CRISPR technologies : a toolkit for making genetically intractable microbes tractable

Genetic manipulation of microbial species has been critical in dissecting their biology — yet many microbial species lacked robust tools for comprehensive genetic analysis until the advent of CRISPR-based techniques. Here, we review CRISPR-related advances that have enabled genome engineering and genetic analysis of difficult-to-manipulate microbial organisms, with an emphasis on mycobacteria, fungi, and parasites. We discuss how CRISPR-based analyses in these organisms have uncovered novel gene functions, dissected genetic interaction networks, and identified virulence factors. Introduction Microbial species represent the most abundant and diverse organisms on Earth, with critical roles in environmental homeostasis, industrial manufacturing, agriculture, and human health and disease. Unravelling the complex biology of these microorganisms has largely been dependent on our ability to manipulate them genetically. Genetic analysis of microbial organisms has a long history of pioneering and innovative experiments, including the formative discovery of transformation in ​Streptococcus pneumoniae​1​ and the subsequent identification of DNA as the critical carrier of genetic information​2​. The earliest accounts of genetic engineering involved the generation of transgenic ​Escherichia coli​ lineages through transformation of a recombinant plasmid encoding an antibiotic-resistance gene​3​. Since then, genetic manipulation of microbial organisms has been critical for the development of new biotechnologies and the study of microbial organisms themselves. Recent advances in molecular techniques have improved our ability to perform genetic manipulation in diverse microbial organisms. Modern technology platforms currently exist for functional genomic analysis and systems-level forward and reverse genetics in many microbial species, particularly model organisms. Such platforms include genome-wide genetic deletion libraries in ​E. coli​4​, whole-genome single-deletion​5​ and double-deletion​6​ libraries in the model yeast ​Saccharomyces cerevisiae​, and transposon sequencing for systems-level genetic analysis of several bacterial species​7​, including ​Salmonella​ ​enterica​8​ and ​Pseudomonas aeruginosa​9​. These biotechnologies have enabled large-scale genetic analyses to assess gene function and identify genetic interactions. Despite advances in technologies for systems-level functional genomic analysis in many microbial species, other microorganisms have remained relatively difficult to engineer genetically, which has hindered our potential to unlock their secrets. New advances in genomic manipulation — particularly CRISPR-Cas-based tools — have revolutionized our ability to perform targeted genetic manipulations in a diversity of organisms and been instrumental in enabling us to alter the genomes of even the most notoriously intractable microbial species. CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, are a group of DNA sequences in prokaryotes that play an important role in bacterial and archaeal immunity, and have been co-opted for genome editing across the tree of life​10,11​. In type II CRISPR systems, “spacer” sequences from CRISPR loci (derived from viral, plasmid or other foreign DNA which have been inserted into the CRISPR locus) are transcribed into RNA, and processed into small CRISPR RNAs (crRNAs), which then pair with CRISPR-associated (Cas) proteins and a trans-activating crRNA (tracrRNA). Together, this complex is targeted to “protospacer” sequences based on complementarity to the crRNA sequence and the presence of a protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) site. Cas proteins are endonucleases that cause double-strand breaks (DSBs) at the target protospacer locus. While this system is used by prokaryotes to detect and cleave invading foreign DNA, it can also be exploited as a biotechnology tool for precise genome editing at a targeted locus. This was first demonstrated using the Cas9 protein from ​Streptococcus pyogenes​ and a modified chimeric single-guide RNA (sgRNA), which fused together the crRNA and tracrRNA. By manipulating the sequence of this sgRNA, Cas9 could be programmed to target specific DNA sequences for cleavage, generating a DSB​10​. While sgRNA targeting is relatively flexible, the requirement of a PAM sequence can limit the availability of genomic target sites. Furthermore, organisms with extreme skew in GC or AT richness will influence whether or not a particular PAM is likely to be present at a high frequency. Once a DSB is generated, the manner in which it is repaired is responsible for the observed genome editing outcomes: breaks can be repaired by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) that can result in insertions or deletions (indels) at the target locus, by alternative NHEJ pathways such as microhomology-mediated end joining that can result in genetic mutations, deletions, and translocations, or by homology-directed repair (HDR) if a donor DNA template with homology to the target locus is