Structural biology of CRISPR-Cas immunity and genome editing enzymes.
Journal
Nature reviews. Microbiology
ISSN: 1740-1534
Titre abrégé: Nat Rev Microbiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190261
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
accepted:
11
04
2022
pubmed:
14
5
2022
medline:
18
10
2022
entrez:
13
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
CRISPR-Cas systems provide resistance against foreign mobile genetic elements and have a wide range of genome editing and biotechnological applications. In this Review, we examine recent advances in understanding the molecular structures and mechanisms of enzymes comprising bacterial RNA-guided CRISPR-Cas immune systems and deployed for wide-ranging genome editing applications. We explore the adaptive and interference aspects of CRISPR-Cas function as well as open questions about the molecular mechanisms responsible for genome targeting. These structural insights reflect close evolutionary links between CRISPR-Cas systems and mobile genetic elements, including the origins and evolution of CRISPR-Cas systems from DNA transposons, retrotransposons and toxin-antitoxin modules. We discuss how the evolution and structural diversity of CRISPR-Cas systems explain their functional complexity and utility as genome editing tools.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35562427
doi: 10.1038/s41579-022-00739-4
pii: 10.1038/s41579-022-00739-4
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antitoxins
0
DNA Transposable Elements
0
RNA, Bacterial
0
Retroelements
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
641-656Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : U01 AI142817
Pays : United States
Organisme : Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2022. Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Barrangou, R. et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315, 1709–1712 (2007).
pubmed: 17379808
doi: 10.1126/science.1138140
Knott, G. J. & Doudna, J. A. CRISPR-Cas guides the future of genetic engineering. Science 361, 866–869 (2018).
pubmed: 30166482
pmcid: 6455913
doi: 10.1126/science.aat5011
Koonin, E. V. & Makarova, K. S. Origins and evolution of CRISPR-Cas systems. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20180087 (2019).
pubmed: 30905284
pmcid: 6452270
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2018.0087
Hille, F. et al. The biology of CRISPR-Cas: backward and forward. Cell 172, 1239–1259 (2018).
pubmed: 29522745
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.032
Shmakov, S. et al. Discovery and functional characterization of diverse class 2 CRISPR-Cas systems. Mol. Cell 60, 385–397 (2015).
pubmed: 26593719
pmcid: 4660269
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.008
Grissa, I., Vergnaud, G. & Pourcel, C. The CRISPRdb database and tools to display CRISPRs and to generate dictionaries of spacers and repeats. BMC Bioinformatics 8, 172 (2007).
pubmed: 17521438
pmcid: 1892036
doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-8-172
McGinn, J. & Marraffini, L. A. Molecular mechanisms of CRISPR–Cas spacer acquisition. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17, 7–12 (2019).
pubmed: 30171202
doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0071-7
Gleditzsch, D. et al. PAM identification by CRISPR-Cas effector complexes: diversified mechanisms and structures. RNA Biol. 16, 504–517 (2019).
pubmed: 30109815
doi: 10.1080/15476286.2018.1504546
Behler, J. & Hess, W. R. Approaches to study CRISPR RNA biogenesis and the key players involved. Methods 172, 12–26 (2020).
pubmed: 31325492
doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2019.07.015
Marino, N. D., Pinilla-Redondo, R., Csörgő, B. & Bondy-Denomy, J. Anti-CRISPR protein applications: natural brakes for CRISPR-Cas technologies. Nat. Methods 17, 471–479 (2020).
pubmed: 32203383
pmcid: 8510557
doi: 10.1038/s41592-020-0771-6
Makarova, K. S. et al. Evolutionary classification of CRISPR–Cas systems: a burst of class 2 and derived variants. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 67–83 (2019).
pubmed: 31857715
pmcid: 8905525
doi: 10.1038/s41579-019-0299-x
Jia, N. & Patel, D. J. Structure-based functional mechanisms and biotechnology applications of anti-CRISPR proteins. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 22, 563–579 (2021).
pubmed: 34089013
doi: 10.1038/s41580-021-00371-9
Liu, T. Y. & Doudna, J. A. Chemistry of class 1 CRISPR-Cas effectors: binding, editing, and regulation. J. Biol. Chem. 295, 14473–14487 (2020).
pubmed: 32817336
pmcid: 7573268
doi: 10.1074/jbc.REV120.007034
Molina, R., Sofos, N. & Montoya, G. Structural basis of CRISPR-Cas type III prokaryotic defence systems. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 65, 119–129 (2020).
pubmed: 32712502
doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2020.06.010
Taylor, H. N. et al. Positioning diverse type IV structures and functions within class 1 CRISPR-Cas systems. Front. Microbiol. 12, 674522 (2021).
