Cargando…

Bacteriophage DNA glucosylation impairs target DNA binding by type I and II but not by type V CRISPR–Cas effector complexes

Prokaryotes encode various host defense systems that provide protection against mobile genetic elements. Restriction–modification (R–M) and CRISPR–Cas systems mediate host defense by sequence specific targeting of invasive DNA. T-even bacteriophages employ covalent modifications of nucleobases to av...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vlot, Marnix, Houkes, Joep, Lochs, Silke J A, Swarts, Daan C, Zheng, Peiyuan, Kunne, Tim, Mohanraju, Prarthana, Anders, Carolin, Jinek, Martin, van der Oost, John, Dickman, Mark J, Brouns, Stan J J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5778469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29253268
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx1264
_version_ 1783294357731803136
author Vlot, Marnix
Houkes, Joep
Lochs, Silke J A
Swarts, Daan C
Zheng, Peiyuan
Kunne, Tim
Mohanraju, Prarthana
Anders, Carolin
Jinek, Martin
van der Oost, John
Dickman, Mark J
Brouns, Stan J J
author_facet Vlot, Marnix
Houkes, Joep
Lochs, Silke J A
Swarts, Daan C
Zheng, Peiyuan
Kunne, Tim
Mohanraju, Prarthana
Anders, Carolin
Jinek, Martin
van der Oost, John
Dickman, Mark J
Brouns, Stan J J
author_sort Vlot, Marnix
collection PubMed
description Prokaryotes encode various host defense systems that provide protection against mobile genetic elements. Restriction–modification (R–M) and CRISPR–Cas systems mediate host defense by sequence specific targeting of invasive DNA. T-even bacteriophages employ covalent modifications of nucleobases to avoid binding and therefore cleavage of their DNA by restriction endonucleases. Here, we describe that DNA glucosylation of bacteriophage genomes affects interference of some but not all CRISPR–Cas systems. We show that glucosyl modification of 5-hydroxymethylated cytosines in the DNA of bacteriophage T4 interferes with type I-E and type II-A CRISPR–Cas systems by lowering the affinity of the Cascade and Cas9–crRNA complexes for their target DNA. On the contrary, the type V-A nuclease Cas12a (also known as Cpf1) is not impaired in binding and cleavage of glucosylated target DNA, likely due to a more open structural architecture of the protein. Our results suggest that CRISPR–Cas systems have contributed to the selective pressure on phages to develop more generic solutions to escape sequence specific host defense systems.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5778469
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57784692018-01-30 Bacteriophage DNA glucosylation impairs target DNA binding by type I and II but not by type V CRISPR–Cas effector complexes Vlot, Marnix Houkes, Joep Lochs, Silke J A Swarts, Daan C Zheng, Peiyuan Kunne, Tim Mohanraju, Prarthana Anders, Carolin Jinek, Martin van der Oost, John Dickman, Mark J Brouns, Stan J J Nucleic Acids Res Nucleic Acid Enzymes Prokaryotes encode various host defense systems that provide protection against mobile genetic elements. Restriction–modification (R–M) and CRISPR–Cas systems mediate host defense by sequence specific targeting of invasive DNA. T-even bacteriophages employ covalent modifications of nucleobases to avoid binding and therefore cleavage of their DNA by restriction endonucleases. Here, we describe that DNA glucosylation of bacteriophage genomes affects interference of some but not all CRISPR–Cas systems. We show that glucosyl modification of 5-hydroxymethylated cytosines in the DNA of bacteriophage T4 interferes with type I-E and type II-A CRISPR–Cas systems by lowering the affinity of the Cascade and Cas9–crRNA complexes for their target DNA. On the contrary, the type V-A nuclease Cas12a (also known as Cpf1) is not impaired in binding and cleavage of glucosylated target DNA, likely due to a more open structural architecture of the protein. Our results suggest that CRISPR–Cas systems have contributed to the selective pressure on phages to develop more generic solutions to escape sequence specific host defense systems. Oxford University Press 2018-01-25 2017-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5778469/ /pubmed/29253268 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx1264 Text en © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Nucleic Acids Research. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Nucleic Acid Enzymes
Vlot, Marnix
Houkes, Joep
Lochs, Silke J A
Swarts, Daan C
Zheng, Peiyuan
Kunne, Tim
Mohanraju, Prarthana
Anders, Carolin
Jinek, Martin
van der Oost, John
Dickman, Mark J
Brouns, Stan J J
Bacteriophage DNA glucosylation impairs target DNA binding by type I and II but not by type V CRISPR–Cas effector complexes
title Bacteriophage DNA glucosylation impairs target DNA binding by type I and II but not by type V CRISPR–Cas effector complexes
title_full Bacteriophage DNA glucosylation impairs target DNA binding by type I and II but not by type V CRISPR–Cas effector complexes
title_fullStr Bacteriophage DNA glucosylation impairs target DNA binding by type I and II but not by type V CRISPR–Cas effector complexes
title_full_unstemmed Bacteriophage DNA glucosylation impairs target DNA binding by type I and II but not by type V CRISPR–Cas effector complexes
title_short Bacteriophage DNA glucosylation impairs target DNA binding by type I and II but not by type V CRISPR–Cas effector complexes
title_sort bacteriophage dna glucosylation impairs target dna binding by type i and ii but not by type v crispr–cas effector complexes
topic Nucleic Acid Enzymes
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5778469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29253268
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx1264
work_keys_str_mv AT vlotmarnix bacteriophagednaglucosylationimpairstargetdnabindingbytypeiandiibutnotbytypevcrisprcaseffectorcomplexes
AT houkesjoep bacteriophagednaglucosylationimpairstargetdnabindingbytypeiandiibutnotbytypevcrisprcaseffectorcomplexes
AT lochssilkeja bacteriophagednaglucosylationimpairstargetdnabindingbytypeiandiibutnotbytypevcrisprcaseffectorcomplexes
AT swartsdaanc bacteriophagednaglucosylationimpairstargetdnabindingbytypeiandiibutnotbytypevcrisprcaseffectorcomplexes
AT zhengpeiyuan bacteriophagednaglucosylationimpairstargetdnabindingbytypeiandiibutnotbytypevcrisprcaseffectorcomplexes
AT kunnetim bacteriophagednaglucosylationimpairstargetdnabindingbytypeiandiibutnotbytypevcrisprcaseffectorcomplexes
AT mohanrajuprarthana bacteriophagednaglucosylationimpairstargetdnabindingbytypeiandiibutnotbytypevcrisprcaseffectorcomplexes
AT anderscarolin bacteriophagednaglucosylationimpairstargetdnabindingbytypeiandiibutnotbytypevcrisprcaseffectorcomplexes
AT jinekmartin bacteriophagednaglucosylationimpairstargetdnabindingbytypeiandiibutnotbytypevcrisprcaseffectorcomplexes
AT vanderoostjohn bacteriophagednaglucosylationimpairstargetdnabindingbytypeiandiibutnotbytypevcrisprcaseffectorcomplexes
AT dickmanmarkj bacteriophagednaglucosylationimpairstargetdnabindingbytypeiandiibutnotbytypevcrisprcaseffectorcomplexes
AT brounsstanjj bacteriophagednaglucosylationimpairstargetdnabindingbytypeiandiibutnotbytypevcrisprcaseffectorcomplexes