CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyBacteriophages and microbial interactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

Distribution and molecular evolution of the anti-CRISPR family AcrIF7

Open access
Figueroa, Wendy, Cazares, Adrian, Cazares, Daniel, Wu, Yi, de la Cruz, Ana, Welch, Martin, Kameyama, Luis, Nobrega, Franklin L., Guarneros, Gabriel·2023·PLOS Biology
DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002072PMC PMC10155984

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Anti-clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPRs) are proteins capable of blocking CRISPR-Cas systems and typically their genes are located on mobile genetic elements. Since their discovery, numerous anti-CRISPR families have been identified. However, little is known about the distribution and sequence diversity of members within a family, nor how these traits influence the anti-CRISPR’s function and evolution. Here, we use AcrIF7 to explore the dissemination and molecular evolution of an anti-CRISPR family. We uncovered 5 subclusters and prevalent anti-CRISPR variants within the group. Remarkably, AcrIF7 homologs display high similarity despite their broad geographical, ecological, and temporal distribution. Although mainly associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa , AcrIF7 was identified in distinct genetic backgrounds indicating horizontal dissemination, primarily by phages. Using mutagenesis, we recreated variation observed in databases but also extended the sequence diversity of the group. Characterisation of the variants identified residues key for the anti-CRISPR function and other contributing to its mutational tolerance. Moreover, molecular docking revealed that variants with affected function lose key interactions with its CRISPR-Cas target. Analysis of publicly available data and the generated variants suggests that the dominant AcrIF7 variant corresponds to the minimal and optimal anti-CRISPR selected in the family. Our study provides a blueprint to investigate the molecular evolution of anti-CRISPR families.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002072