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.671522
O’Connell, M. R. Molecular mechanisms of RNA targeting by Cas13-containing type VI CRISPR–Cas systems. J. Mol. Biol. 431, 66–87 (2019).
pubmed: 29940185
doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2018.06.029
Krupovic, M., Makarova, K. S., Forterre, P., Prangishvili, D. & Koonin, E. V. Casposons: a new superfamily of self-synthesizing DNA transposons at the origin of prokaryotic CRISPR-Cas immunity. BMC Biol. 12, 36 (2014).
pubmed: 24884953
pmcid: 4046053
doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-12-36
Hickman, A. B., Kailasan, S., Genzor, P., Haase, A. D. & Dyda, F. Casposase structure and the mechanistic link between DNA transposition and spacer acquisition by CRISPR-Cas. eLife 9, e50004 (2020). This work describes the structure of the casposase and its site specificity, providing insight into the evolutionary origins of the Cas1 protein.
pubmed: 31913120
pmcid: 6977970
doi: 10.7554/eLife.50004
Wang, J. et al. Structural and mechanistic basis of PAM-dependent spacer acquisition in CRISPR-Cas systems. Cell 163, 840–853 (2015).
pubmed: 26478180
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.10.008
Nuñez, J. K., Harrington, L. B., Kranzusch, P. J., Engelman, A. N. & Doudna, J. A. Foreign DNA capture during CRISPR–Cas adaptive immunity. Nature 527, 535–538 (2015).
pubmed: 26503043
pmcid: 4662619
doi: 10.1038/nature15760
Xiao, Y., Ng, S., Nam, K. H. & Ke, A. How type II CRISPR–Cas establish immunity through Cas1–Cas2-mediated spacer integration. Nature 550, 137–141 (2017).
pubmed: 28869593
pmcid: 5832332
doi: 10.1038/nature24020
Wright, A. V. et al. Structures of the CRISPR genome integration complex. Science 357, 1113–1118 (2017).
pubmed: 28729350
pmcid: 5748385
doi: 10.1126/science.aao0679
Hickman, A. B. & Dyda, F. DNA transposition at work. Chem. Rev. 116, 12758–12784 (2016).
pubmed: 27187082
pmcid: 6380494
doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00003
Béguin, P., Charpin, N., Koonin, E. V., Forterre, P. & Krupovic, M. Casposon integration shows strong target site preference and recapitulates protospacer integration by CRISPR-Cas systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 10367–10376 (2016).
pubmed: 27655632
pmcid: 5137440
Yosef, I., Goren, M. G. & Qimron, U. Proteins and DNA elements essential for the CRISPR adaptation process in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 5569–5576 (2012).
pubmed: 22402487
pmcid: 3384332
doi: 10.1093/nar/gks216
Datsenko, K. A. et al. Molecular memory of prior infections activates the CRISPR/Cas adaptive bacterial immunity system. Nat. Commun. 3, 945 (2012).
pubmed: 22781758
doi: 10.1038/ncomms1937
Arslan, Z., Hermanns, V., Wurm, R., Wagner, R. & Pul, Ü. Detection and characterization of spacer integration intermediates in type IE CRISPR–Cas system. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 7884–7893 (2014).
pubmed: 24920831
pmcid: 4081107
doi: 10.1093/nar/gku510
Nuñez, J. K., Lee, A. S. Y., Engelman, A. & Doudna, J. A. Integrase-mediated spacer acquisition during CRISPR–Cas adaptive immunity. Nature 519, 193–198 (2015).
pubmed: 25707795
pmcid: 4359072
doi: 10.1038/nature14237
Rollie, C., Schneider, S., Brinkmann, A. S., Bolt, E. L. & White, M. F. Intrinsic sequence specificity of the Cas1 integrase directs new spacer acquisition. eLife 4, e08716 (2015).
pmcid: 4574026
doi: 10.7554/eLife.08716
Wright, A. V. & Doudna, J. A. Protecting genome integrity during CRISPR immune adaptation. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 23, 876–883 (2016).
pubmed: 27595346
doi: 10.1038/nsmb.3289
Nuñez, J. K. et al. Cas1–Cas2 complex formation mediates spacer acquisition during CRISPR–Cas adaptive immunity. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 21, 528–534 (2014).
pubmed: 24793649
pmcid: 4075942
doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2820
Sasnauskas, G. & Siksnys, V. CRISPR adaptation from a structural perspective. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 65, 17–25 (2020).
pubmed: 32570107
doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2020.05.015
Wilkinson, M. et al. Structure of the DNA-bound spacer Capture complex of a type II CRISPR-Cas system. Mol. Cell 75, 90–101.e5 (2019).
pubmed: 31080012
pmcid: 6620040
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.04.020
Hu, C. et al. Mechanism for Cas4-assisted directional spacer acquisition in CRISPR–Cas. Nature 598, 515–520 (2021). This work provides the mechanism and structural basis for Cas4-assisted PAM processing and describes a model in which PAM sequestration and delayed processing influences the orientation of spacer integration.
pubmed: 34588691
pmcid: 9164213
doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03951-z
Burstein, D. et al. New CRISPR–Cas systems from uncultivated microbes. Nature 542, 237–241 (2016).
pubmed: 28005056
pmcid: 5300952
doi: 10.1038/nature21059
Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. Classification and nomenclature of CRISPR-Cas systems: where from here? CRISPR J. 1, 325–336 (2018).
pubmed: 31021272
pmcid: 6636873
doi: 10.1089/crispr.2018.0033
Wright, A. V. et al. A functional mini-integrase in a two-protein type V-C CRISPR system. Mol. Cell 73, 727–737 (2019). This work describes a tetrameric CRISPR integrase that may represent the ancestral CRISPR integrase.
pubmed: 30709710
pmcid: 6386590
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.12.015
Santiago-Frangos, A., Buyukyoruk, M., Wiegand, T., Krishna, P. & Wiedenheft, B. Distribution and phasing of sequence motifs that facilitate CRISPR adaptation. Curr. Biol. 31, 3515–3524 (2021).