supplied. The latter strategy allows for precise mutations or alterations at the target locus. A property of Cas9 targeting in many microbial species is that the generated DSBs tends to be poorly repaired by NHEJ mechanisms, despite the presence of such machinery within the genome of the targeted organism​12​. In the case where a homologous donor is simultaneously provided, Cas9 is able to negatively select against any unmodified cells when targeted to a genomic locus​13​. In contrast, if Cas9 is directed towards a episomal plasmid the element will be lost from the resulting population of Cas9 expressing cells​14,15​. Newer variants of this technology such as CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) exploit a nuclease-dead version of the Cas9 enzyme (dCas9) targeted to specific genomic loci by sgRNAs to achieve steric hindrance of RNA polymerase, thus blocking transcription initiation or elongation​16–18​. Together, these groundbreaking technologies have been used to alter the sequence and modulate the expression of genes in a remarkably wide variety of species​11​. Here we review advances in CRISPR-based techniques for rigorous genetic analysis of otherwise difficult-to-work-with microbial organisms. We describe challenges and limitations associated with using traditional methods for genetic manipulation, and highlight how CRISPR-based technologies are helping to overcome these biological and technological hurdles. We focus on recent developments in CRISPR-based techniques for the analysis of genetically unwieldy microbial organisms, including mycobacteria, microbial fungi, and eukaryotic parasites, and explain how CRISPR-based work in these organisms has been instrumental for generating genetic mutants and performing functional genomic analysis, dissecting genetic interaction networks, and conducting complex genome engineering. We close by discussing how ongoing technological advances in CRISPR-based platforms will undoubtedly yield exciting new capabilities for the study of the microbial world. Generating microbial mutants with CRISPR A critical component of functional genomic analysis is the ability to generate genetic mutations or deletions, or otherwise knock-down gene function so as to assess resultant phenotypes. This reverse genetic analysis strategy has been instrumental in dissecting genetic perturbations and understanding gene function in many microbes. However, similar analysis in genetically unwieldy microbial organisms has lagged behind, due to limitations associated with generating genetic perturbations in such organisms. A common biological limitation amongst intractable microorganisms is inefficient homologous recombination, which is often needed for classic genetic manipulation techniques. Low rates of homologous recombination and the requirement for very long stretches of homologous sequence for effective recombination have hindered the generation of genetic mutants in many mycobacterial​19,20​, fungal​21–23​, and parasitic microbes​24–27​. For targeted gene disruption, CRISPR-based editing can bypass the need to use traditional homologous recombination-based approaches, since CRISPR-Cas-induced DSBs can be repaired via NHEJ, in a manner that is mutagenic to the target locus and independent of homologous recombination (Figure 1a). To introduce a precise genetic alteration, CRISPR-Cas-based editing systems can improve the efficiency of homologous recombination-based genome editing through the generation of a genomic DSB and stimulating homologous recombination at the locus of interest​24,28–31​. Additionally, CRISPRi can bypass the need to make targeted mutations in the genome, by enabling users to simply “knock down” gene expression for their target of interest (Figure 1b). This approach has proven itself particularly useful in cases when one wants to study a gene that is essential for cell growth​32,33​. These CRISPR-based techniques have all been successfully implemented to expand the genetic toolkit available for genetic perturbation and analysis in otherwise unwieldy microbial organisms. Genomic perturbations using CRISPR technologies have greatly facilitated functional genomic analysis in ​Mycobacterium tuberculosis ​— a notoriously difficult-to-manipulate pathogen and the causative agent of tuberculosis. CRISPRi techniques have bypassed the need for homologous recombination and allowed precise knock-down expression of ​M. tuberculosis​ genes​34–36​. The ability to genetically regulate genes to confirm their essentiality and study their function has important applications, but has been difficult in ​Mycobacteria​ with traditional methods, where much of the genome remains uncharacterized. By optimizing a novel CRISPRi platform in ​Mycobacteria​, the necessity of several putative essential genes, including those involved in folate metabolism was readily determined​37​ (Figure 1b). Given the scalable nature of this platform, future high-throughput CRISPRi repression studies

[1]  I. Matsoukas Commentary: Programmable base editing of A·T to G·C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage , 2018, Front. Genet..