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 70 · Cited by 2

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. S Doron, 2018, Systematic discovery of antiphage defense systems in the microbial pangenome, Science, 359
  2. FJM Mojica, 2005, Intervening sequences of regularly spaced prokaryotic repeats derive from foreign genetic elements, J Mol Evol, 60, 174, 10.1007/s00239-004-0046-3 · DOI · Paper page
  3. R Barrangou, 2007, CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes, Science, 315, 1709, 10.1126/science.1138140 · DOI · Paper page
  4. SJJ Brouns, 2008, Small CRISPR RNAs Guide Antiviral Defense in Prokaryotes, Science, 960, 10.1126/science.1159689 · DOI · Paper page
  5. LA Marraffini, 2010, CRISPR interference: RNA-directed adaptive immunity in bacteria and archaea, Nat Rev Genet, 11, 181, 10.1038/nrg2749 · DOI · Paper page
  6. I Grissa, 2007, The CRISPRdb database and tools to display CRISPRs and to generate dictionaries of spacers and repeats, BMC Bioinformatics, 8, 172, 10.1186/1471-2105-8-172 · DOI · Paper page
  7. KC Cady, 2011, Prevalence, conservation and functional analysis of Yersinia and Escherichia CRISPR regions in clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates, Microbiology, 157, 430, 10.1099/mic.0.045732-0 · DOI
  8. A van Belkum, 2015, Phylogenetic Distribution of CRISPR-Cas Systems in Antibiotic-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, MBio, 6, e01796, 10.1128/mBio.01796-15 · DOI
  9. A Stern, 2011, The phage-host arms race: shaping the evolution of microbes, Bioessays, 33, 43, 10.1002/bies.201000071 · DOI
  10. J Bondy-Denomy, 2013, Bacteriophage genes that inactivate the CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system, Nature, 493, 429, 10.1038/nature11723 · DOI
  11. A Pawluk, 2014, A new group of phage anti-CRISPR genes inhibits the type I-E CRISPR-Cas system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, MBio, 5, e00896, 10.1128/mBio.00896-14 · DOI
  12. C Dong, 2018, Anti-CRISPRdb: a comprehensive online resource for anti-CRISPR proteins, Nucleic Acids Res, 46, D393, 10.1093/nar/gkx835 · DOI
  13. R Pinilla-Redondo, 2020, Discovery of multiple anti-CRISPRs highlights anti-defense gene clustering in mobile genetic elements, Nat Commun, 11, 5652, 10.1038/s41467-020-19415-3 · DOI
  14. D Trasanidou, 2019, Keeping crispr in check: diverse mechanisms of phage-encoded anti-crisprs, FEMS Microbiol Lett, 366
  15. J Bondy-Denomy, 2015, Multiple mechanisms for CRISPR-Cas inhibition by anti-CRISPR proteins, Nature, 526, 136, 10.1038/nature15254 · DOI
  16. A Pawluk, 2017, Disabling a Type I-E CRISPR-Cas Nuclease with a Bacteriophage-Encoded Anti-CRISPR Protein, MBio
  17. P Hardouin, 2020, Diversity of molecular mechanisms used by anti-CRISPR proteins: the tip of an iceberg?, Biochem Soc Trans, 48, 507, 10.1042/BST20190638 · DOI
  18. I Kim, 2020, Structural and mechanistic insights into the CRISPR inhibition of AcrIF7, Nucleic Acids Res, 48, 9959, 10.1093/nar/gkaa690 · DOI
  19. KL Maxwell, 2016, The solution structure of an anti-CRISPR protein, Nat Commun, 7, 13134, 10.1038/ncomms13134 · DOI
  20. A Cazares, 2014, Core and accessory genome architecture in a group of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Mu-like phages, BMC Genomics, 15, 1146, 10.1186/1471-2164-15-1146 · DOI
  21. A Pawluk, 2016, Inactivation of CRISPR-Cas systems by anti-CRISPR proteins in diverse bacterial species, Nat Microbiol, 1, 16085, 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.85 · DOI
  22. KC Cady, 2012, The CRISPR/Cas adaptive immune system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa mediates resistance to naturally occurring and engineered phages, J Bacteriol, 194, 5728, 10.1128/JB.01184-12 · DOI
  23. S-H Hong, 2022, The structure of AcrIE4-F7 reveals a common strategy for dual CRISPR inhibition by targeting PAM recognition sites, Nucleic Acids Res, 50, 2363, 10.1093/nar/gkac096 · DOI
  24. TF Jesus, 2019, Plasmid ATLAS: plasmid visual analytics and identification in high-throughput sequencing data, Nucleic Acids Res, 47, D188, 10.1093/nar/gky1073 · DOI
  25. VA Simossis, 2005, PRALINE: a multiple sequence alignment toolbox that integrates homology-extended and secondary structure information, Nucleic Acids Res, 33, W289, 10.1093/nar/gki390 · DOI