pubmed: 34174210
pmcid: 8552246
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.05.068
Koonin, E. V. & Makarova, K. S. CRISPR-Cas: evolution of an RNA-based adaptive immunity system in prokaryotes. RNA Biol. 10, 679–686 (2013).
pubmed: 23439366
pmcid: 3737325
doi: 10.4161/rna.24022
Bertelsen, M. B. et al. Structural basis for toxin inhibition in the VapXD toxin-antitoxin system. Structure 29, 139–150 (2021).
pubmed: 33096014
doi: 10.1016/j.str.2020.10.002
Kwon, A.-R. et al. Structural and biochemical characterization of HP0315 from Helicobacter pylori as a VapD protein with an endoribonuclease activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 4216–4228 (2012).
pubmed: 22241770
pmcid: 3351183
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr1305
Ka, D., Kim, D., Baek, G. & Bae, E. Structural and functional characterization of Streptococcus pyogenes Cas2 protein under different pH conditions. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 451, 152–157 (2014).
pubmed: 25079131
doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.07.087
Silas, S. et al. Direct CRISPR spacer acquisition from RNA by a natural reverse transcriptase-Cas1 fusion protein. Science 351, aad4234 (2016).
pubmed: 26917774
pmcid: 4898656
doi: 10.1126/science.aad4234
Koonin, E. V. & Makarova, K. S. Mobile genetic elements and evolution of CRISPR-Cas systems: all the way there and back. Genome Biol. Evol. 9, 2812–2825 (2017).
pubmed: 28985291
pmcid: 5737515
doi: 10.1093/gbe/evx192
Silas, S. et al. On the origin of reverse transcriptase-using CRISPR-Cas systems and their hyperdiverse, enigmatic spacer repertoires. mBio 8, e00897-17 (2017).
pubmed: 28698278
pmcid: 5513706
doi: 10.1128/mBio.00897-17
Mohr, G. et al. A reverse transcriptase-Cas1 fusion protein contains a Cas6 domain required for both CRISPR RNA biogenesis and RNA spacer acquisition. Mol. Cell 72, 700–714 (2018).
pubmed: 30344094
pmcid: 6242336
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.09.013
Wang, J. Y. et al. Structural coordination between active sites of a CRISPR reverse transcriptase-integrase complex. Nat. Commun. 12, 2571 (2021). This work describes the structure of a Cas6–RT–Cas1–Cas2 complex, highlighting interactions between the three domains and the potential functional implications for CRISPR adaptation.
pubmed: 33958590
pmcid: 8102632
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22900-y
Stamos, J. L., Lentzsch, A. M. & Lambowitz, A. M. Structure of a thermostable group II intron reverse transcriptase with template-primer and its functional and evolutionary implications. Mol. Cell 68, 926–939 (2017).
pubmed: 29153391
pmcid: 5728383
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.10.024
Nussenzweig, P. M. & Marraffini, L. A. Molecular mechanisms of CRISPR-Cas immunity in bacteria. Annu. Rev. Genet. 54, 93–120 (2020).
pubmed: 32857635
doi: 10.1146/annurev-genet-022120-112523
Levy, A. et al. CRISPR adaptation biases explain preference for acquisition of foreign DNA. Nature 520, 505–510 (2015).
pubmed: 25874675
pmcid: 4561520
doi: 10.1038/nature14302
Wigley, D. B. Bacterial DNA repair: recent insights into the mechanism of RecBCD, AddAB and AdnAB. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 11, 9–13 (2013).
pubmed: 23202527
doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2917
Kim, S. et al. Selective loading and processing of prespacers for precise CRISPR adaptation. Nature 579, 141–145 (2020). This work describes how the kinetic coordination of prespacer processing and PAM trimming affects the orientation of spacer integration and presents a model for prespacer selection and processing.
pubmed: 32076262
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2018-1
Ramachandran, A., Summerville, L., Learn, B. A., DeBell, L. & Bailey, S. Processing and integration of functionally oriented prespacers in the Escherichia coli CRISPR system depends on bacterial host exonucleases. J. Biol. Chem. 295, 3403–3414 (2020).
pubmed: 31914418
doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA119.012196
Kieper, S. N. et al. Cas4 facilitates PAM-compatible spacer selection during CRISPR adaptation. Cell Rep. 22, 3377–3384 (2018).
pubmed: 29590607
pmcid: 5896167
doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.02.103
Lee, H., Dhingra, Y. & Sashital, D. G. The Cas4-Cas1-Cas2 complex mediates precise prespacer processing during CRISPR adaptation. eLife 8, e44248 (2019).
pubmed: 31021314
pmcid: 6519985
doi: 10.7554/eLife.44248
Musharova, O. et al. Prespacers formed during primed adaptation associate with the Cas1–Cas2 adaptation complex and the Cas3 interference nuclease–helicase. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2021291118 (2021).
pubmed: 34035168
pmcid: 8179228
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021291118
Wu, C. et al. Mechanisms of spacer acquisition by sequential assembly of the adaptation module in Synechocystis. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 2973–2984 (2021).
pubmed: 33619565
pmcid: 7969031
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab105
Drabavicius, G. et al. DnaQ exonuclease-like domain of Cas2 promotes spacer integration in a type I-E CRISPR-Cas system. EMBO Rep. 19, e45543 (2018).
