Research Article: Alternative Roles for CRISPR/Cas Systems in Bacterial Pathogenesis

Date Published: October 17, 2013

Publisher: Public Library of Science

Author(s): Timothy R. Sampson, David S. Weiss, Virginia Miller.

http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003621

Abstract

Partial Text

CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)/Cas (CRISPR-associated) systems are highly specific bacterial defenses against foreign genetic elements derived from bacteriophages, plasmids, or extracellular chromosomal DNA [1]. These systems consist of a CRISPR array (crRNA array; composed of unique spacer sequences flanked by short repeats) and adjacently encoded Cas proteins [1]. Following transcription, the crRNA array is processed into individual CRISPR RNAs (crRNA) containing a spacer and a partial repeat [2]. The spacers hybridize to complementary nucleic acid targets, triggering their degradation by Cas proteins [1]. In addition, the Cas proteins Cas1 (a dsDNA endonuclease) and Cas2 (a dsDNA and/or ssRNA endonuclease) function to integrate new spacer sequences into the crRNA array, an adaptation phase that allows bacteria to subsequently target foreign genetic elements containing these sequences [3], [4].

We recently demonstrated that components of the Type II CRISPR/Cas system in Francisella novicida are necessary for this intracellular bacterial pathogen to evade detection by a host pattern recognition receptor and cause disease [5]. Cas9, in conjunction with tracrRNA and a novel small RNA termed scaRNA (small, CRISPR/Cas-associated RNA), target an endogenous transcript encoding an immunostimulatory bacterial lipoprotein (BLP), leading to mRNA degradation and decreased transcript levels (Figure 1A) [5]. Surprisingly, this action does not rely on any of the crRNAs, but instead is predicted to utilize tracrRNA to target mRNA. In the absence of this regulation, increased BLP levels trigger the activation of a Toll-like Receptor 2 (TLR2)-dependent proinflammatory response, and result in complete attenuation of the bacteria during infection (Figure 1B). These CRISPR/Cas components are therefore critical to the ability of F. novicida to cause disease.

Different types of CRISPR/Cas systems have also been observed to contribute to bacterial physiology beyond defense against foreign nucleic acids. The CRISPR/Cas system in Pseudomonas aeruginosa plays a role in modulating biofilm formation [11], [12]. While the precise mechanism is unknown, the data suggest that when P. aeruginosa is lysogenized by a specific bacteriophage, the CRISPR/Cas system interacts with a particular gene in the chromosomally integrated prophage to inhibit the creation of biofilms [11], [12]. It is unclear if the CRISPR/Cas system targets DNA or mRNA, but it is known that the interaction requires the Cas proteins involved in both crRNA maturation and targeting/degradation, as well as a specific targeting crRNA with sequence similarity to the prophage gene [11], [12]. Given the importance of biofilm formation in the pathogenic life cycle of P. aeruginosa[12], it is likely that this intricate CRISPR/Cas regulatory schema plays an important role in infection.

Another potential example of noncanonical functionality of CRISPR/Cas systems in gene regulation and virulence may involve self-targeting crRNAs with spacer sequences complementary to chromosomally encoded genes [15], [16]. For example, self-targeting crRNAs are predicted to target hypothetical proteins in the pathogens Clostridium botulinum, N. meningitidis, and Yersinia pestis, two sporulation genes and a gene involved in S-layer biosynthesis in Clostridium tetani, and the fdrA gene involved in protein transport in Enterobacter spp. [15]. Since crRNAs are known to target DNA, their specificity for chromosomal genes has been suggested to likely result in detrimental chromosomal cleavage, which can result in large chromosomal deletions, and thus has been termed “autoimmunity” [17]. It has been hypothesized that self-targeting crRNAs can be tolerated if CRISPR/Cas systems in bacteria encoding them are either nonfunctional or are significantly degenerated, thereby preventing “autoimmune” recognition and cleavage of the chromosome [15]. Indeed, CRISPR/Cas systems encoding self-targeting crRNAs often have degenerated Cas proteins [15], [16]. However, this could nonetheless be consistent with a role in gene regulation for at least some self-targeting crRNAs [16]. Inactive Cas1 and Cas2 proteins would not necessarily inhibit self-targeting abilities, but instead prevent acquisition of new crRNAs [3], [4]. Since acquisition of new crRNAs can lead to loss of previously acquired crRNAs [18], degeneration of Cas1 and Cas2 may actually be favored to prevent loss of regulatory crRNAs. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that a catalytically inactive Cas9 is still capable of binding DNA targets and inhibiting transcription, resulting in repression of the targeted gene [19]. Therefore, degenerated Cas proteins could theoretically still participate in gene regulation. Furthermore, the CRISPR/Cas system in P. aeruginosa, capable of targeting a chromosomally integrated element without causing chromosomal degradation, is fully functional against bacteriophage infection, suggesting that chromosomal targeting by an active CRISPR/Cas system does not necessarily lead to “autoimmune” events [11], [12], [20]. Finally, as observed in F. novicida, if mRNA but not DNA is targeted (i.e., FTN_1103) [5], there would be no negative selection against targeting endogenous genes in the chromosome. It is therefore tempting to speculate that self-targeting crRNAs may act as regulatory elements in at least some of the aforementioned and other pathogens.

While well established to play roles in defending bacteria from bacteriophages and other foreign genetic elements, the critical roles that CRISPR/Cas systems play in the ability of pathogenic organisms to evade host defenses and replicate within the host are just now being appreciated. Given that CRISPR/Cas systems are widely distributed among prokaryotes (∼50% of bacteria and 99% of Archaea) and are present in both pathogenic and commensal organisms [1], as well as their specificity and adaptability, it is very likely that more examples of their alternative functions in gene regulation controlling virulence, commensalism, and broader physiology will be revealed. Future work elucidating how CRISPR/Cas systems contribute to bacterial virulence will allow for the identification of novel host defense evasion strategies that bacterial pathogens utilize during infection.

 

Source:

http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003621