[2]  R. Tarleton,et al.  Rapid, Selection-Free, High-Efficiency Genome Editing in Protozoan Parasites Using CRISPR-Cas9 Ribonucleoproteins , 2017, mBio.

[3]  Alan R. Davidson,et al.  Anti-CRISPR: discovery, mechanism and function , 2017, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[4]  M. Weekes,et al.  CRISPR/Cas9 knockouts reveal genetic interaction between strain-transcendent erythrocyte determinants of Plasmodium falciparum invasion , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  James J. Collins,et al.  A CRISPR Cas9-based gene drive platform for genetic interaction analysis in Candida albicans , 2017, Nature Microbiology.

[6]  K. Sanyal,et al.  Epigenetic determinants of phenotypic plasticity in Candida albicans , 2017 .

[7]  John A. Calarco,et al.  CRISPR-mediated genetic interaction profiling identifies RNA binding proteins controlling metazoan fitness , 2017, eLife.

[8]  D. Hogan,et al.  Use of RNA-Protein Complexes for Genome Editing in Non-albicans Candida Species , 2017, mSphere.

[9]  Mazhar Adli,et al.  CRISPR-STOP: gene silencing through base-editing-induced nonsense mutations , 2017, Nature Methods.

[10]  A. Bassuk,et al.  Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo , 2017, Nature Methods.

[11]  I. Wheeldon,et al.  Standardized Markerless Gene Integration for Pathway Engineering in Yarrowia lipolytica. , 2017, ACS synthetic biology.

[12]  Chaoguang Tian,et al.  Development of a genome-editing CRISPR/Cas9 system in thermophilic fungal Myceliophthora species and its application to hyper-cellulase production strain engineering , 2017, Biotechnology for Biofuels.

[13]  George M. Church,et al.  Programmable transcriptional repression in mycobacteria using an orthogonal CRISPR interference platform , 2016, Nature Microbiology.

[14]  F. Jossinet,et al.  Genome engineering in the yeast pathogen Candida glabrata using the CRISPR-Cas9 system , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[15]  Michael Köpke,et al.  Genome editing of Clostridium autoethanogenum using CRISPR/Cas9 , 2016, Biotechnology for Biofuels.

[16]  T. Vogl,et al.  Combinatorial optimization of CRISPR/Cas9 expression enables precision genome engineering in the methylotrophic yeast Pichia pastoris. , 2016, Journal of biotechnology.

[17]  Adam P. Rosebrock,et al.  A global genetic interaction network maps a wiring diagram of cellular function , 2016, Science.

[18]  Yonatan Stelzer,et al.  Editing DNA Methylation in the Mammalian Genome , 2016, Cell.

[19]  Tim Wang,et al.  A Genome-wide CRISPR Screen in Toxoplasma Identifies Essential Apicomplexan Genes , 2016, Cell.

[20]  A. Singh,et al.  Investigating essential gene function in Mycobacterium tuberculosis using an efficient CRISPR interference system , 2016, Nucleic acids research.

[21]  M. Kobor,et al.  Epigenetics: A New Model for Intracellular Parasite-Host Cell Regulation. , 2016, Trends in parasitology.

[22]  A. Mitchell,et al.  Candida albicans Gene Deletion with a Transient CRISPR-Cas9 System , 2016, mSphere.

[23]  Yang Gu,et al.  CRISPR/Cas9-Based Efficient Genome Editing in Clostridium ljungdahlii, an Autotrophic Gas-Fermenting Bacterium. , 2016, ACS synthetic biology.

[24]  John S. Hawkins,et al.  A Comprehensive, CRISPR-based Functional Analysis of Essential Genes in Bacteria , 2016, Cell.

[25]  F. Seeber Faculty Opinions recommendation of Efficient CRISPR-Cas9-mediated genome editing in Plasmodium falciparum. , 2016 .

[26]  Murray Moo-Young,et al.  Harnessing heterologous and endogenous CRISPR-Cas machineries for efficient markerless genome editing in Clostridium , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[27]  A. Driessen,et al.  CRISPR/Cas9 Based Genome Editing of Penicillium chrysogenum. , 2016, ACS synthetic biology.