pubmed: 29891635
pmcid: 6030702
doi: 10.15252/embr.201745543
Lee, H., Zhou, Y., Taylor, D. W. & Sashital, D. G. Cas4-dependent prespacer processing ensures high-fidelity programming of CRISPR arrays. Mol. Cell 70, 48–59.e5 (2018).
pubmed: 29602742
pmcid: 5889325
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.03.003
Heler, R. et al. Cas9 specifies functional viral targets during CRISPR–Cas adaptation. Nature 519, 199–202 (2015).
pubmed: 25707807
pmcid: 4385744
doi: 10.1038/nature14245
Heler, R. et al. Mutations in Cas9 enhance the rate of acquisition of viral spacer sequences during the CRISPR-Cas immune response. Mol. Cell 65, 168–175 (2017).
pubmed: 28017588
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.11.031
Jakhanwal, S. et al. A CRISPR-Cas9–integrase complex generates precise DNA fragments for genome integration. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 3546–3556 (2021).
pubmed: 33693715
pmcid: 8034620
Swarts, D. C., Mosterd, C., van Passel, M. W. J. & Brouns, S. J. J. CRISPR interference directs strand specific spacer acquisition. PLoS ONE 7, e35888 (2012).
pubmed: 22558257
pmcid: 3338789
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035888
Dillard, K. E. et al. Assembly and translocation of a CRISPR-Cas primed acquisition complex. Cell 175, 934–946.e15 (2018).
pubmed: 30343903
pmcid: 6441324
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.09.039
Xue, C., Whitis, N. R. & Sashital, D. G. Conformational control of Cascade interference and priming activities in CRISPR immunity. Mol. Cell 64, 826–834 (2016).
pubmed: 27871367
pmcid: 5561731
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.09.033
Nicholson, T. J. et al. Bioinformatic evidence of widespread priming in type I and II CRISPR-Cas systems. RNA Biol. 16, 566–576 (2019).
pubmed: 30157725
doi: 10.1080/15476286.2018.1509662
Nussenzweig, P. M., McGinn, J. & Marraffini, L. A. Cas9 cleavage of viral genomes primes the acquisition of new immunological memories. Cell Host Microbe 26, 515–526.e6 (2019).
pubmed: 31585845
pmcid: 7558852
doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2019.09.002
Shipman, S. L., Nivala, J., Macklis, J. D. & Church, G. M. Molecular recordings by directed CRISPR spacer acquisition. Science 353, aaf1175 (2016).
pubmed: 27284167
pmcid: 4994893
doi: 10.1126/science.aaf1175
Sheth, R. U., Yim, S. S., Wu, F. L. & Wang, H. H. Multiplex recording of cellular events over time on CRISPR biological tape. Science 358, 1457–1461 (2017).
pubmed: 29170279
pmcid: 7869111
doi: 10.1126/science.aao0958
Schmidt, F., Cherepkova, M. Y. & Platt, R. J. Transcriptional recording by CRISPR spacer acquisition from RNA. Nature 562, 380–385 (2018).
pubmed: 30283135
doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0569-1
Munck, C., Sheth, R. U., Freedberg, D. E. & Wang, H. H. Recording mobile DNA in the gut microbiota using an Escherichia coli CRISPR-Cas spacer acquisition platform. Nat. Commun. 11, 95 (2020).
pubmed: 31911609
pmcid: 6946703
doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-14012-5
Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).
pubmed: 22745249
pmcid: 6286148
doi: 10.1126/science.1225829
Gasiunas, G. & Barrangou, R. Cas9–crRNA ribonucleoprotein complex mediates specific DNA cleavage for adaptive immunity in bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E2579–E2586 (2012).
pubmed: 22949671
pmcid: 3465414
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1208507109
Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).
pubmed: 23287718
pmcid: 3795411
doi: 10.1126/science.1231143
Mali, P. et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823–826 (2013).
pubmed: 23287722
pmcid: 3712628
doi: 10.1126/science.1232033
Hwang, W. Y. et al. Efficient genome editing in zebrafish using a CRISPR-Cas system. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 227–229 (2013).
pubmed: 23360964
pmcid: 3686313
doi: 10.1038/nbt.2501
Cho, S. W., Kim, S., Kim, J. M. & Kim, J.-S. Targeted genome engineering in human cells with the Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 230–232 (2013).
pubmed: 23360966
doi: 10.1038/nbt.2507
Jinek, M. et al. RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells. eLife 2, e00471 (2013).
pubmed: 23386978
pmcid: 3557905
doi: 10.7554/eLife.00471
Zetsche, B. et al. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell 163, 759–771 (2015).
pubmed: 26422227
pmcid: 4638220
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.038
Zetsche, B. et al. Multiplex gene editing by CRISPR–Cpf1 using a single crRNA array. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 31–34 (2017).
pubmed: 27918548
doi: 10.1038/nbt.3737
Liu, J.-J. et al. CasX enzymes comprise a distinct family of RNA-guided genome editors. Nature 566, 218–223 (2019).
pubmed: 30718774
pmcid: 6662743
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0908-x
Strecker, J. et al. Engineering of CRISPR-Cas12b for human genome editing. Nat. Commun. 10, 212 (2019).