  26. M Gouy, 2010, SeaView version 4: A multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building, Mol Biol Evol, 27, 221, 10.1093/molbev/msp259 · DOI
  27. ND Marino, 2018, Discovery of widespread type I and type V CRISPR-Cas inhibitors, Science, 362, 240, 10.1126/science.aau5174 · DOI
  28. J Russel, 2020, CRISPRCasTyper: Automated Identification, Annotation, and Classification of CRISPR-Cas Loci, CRISPR J, 3, 462, 10.1089/crispr.2020.0059 · DOI
  29. AM Waterhouse, 2009, Jalview Version 2—a multiple sequence alignment editor and analysis workbench, Bioinformatics, 25, 1189, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp033 · DOI
  30. L Latino, 2014, A novel Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteriophage, Ab31, a chimera formed from temperate phage PAJU2 and P. putida lytic phage AF: characteristics and mechanism of bacterial resistance, PLoS ONE, 9, e93777, 10.1371/journal.pone.0093777 · DOI
  31. MF Rollins, 2019, Structure Reveals a Mechanism of CRISPR-RNA-Guided Nuclease Recruitment and Anti-CRISPR Viral Mimicry, Mol Cell, 74, 132, 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.02.001 · DOI
  32. TW Guo, 2017, Cryo-EM Structures Reveal Mechanism and Inhibition of DNA Targeting by a CRISPR-Cas Surveillance Complex, Cell, 171, 414, 10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.006 · DOI
  33. C Gabel, 2021, Structural basis for inhibition of the type I-F CRISPR-Cas surveillance complex by AcrIF4, AcrIF7 and AcrIF14, Nucleic Acids Res, 49, 584, 10.1093/nar/gkaa1199 · DOI
  34. C Mahendra, 2020, Broad-spectrum anti-CRISPR proteins facilitate horizontal gene transfer, Nat Microbiol, 5, 620, 10.1038/s41564-020-0692-2 · DOI
  35. AP Hynes, 2018, Widespread anti-CRISPR proteins in virulent bacteriophages inhibit a range of Cas9 proteins, Nat Commun, 9, 2919, 10.1038/s41467-018-05092-w · DOI
  36. C Briones, 2014, Evolution, In Vitro, Encyclopedia of Astrobiology, 1
  37. RC Cadwell, 1992, Randomization of genes by PCR mutagenesis, PCR Methods Appl, 2, 28, 10.1101/gr.2.1.28 · DOI
  38. AD Keefe, 2001, Functional proteins from a random-sequence library, Nature, 410, 715, 10.1038/35070613 · DOI
  39. K Liebeton, 2000, Directed evolution of an enantioselective lipase, Chem Biol, 7, 709, 10.1016/S1074-5521(00)00015-6 · DOI
  40. BJ Rauch, 2017, Inhibition of CRISPR-Cas9 with Bacteriophage Proteins, Cell, 168, 150, 10.1016/j.cell.2016.12.009 · DOI
  41. IK Jordan, 2002, Essential genes are more evolutionarily conserved than are nonessential genes in bacteria, Genome Res, 12, 962, 10.1101/gr.87702 · DOI
  42. JD Bloom, 2005, Thermodynamic prediction of protein neutrality, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 102, 606, 10.1073/pnas.0406744102 · DOI
  43. W Besenmatter, 2007, Relative tolerance of mesostable and thermostable protein homologs to extensive mutation, Proteins, 66, 500, 10.1002/prot.21227 · DOI
  44. N Hom, 2019, Deep Mutational Scan of the Highly Conserved Influenza A Virus M1 Matrix Protein Reveals Substantial Intrinsic Mutational Tolerance, J Virol, 93
  45. PA Cote-Hammarlof, 2021, The Adaptive Potential of the Middle Domain of Yeast Hsp90, Mol Biol Evol, 38, 368, 10.1093/molbev/msaa211 · DOI
  46. BY Zhu, 1993, Packing and hydrophobicity effects on protein folding and stability: effects of beta-branched amino acids, valine and isoleucine, on the formation and stability of two-stranded alpha-helical coiled coils/leucine zippers, Protein Sci, 2, 383, 10.1002/pro.5560020310 · DOI
  47. PD Donohoue, 2018, Advances in Industrial Biotechnology Using CRISPR-Cas Systems, Trends Biotechnol, 36, 134, 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.07.007 · DOI
  48. ND Marino, 2020, Anti-CRISPR protein applications: natural brakes for CRISPR-Cas technologies, Nat Methods, 17, 471, 10.1038/s41592-020-0771-6 · DOI
  49. SF Altschul, 1990, Basic local alignment search tool, J Mol Biol, 403, 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 · DOI · Paper page
  50. I Letunic, 2019, Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v4: recent updates and new developments, Nucleic Acids Res, 47, W256, 10.1093/nar/gkz239 · DOI
  51. P Jones, 2014, InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification, Bioinformatics, 30, 1236, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu031 · DOI