[28]  H. Blaschek,et al.  Bacterial Genome Editing with CRISPR-Cas9: Deletion, Integration, Single Nucleotide Modification, and Desirable "Clean" Mutant Selection in Clostridium beijerinckii as an Example. , 2016, ACS synthetic biology.

[29]  David R. Liu,et al.  Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage , 2016, Nature.

[30]  Christian A. Ross,et al.  A role for the bacterial GATC methylome in antibiotic stress survival , 2016, Nature Genetics.

[31]  Yan Zhang,et al.  Harnessing Type I and Type III CRISPR-Cas systems for genome editing , 2015, Nucleic acids research.

[32]  Lei S. Qi,et al.  The New State of the Art: Cas9 for Gene Activation and Repression , 2015, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[33]  J. Dunlap,et al.  Development of the CRISPR/Cas9 System for Targeted Gene Disruption in Aspergillus fumigatus , 2015, Eukaryotic Cell.

[34]  G. Matlashewski,et al.  CRISPR-Cas9-Mediated Genome Editing in Leishmania donovani , 2015, mBio.

[35]  U. Mortensen,et al.  A CRISPR-Cas9 System for Genetic Engineering of Filamentous Fungi , 2015, PloS one.

[36]  U. Qimron,et al.  Temperate and lytic bacteriophages programmed to sensitize and kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  G. Zou,et al.  Efficient genome editing in filamentous fungus Trichoderma reesei using the CRISPR/Cas9 system , 2015, Cell Discovery.

[38]  Gerald R. Fink,et al.  A Candida albicans CRISPR system permits genetic engineering of essential genes and gene families , 2015, Science Advances.

[39]  Nisheeth Agarwal,et al.  Gene silencing by CRISPR interference in mycobacteria , 2015, Nature Communications.

[40]  J. Soppa Polyploidy in Archaea and Bacteria: About Desiccation Resistance, Giant Cell Size, Long-Term Survival, Enforcement by a Eukaryotic Host and Additional Aspects , 2015, Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology.

[41]  S. P. Kurup,et al.  CRISPR-Cas9-Mediated Single-Gene and Gene Family Disruption in Trypanosoma cruzi , 2014, mBio.

[42]  Huimin Zhao,et al.  High-Efficiency Multiplex Genome Editing of Streptomyces Species Using an Engineered CRISPR/Cas System , 2014, ACS synthetic biology.

[43]  A. R. Ávila,et al.  Conditional removal of selectable markers in Trypanosoma cruzi using a site-specific recombination tool: proof of concept. , 2014, Molecular and biochemical parasitology.

[44]  John R. Haliburton,et al.  Specific Gene Repression by CRISPRi System Transferred through Bacterial Conjugation , 2014, ACS synthetic biology.

[45]  Max A. Horlbeck,et al.  Genome-Scale CRISPR-Mediated Control of Gene Repression and Activation , 2014, Cell.

[46]  Timothy K Lu,et al.  Sequence-specific antimicrobials using efficiently delivered RNA-guided nucleases , 2014, Nature Biotechnology.

[47]  Norbert Perrimon,et al.  RNAi screening comes of age: improved techniques and complementary approaches , 2014, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[48]  D. C. Swarts,et al.  Prokaryotic Argonautes - variations on the RNA interference theme , 2014, Microbial cell.

[49]  Jeffry D. Sander,et al.  CRISPR-Cas systems for editing, regulating and targeting genomes , 2014, Nature Biotechnology.

[50]  Philip M. Kim,et al.  Quantitative Genome-Wide Genetic Interaction Screens Reveal Global Epistatic Relationships of Protein Complexes in Escherichia coli , 2014, PLoS genetics.

[51]  George M. Church,et al.  Multiplex and homologous recombination–mediated genome editing in Arabidopsis and Nicotiana benthamiana using guide RNA and Cas9 , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[52]  C. Barbas,et al.  ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering. , 2013, Trends in biotechnology.

[53]  George M. Church,et al.  Heritable genome editing in C. elegans via a CRISPR-Cas9 system , 2013, Nature Methods.