pubmed: 30670702
pmcid: 6342934
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-08224-4
Pausch, P. et al. CRISPR-CasΦ from huge phages is a hypercompact genome editor. Science 369, 333–337 (2020).
pubmed: 32675376
pmcid: 8207990
doi: 10.1126/science.abb1400
Anzalone, A. V., Koblan, L. W. & Liu, D. R. Genome editing with CRISPR–Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 824–844 (2020).
pubmed: 32572269
doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0561-9
Swarts, D. C. & Jinek, M. Cas9 versus Cas12a/Cpf1: structure-function comparisons and implications for genome editing. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. RNA 9, e1481 (2018).
pubmed: 29790280
doi: 10.1002/wrna.1481
Stella, S., Alcón, P. & Montoya, G. Class 2 CRISPR–Cas RNA-guided endonucleases: Swiss Army knives of genome editing. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 24, 882–892 (2017).
pubmed: 29035385
doi: 10.1038/nsmb.3486
Altae-Tran, H. et al. The widespread IS200/IS605 transposon family encodes diverse programmable RNA-guided endonucleases. Science 374, 57–65 (2021).
pubmed: 34591643
pmcid: 8929163
doi: 10.1126/science.abj6856
Jinek, M. et al. Structures of Cas9 endonucleases reveal RNA-mediated conformational activation. Science 343, 1247997 (2014).
pubmed: 24505130
pmcid: 4184034
doi: 10.1126/science.1247997
Nishimasu, H. et al. Crystal structure of Cas9 in complex with guide RNA and target DNA. Cell 156, 935–949 (2014). This study reveals for the first time how Cas9 recognizes DNA.
pubmed: 24529477
pmcid: 4139937
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.001
Jiang, F., Zhou, K., Ma, L., Gressel, S. & Doudna, J. A. A Cas9–guide RNA complex preorganized for target DNA recognition. Science 348, 1477–1481 (2015).
pubmed: 26113724
doi: 10.1126/science.aab1452
Anders, C., Niewoehner, O., Duerst, A. & Jinek, M. Structural basis of PAM-dependent target DNA recognition by the Cas9 endonuclease. Nature 513, 569–573 (2014).
pubmed: 25079318
pmcid: 4176945
doi: 10.1038/nature13579
Jiang, F. et al. Structures of a CRISPR-Cas9 R-loop complex primed for DNA cleavage. Science 351, 867–871 (2016).
pubmed: 26841432
pmcid: 5111852
doi: 10.1126/science.aad8282
Sternberg, S. H., LaFrance, B., Kaplan, M. & Doudna, J. A. Conformational control of DNA target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas9. Nature 527, 110–113 (2015).
pubmed: 26524520
pmcid: 4859810
doi: 10.1038/nature15544
Zhang, Y. et al. Catalytic-state structure and engineering of Streptococcus thermophilus Cas9. Nat. Catal. 3, 813–823 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41929-020-00506-9
Sun, W. et al. Structures of Neisseria meningitidis Cas9 complexes in catalytically poised and anti-CRISPR-inhibited states. Mol. Cell 76, 938–952.e5 (2019).
pubmed: 31668930
pmcid: 6934045
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.09.025
Pacesa, M. & Jinek, M. Mechanism of R-loop formation and conformational activation of Cas9. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.16.460614 (2021).
doi: 10.1101/2021.09.16.460614
Bravo, J. P. K. et al. Structural basis for mismatch surveillance by CRISPR-Cas9. Nature 603, 343–347 (2022). This study demonstrates how excessive target mismatches inhibit DNA cutting by Cas9 and reveals a most comprehensive structure of Cas9 bound to the DNA cleavage product.
pubmed: 35236982
pmcid: 8907077
doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04470-1
Zhu, X. et al. Cryo-EM structures reveal coordinated domain motions that govern DNA cleavage by Cas9. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 26, 679–685 (2019).
pubmed: 31285607
pmcid: 6842131
doi: 10.1038/s41594-019-0258-2
Chen, J. S. et al. Enhanced proofreading governs CRISPR–Cas9 targeting accuracy. Nature 550, 407–410 (2017).
pubmed: 28931002
pmcid: 5918688
doi: 10.1038/nature24268
Palermo, G. et al. Protospacer adjacent motif-induced allostery activates CRISPR-Cas9. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 139, 16028–16031 (2017).
pubmed: 28764328
pmcid: 5905990
doi: 10.1021/jacs.7b05313
Palermo, G. et al. Key role of the REC lobe during CRISPR-Cas9 activation by ‘sensing’, ‘regulating’, and ‘locking’ the catalytic HNH domain. Q. Rev. Biophys. 51, e91 (2018).
pubmed: 30555184
pmcid: 6292676
doi: 10.1017/S0033583518000070
Nierzwicki, L. et al. Enhanced specificity mutations perturb allosteric signaling in CRISPR-Cas9. eLife 10, e73601 (2021).
pubmed: 34908530
pmcid: 8741213
doi: 10.7554/eLife.73601
Zuo, Z. et al. Structural and functional insights into the bona fide catalytic state of Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 HNH nuclease domain. eLife 8, e46500 (2019).
pubmed: 31361218
pmcid: 6706240
doi: 10.7554/eLife.46500
Belato, H. B. et al. Structural and dynamic insights into the HNH nuclease of divergent Cas9 species. J. Struct. Biol. 214, 107814 (2021).