  52. RC Edgar, 2004, MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput, Nucleic Acids Res, 32, 1792, 10.1093/nar/gkh340 · DOI · Paper page
  53. CD Livingstone, 1993, Protein sequence alignments: a strategy for the hierarchical analysis of residue conservation, Comput Appl Biosci, 9, 745
  54. BD Ondov, 2016, Mash: fast genome and metagenome distance estimation using MinHash, Genome Biol, 17, 132, 10.1186/s13059-016-0997-x · DOI · Paper page
  55. P Shannon, 2003, Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks, Genome Res, 13, 2498, 10.1101/gr.1239303 · DOI · Paper page
  56. L Guy, 2010, genoPlotR: comparative gene and genome visualization in R, Bioinformatics, 26, 2334, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq413 · DOI
  57. D Arndt, 2016, PHASTER: a better, faster version of the PHAST phage search tool, Nucleic Acids Res, 44, W16, 10.1093/nar/gkw387 · DOI
  58. KA Jolley, 2010, BIGSdb: Scalable analysis of bacterial genome variation at the population level, BMC Bioinformatics
  59. J. Kans, 2021, Entrez Programming Utilities Help
  60. R Green, 2013, Transformation of chemically competent E. coli, Methods Enzymol, 529, 329, 10.1016/B978-0-12-418687-3.00028-8 · DOI
  61. K-H Choi, 2006, A 10-min method for preparation of highly electrocompetent Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells: application for DNA fragment transfer between chromosomes and plasmid transformation, J Microbiol Methods, 64, 391, 10.1016/j.mimet.2005.06.001 · DOI
  62. A Novogrodsky, 1966, The enzymatic phosphorylation of ribonucleic acid and deoxyribonucleic acid. II. Further properties of the 5’-hydroxyl polynucleotide kinase, J Biol Chem, 241, 2933, 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)96554-3 · DOI
  63. Z. Yang, 2007, PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood, Mol Biol Evol, 24, 1586, 10.1093/molbev/msm088 · DOI · Paper page
  64. L-T Nguyen, 2015, IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies, Mol Biol Evol, 32, 268, 10.1093/molbev/msu300 · DOI · Paper page
  65. RV Honorato, 2021, Structural Biology in the Clouds: The WeNMR-EOSC Ecosystem, Front Mol Biosci, 8, 729513, 10.3389/fmolb.2021.729513 · DOI
  66. RA Laskowski, 2011, LigPlot+: multiple ligand-protein interaction diagrams for drug discovery, J Chem Inf Model, 51, 2778, 10.1021/ci200227u · DOI
  67. Lotun DP, Cochard C, Vieira FRJ, Bernardes JS. 2dSS: a web server for protein secondary structure visualization. doi: 10.1101/649426 · DOI
  68. EF Pettersen, 2021, UCSF ChimeraX: Structure visualization for researchers, educators, and developers, Protein Sci, 30, 70, 10.1002/pro.3943 · DOI
  69. H. Li, 2013, Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM

Metadata

Authors
Figueroa, W., Cazares, A., Cazares, D., Wu, Y., de la Cruz, A., Welch, M., Kameyama, L., Nobrega, F. L., & Guarneros, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (MX)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Instituto Politécnico Nacional (MX)
Corresponding author
  • Figueroa, Wendy
  • Guarneros, Gabriel
ORCID
Venue
PLOS Biology
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2023-04-21
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
e3002072
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
DOI
10.1371/journal.pbio.3002072
PMC
PMC10155984
OpenAlex
W4366602903
Cited by
2
References
70
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2023-05-03)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • Cambridge Trust (10469474)
  • Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (591274 and 706017, 586079, 255255)
  • European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL-EBI/Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute Join Post-Doctoral Fellowship Program (ESPOD))
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Virology › Bacteriophages and microbial interactions
Keywords
anti-CRISPR proteins, CRISPR-Cas, molecular evolution, horizontal gene transfer, phage-bacteria interactions, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, sequence diversity, mutational tolerance, protein structure-function relationship, molecular docking
MeSH terms
Bacteriophages, Humans, Mutation, Evolution, Molecular, Molecular Docking Simulation, CRISPR-Cas Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review