[54]  A. Camilli,et al.  Transposon insertion sequencing: a new tool for systems-level analysis of microorganisms , 2013, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[55]  James E. DiCarlo,et al.  RNA-Guided Human Genome Engineering via Cas9 , 2013, Science.

[56]  J. Doudna,et al.  A Programmable Dual-RNA–Guided DNA Endonuclease in Adaptive Bacterial Immunity , 2012, Science.

[57]  Nicole Rusk Microbiology: Prokaryotic RNAi , 2012, Nature Methods.

[58]  E. Ullu,et al.  RNA Interference in Protozoan Parasites: Achievements and Challenges , 2011, Eukaryotic Cell.

[59]  Susan Carpenter,et al.  Modularly assembled designer TAL effector nucleases for targeted gene knockout and gene replacement in eukaryotes , 2011, Nucleic acids research.

[60]  Jay Shendure,et al.  Genome-Scale Identification of Resistance Functions in Pseudomonas aeruginosa Using Tn-seq , 2011, mBio.

[61]  M. Tomita,et al.  An Extreme Thermophile, Thermus thermophilus, Is a Polyploid Bacterium , 2010, Journal of bacteriology.

[62]  J. Wain,et al.  Simultaneous assay of every Salmonella Typhi gene using one million transposon mutants. , 2009, Genome research.

[63]  A. Camilli,et al.  Tn-seq; high-throughput parallel sequencing for fitness and genetic interaction studies in microorganisms , 2009, Nature Methods.

[64]  Manuel A. S. Santos,et al.  Evolution of pathogenicity and sexual reproduction in eight Candida genomes , 2009, Nature.

[65]  A. Cowman,et al.  Molecular genetics and comparative genomics reveal RNAi is not functional in malaria parasites , 2009, Nucleic acids research.

[66]  E. Koonin,et al.  Origins and evolution of eukaryotic RNA interference. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[67]  P. Gilson,et al.  Molecular genetic tools in Toxoplasma and Plasmodium: achievements and future needs. , 2007, Current opinion in microbiology.

[68]  H. Mori,et al.  Construction of Escherichia coli K-12 in-frame, single-gene knockout mutants: the Keio collection , 2006, Molecular systems biology.

[69]  H. Mori,et al.  Complete set of ORF clones of Escherichia coli ASKA library (a complete set of E. coli K-12 ORF archive): unique resources for biological research. , 2006, DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes.

[70]  G. Goldman,et al.  The akuBKU80 Mutant Deficient for Nonhomologous End Joining Is a Powerful Tool for Analyzing Pathogenicity in Aspergillus fumigatus , 2006, Eukaryotic Cell.

[71]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Functional profiling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome , 2002, Nature.

[72]  D. Roos,et al.  Homologous recombination and gene replacement at the dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase locus in Toxoplasma gondii. , 1994, Molecular and biochemical parasitology.

[73]  O. Avery,et al.  Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of pneumococcal types. Inductions of transformation by a desoxyribonucleic acid fraction isolated from pneumococcus type III , 1979, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[74]  A. C. Chang,et al.  Construction of biologically functional bacterial plasmids in vitro. , 1973, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[75]  F. Griffith The Significance of Pneumococcal Types , 1928, Journal of Hygiene.

[76]  B. Striepen,et al.  Genetic manipulation of Toxoplasma gondii , 2020, Toxoplasma gondii.

[77]  Feng Zhang,et al.  rNA-guided editing of bacterial genomes using crisPr-cas systems , 2016 .

[78]  Howard Hughes Medical,et al.  Beyond editing: repurposing CRISPR-Cas9 for precision genome regulation and interrogation , 2015 .

[79]  Kashyap Dave,et al.  Expanding the Repertoire of Selectable Markers for Aspergillus Transformation , 2015 .

[80]  S. Kendall,et al.  Construction of targeted mycobacterial mutants by homologous recombination. , 2009, Methods in molecular biology.

[81]  K. Plummer,et al.  Approaches to functional genomics in filamentous fungi , 2006, Cell Research.

[82]  Peter G Schultz,et al.  A genome-wide overexpression screen in yeast for small-molecule target identification. , 2005, Chemistry & biology.