pubmed: 34871741
doi: 10.1016/j.jsb.2021.107814
Globyte, V., Lee, S. H., Bae, T., Kim, J. & Joo, C. CRISPR /Cas9 searches for a protospacer adjacent motif by lateral diffusion. EMBO J. 38, e99466 (2019).
pubmed: 30573670
doi: 10.15252/embj.201899466
Sternberg, S. H., Redding, S., Jinek, M., Greene, E. C. & Doudna, J. A. DNA interrogation by the CRISPR RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9. Nature 507, 62–67 (2014).
pubmed: 24476820
pmcid: 4106473
doi: 10.1038/nature13011
Cofsky, J. C., Soczek, K. M., Knott, G. J., Nogales, E. & Doudna, J. A. CRISPR-Cas9 bends and twists DNA to read its sequence. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 29, 395–402 (2022). This article for the first time reveals structural insights into how Cas9 opens dsDNA to interrogate target sequences.
pubmed: 35422516
pmcid: 9189902
doi: 10.1038/s41594-022-00756-0
Ivanov, I. E. et al. Cas9 interrogates DNA in discrete steps modulated by mismatches and supercoiling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 5853–5860 (2020).
pubmed: 32123105
pmcid: 7084090
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1913445117
Liu, M.-S. et al. Engineered CRISPR/Cas9 enzymes improve discrimination by slowing DNA cleavage to allow release of off-target DNA. Nat. Commun. 11, 3576 (2020).
pubmed: 32681021
pmcid: 7367838
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17411-1
Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. High-fidelity CRISPR–Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 529, 490–495 (2016).
pubmed: 26735016
pmcid: 4851738
doi: 10.1038/nature16526
Yamano, T. et al. Crystal structure of Cpf1 in complex with guide RNA and target DNA. Cell 165, 949–962 (2016). This study reveals for the first time how Cas12a recognizes DNA.
pubmed: 27114038
pmcid: 4899970
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.04.003
Dong, D. et al. The crystal structure of Cpf1 in complex with CRISPR RNA. Nature 532, 522–526 (2016).
pubmed: 27096363
doi: 10.1038/nature17944
Pausch, P. et al. DNA interference states of the hypercompact CRISPR-CasΦ effector. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 28, 652–661 (2021). This article describes how a minimal Cas12 enzyme binds dsDNA and catalyses DNA cleavage.
pubmed: 34381246
pmcid: 8496406
doi: 10.1038/s41594-021-00632-3
Carabias, A. et al. Structure of the mini-RNA-guided endonuclease CRISPR-Cas12j3. Nat. Commun. 12, 4476 (2021).
pubmed: 34294706
pmcid: 8298400
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24707-3
Yang, H., Gao, P., Rajashankar, K. R. & Patel, D. J. PAM-dependent target DNA recognition and cleavage by C2c1 CRISPR-Cas endonuclease. Cell 167, 1814–1828 (2016).
pubmed: 27984729
pmcid: 5278635
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.053
Tsuchida, C. A. et al. Chimeric CRISPR-CasX enzymes and guide RNAs for improved genome editing activity. Mol. Cell 82, 1199–1209.e6 (2022).
pubmed: 35219382
pmcid: 9189900
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2022.02.002
Harrington, L. B. et al. A scoutRNA is required for some type V CRISPR-Cas systems. Mol. Cell 79, 416–424.e5 (2020).
pubmed: 32645367
pmcid: 8196889
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.06.022
Huang, C. J., Adler, B. A. & Doudna, J. A. A naturally DNase-free CRISPR-Cas12c enzyme silences gene expression. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.06.471469 (2021).
doi: 10.1101/2021.12.06.471469
pubmed: 35018379
pmcid: 8750702
Kurihara, N. et al. Structure of the type V-C CRISPR-Cas effector enzyme. Mol. Cell 82, 1–13 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2022.03.006
Harrington, L. B. et al. Programmed DNA destruction by miniature CRISPR-Cas14 enzymes. Science 362, 839–842 (2018).
pubmed: 30337455
pmcid: 6659742
doi: 10.1126/science.aav4294
Takeda, S. N. et al. Structure of the miniature type V-F CRISPR-Cas effector enzyme. Mol. Cell 81, 558–570 (2021).
pubmed: 33333018
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.11.035
Xiao, R., Li, Z., Wang, S., Han, R. & Chang, L. Structural basis for substrate recognition and cleavage by the dimerization-dependent CRISPR–Cas12f nuclease. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 4120–4128 (2021).
pubmed: 33764415
pmcid: 8053092
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab179
Li, Z., Zhang, H., Xiao, R., Han, R. & Chang, L. Cryo-EM structure of the RNA-guided ribonuclease Cas12g. Nat. Chem. Biol. 17, 387–393 (2021).
pubmed: 33495647
pmcid: 8256697
doi: 10.1038/s41589-020-00721-2
Swarts, D. C., van der Oost, J. & Jinek, M. Structural basis for guide RNA processing and seed-dependent DNA targeting by CRISPR-Cas12a. Mol. Cell 66, 221–233 (2017).
pubmed: 28431230
pmcid: 6879319
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.03.016
Gao, P., Yang, H., Rajashankar, K. R., Huang, Z. & Patel, D. J. Type V CRISPR-Cas Cpf1 endonuclease employs a unique mechanism for crRNA-mediated target DNA recognition. Cell Res. 26, 901–913 (2016).
