prevent them from binding and cleaving target dsDNAs

Suppression of restriction/modification systems and anti-CRISPR proteins

Several bacteriophages encode small proteins that inhibit or modulate the activity of restriction and DNA modification systems [8] (Fig. 1b). Proteins such as DarA and DarB from bacteriophage P1 are co-injected with phage DNA into Escherichia coli cells to protect sensitive restriction sites immediately upon entry. Bacteriophage T7 encodes the Ocr protein, the structure of which mimics double-stranded DNA, and sequesters both the restriction endonuclease EcoKI and its corresponding methylase. Bacteriophage Lambda employs a strategy of producing a protein called Ral that activates the host’s DNA methylase to provide rapid protection from restriction.

Recently, dedicated viral proteins have been identified that suppress CRISPR immunity (reviewed by Wiedenheft [6]). Analyses of Pseudomonas aeruginosa-specific phages have resulted in the identification of a range of anti-CRISPR (Acr) protein variants [911]. Acr proteins were initially discovered by analysis of Pseudomonas strains that contain prophages in their chromosome. Although most of these lysogenic strains have a functional Type I-F CRISPR-Cas system (and thus are phage resistant), some of these systems appeared to be inactive, even in the presence of phage-targeting spacers. Molecular analyses of the inactive strains revealed a number of small phage-encoded proteins that were responsible for the observed phage-sensitive phenotype [9]. In a recent follow-up study, it was demonstrated that three selected Acr proteins inhibit the Type I-F CRISPR-Cas system through different mechanisms (Fig. 1c): two suppressors bind to different subunits of the Cascade-like complex to block target DNA binding, whereas the third Acr binds the Cas3 protein to prevent nuclease-helicase activity that is required for target DNA degradation [10]. The tested Acr proteins are highly specific for the Pseudomonas I-F system; no suppression was observed in the E. coli I-F system or in the Pseudomonas I-E system. A separate study [11] revealed that some of the Pseudomonas prophages that possess I-F suppressor genes also encode small suppressor proteins that specifically target the Pseudomonas I-E system, but not the E. coli Type I-E system.

Outlook

It is expected that all essential steps of antiviral defense systems are potential targets for dedicated viral inhibitors, as this will provide selective advantage for the virus. To date, viral suppressors have been discovered for only two CRISPR-Cas subtypes, but specific phage-encoded inhibitors most probably exist for all other CRISPR systems as well. This constant huge pressure on CRISPR-Cas systems is an important driving force that would explain their exceptional mutation rates. This rapid evolution is the only way to keep the Red Queen running.

Abbreviations

Acr: 

anti-CRISPR

crRNA: 

CRISPR RNA

R/M: 

restriction/modification

RNAi: 

RNA interference

siRNA: 

small interfering RNA

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Marnix Vlot for help with the illustrations.

Funding

JO is financially supported by a TOP grant (854.10.003) from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO)). SJJB is supported by an NWO Vidi grant (864.11.005) and a European Research Council (ERC) Stg grant (639707).

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Laboratory of Microbiology, Wageningen University

References

  1. Van Valen L. A new evolutionary law. Evol Theor. 1973;1:1–30.Google Scholar
  2. Stern A, Sorek R. The phage-host arms race: shaping the evolution of microbes. Bioessays. 2011;33:43–51.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrangou R, Fremaux C, Deveau H, Richards M, Boyaval P, Moineau S, et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science. 2007;315:1709–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Makarova KS, Wolf YI, Alkhnbashi OS, Costa F, Shah SA, Saunders SJ, et al. An updated evolutionary classification of CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;13:722–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Voinnet O. Induction and suppression of RNA silencing: insights from viral infections. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6:206–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wiedenheft B. In defense of phage: viral suppressors of CRISPR-mediated adaptive immunity in bacteria. RNA Biol. 2013;10:886–90.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronkhorst AW, Van Rij RP. The long and short of antiviral defense: small RNA-based immunity in insects. Curr Opin Virol. 2014;7:19–28.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Samson JE, Magadán AH, Sabri M, Moineau S. Revenge of the phages: defeating bacterial defences. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2013;11:675–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bondy-Denomy J, Pawluk A, Maxwell KL, Davidson AR. Bacteriophage genes that inactivate the CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system. Nature. 2013;493:429–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bondy-Denomy J, Garcia B, Strum S, Du M, Rollins MF, Hidalgo-Reyes Y, et al. Multiple mechanisms for CRISPR-Cas inhibition by anti-CRISPR proteins. Nature. 2015;526:136–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Pawluk A, Bondy-Denomy J, Cheung VH, Maxwell KL, Davidson AR. A new group of phage anti-CRISPR genes inhibits the type I-E CRISPR-Cas system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. MBio. 2014;5:e00896.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© van der Oost and Brouns. 2015

Advertisement