pubmed: 27444870
pmcid: 4973337
doi: 10.1038/cr.2016.88
Stella, S., Alcón, P. & Montoya, G. Structure of the Cpf1 endonuclease R-loop complex after target DNA cleavage. Nature 546, 559–563 (2017).
pubmed: 28562584
doi: 10.1038/nature22398
Cofsky, J. C. et al. CRISPR-Cas12a exploits R-loop asymmetry to form double-strand breaks. eLife 9, e55143 (2020).
pubmed: 32519675
pmcid: 7286691
doi: 10.7554/eLife.55143
Stella, S. et al. Conformational activation promotes CRISPR-Cas12a catalysis and resetting of the endonuclease activity. Cell 175, 1856–1871 (2018). This study provides extensive structural and mechanistic insights into the conformational activation of Cas12a.
pubmed: 30503205
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.045
Huang, X. et al. Structural basis for two metal-ion catalysis of DNA cleavage by Cas12i2. Nat. Commun. 11, 5241 (2020).
pubmed: 33067443
pmcid: 7567891
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19072-6
Chen, J. S. et al. CRISPR-Cas12a target binding unleashes indiscriminate single-stranded DNase activity. Science 360, 436–439 (2018).
pubmed: 29449511
pmcid: 6628903
doi: 10.1126/science.aar6245
Swarts, D. C. & Jinek, M. Mechanistic insights into the cis- and trans-acting DNase activities of Cas12a. Mol. Cell 73, 589–600 (2019).
pubmed: 30639240
pmcid: 6858279
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.11.021
Jiang, W. et al. CRISPR-Cas12a nucleases bind flexible DNA duplexes without RNA/DNA complementarity. ACS Omega 4, 17140–17147 (2019).
pubmed: 31656887
pmcid: 6811856
doi: 10.1021/acsomega.9b01469
Paul, B., Chaubet, L., Verver, D. E. & Montoya, G. Mechanics of CRISPR-Cas12a and engineered variants on λ-DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab1272 (2021).
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab1272
pubmed: 34850123
pmcid: 9122593
Losito, M., Smith, Q. M., Newton, M. D., Cuomo, M. E. & Rueda, D. S. Cas12a target search and cleavage on force-stretched DNA. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 23, 26640–26644 (2021).
pubmed: 34494640
pmcid: 8653695
doi: 10.1039/D1CP03408A
Kapitonov, V. V., Makarova, K. S. & Koonin, E. V. ISC, a novel group of bacterial and archaeal DNA transposons that encode Cas9 homologs. J. Bacteriol. 198, 797–807 (2015).
pubmed: 26712934
doi: 10.1128/JB.00783-15
Shmakov, S. et al. Diversity and evolution of class 2 CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15, 169–182 (2017).
pubmed: 28111461
pmcid: 5851899
doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.184
Karvelis, T. et al. Transposon-associated TnpB is a programmable RNA-guided DNA endonuclease. Nature 599, 692–696 (2021).
pubmed: 34619744
pmcid: 8612924
doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04058-1
Weinberg, Z., Perreault, J., Meyer, M. M. & Breaker, R. R. Exceptional structured noncoding RNAs revealed by bacterial metagenome analysis. Nature 462, 656–659 (2009).
pubmed: 19956260
pmcid: 4140389
doi: 10.1038/nature08586
Stoddard, B. L. Homing endonucleases from mobile group I introns: discovery to genome engineering. Mob. DNA 5, 7 (2014).
pubmed: 24589358
pmcid: 3943268
doi: 10.1186/1759-8753-5-7
Stoddard, B. L. Homing endonucleases: from microbial genetic invaders to reagents for targeted DNA modification. Structure 19, 7–15 (2011).
pubmed: 21220111
pmcid: 3038549
doi: 10.1016/j.str.2010.12.003
Klompe, S. E., Vo, P. L. H., Halpin-Healy, T. S. & Sternberg, S. H. Transposon-encoded CRISPR–Cas systems direct RNA-guided DNA integration. Nature 571, 219–225 (2019).
pubmed: 31189177
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1323-z
Strecker, J. et al. RNA-guided DNA insertion with CRISPR-associated transposases. Science 365, 48–53 (2019).
pubmed: 31171706
pmcid: 6659118
doi: 10.1126/science.aax9181
Faure, G. et al. CRISPR–Cas in mobile genetic elements: counter-defence and beyond. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17, 513–525 (2019).
pubmed: 31165781
doi: 10.1038/s41579-019-0204-7
Peters, J. E., Makarova, K. S., Shmakov, S. & Koonin, E. V. Recruitment of CRISPR-Cas systems by Tn7-like transposons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E7358–E7366 (2017).
pubmed: 28811374
pmcid: 5584455
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1709035114
Rybarski, J. R., Hu, K., Hill, A. M., Wilke, C. O. & Finkelstein, I. J. Metagenomic discovery of CRISPR-associated transposons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2112279118 (2021).
pubmed: 34845024
pmcid: 8670466
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2112279118
Halpin-Healy, T. S., Klompe, S. E., Sternberg, S. H. & Fernández, I. S. Structural basis of DNA targeting by a transposon-encoded CRISPR-Cas system. Nature 577, 271–274 (2020). This work provides mechanistic insights into subtype I-F3 CRISPR transposases by describing the structures of a TniQ–Cascade complex and reveals interactions between TniQ and Cas6 and Cas7.1 within the Cascade complex.
pubmed: 31853065
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1849-0
Li, Z., Zhang, H., Xiao, R. & Chang, L. Cryo-EM structure of a type I-F CRISPR RNA guided surveillance complex bound to transposition protein TniQ. Cell Res. 30, 179–181 (2020).
pubmed: 31900425
pmcid: 7015058
doi: 10.1038/s41422-019-0268-y
Jia, N., Xie, W., de la Cruz, M. J., Eng, E. T. & Patel, D. J. Structure-function insights into the initial step of DNA integration by a CRISPR-Cas-Transposon complex. Cell Res. 30, 182–184 (2020).
pubmed: 31925391
pmcid: 7015049
doi: 10.1038/s41422-019-0272-2
Wang, B., Xu, W. & Yang, H. Structural basis of a Tn7-like transposase recruitment and DNA loading to CRISPR-Cas surveillance complex. Cell Res. 30, 185–187 (2020).
pubmed: 31913359
pmcid: 7015053
doi: 10.1038/s41422-020-0274-0
Park, J.-U. et al. Structural basis for target site selection in RNA-guided DNA transposition systems. Science 373, 768–774 (2021). This work provides mechanistic insights into subtype V-K CRISPR transposases by describing a transposition regulator, TnsC, from a subtype V-K CAST system and its interaction with TniQ and proposing a model for subtype V-K CAST transposition.
pubmed: 34385391
pmcid: 9080059
doi: 10.1126/science.abi8976
Querques, I., Schmitz, M., Oberli, S., Chanez, C. & Jinek, M. Target site selection and remodelling by type V CRISPR-transposon systems. Nature 599, 497–502 (2021). This work provides mechanistic insights into subtype V-K CRISPR transposases by describing target recognition by Cas12k and the role of the transposition regulator TnsC and proposing an alternative model for subtype V-K CAST transposition.
pubmed: 34759315
pmcid: 7613401
doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04030-z
Xiao, R. et al. Structural basis of target DNA recognition by CRISPR-Cas12k for RNA-guided DNA transposition. Mol. Cell 81, 4457–4466.e5 (2021).
pubmed: 34450043
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.07.043
Chowdhury, S. et al. Structure reveals mechanisms of viral suppressors that intercept a CRISPR RNA-guided surveillance complex. Cell 169, 47–57.e11 (2017).
pubmed: 28340349
pmcid: 5478280
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.012
Guo, T. W. et al. Cryo-EM structures reveal mechanism and inhibition of DNA targeting by a CRISPR-Cas surveillance complex. Cell 171, 414–426.e12 (2017).
pubmed: 28985564
pmcid: 5683424
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.006
Pausch, P. et al. Structural variation of type I-F CRISPR RNA guided DNA surveillance. Mol. Cell 67, 622–632.e4 (2017).
pubmed: 28781236
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.06.036
Rollins, M. F. et al. Structure reveals a mechanism of CRISPR-RNA-guided nuclease recruitment and anti-CRISPR viral mimicry. Mol. Cell 74, 132–142.e5 (2019).
pubmed: 30872121
pmcid: 6521718
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.02.001
Hayes, R. P. et al. Structural basis for promiscuous PAM recognition in type I–E Cascade from E. coli. Nature 530, 499–503 (2016).
pubmed: 26863189
pmcid: 5134256
doi: 10.1038/nature16995
Greene, E. C. & Mizuuchi, K. Dynamics of a protein polymer: the assembly and disassembly pathways of the MuB transposition target complex. EMBO J. 21, 1477–1486 (2002).
pubmed: 11889053
pmcid: 125918
doi: 10.1093/emboj/21.6.1477
Vo, P. L. H. et al. CRISPR RNA-guided integrases for high-efficiency, multiplexed bacterial genome engineering. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 480–489 (2021).
pubmed: 33230293
doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-00745-y
Rubin, B. E. et al. Species- and site-specific genome editing in complex bacterial communities. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 34–47 (2021).
pubmed: 34873292
pmcid: 9261505
doi: 10.1038/s41564-021-01014-7
Stellwagen, A. E. & Craig, N. L. Avoiding self: two Tn7-encoded proteins mediate target immunity in Tn7 transposition. EMBO J. 16, 6823–6834 (1997).
pubmed: 9362496
pmcid: 1170286
doi: 10.1093/emboj/16.22.6823
Saito, M. et al. Dual modes of CRISPR-associated transposon homing. Cell 184, 2441–2453 (2021).
pubmed: 33770501
pmcid: 8276595
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.006
Petassi, M. T., Hsieh, S.-C. & Peters, J. E. Guide RNA categorization enables target site choice in Tn7-CRISPR-Cas transposons. Cell 183, 1757–1771.e18 (2020).
pubmed: 33271061
pmcid: 7770071
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.11.005
Waddell, C. S. & Craig, N. L. Tn7 transposition: two transposition pathways directed by five Tn7-encoded genes. Genes Dev. 2, 137–149 (1988).
pubmed: 2834269
doi: 10.1101/gad.2.2.137
Klompe, S. E. et al. Evolutionary and mechanistic diversity of type I-F CRISPR-associated transposons. Mol. Cell 82, 616–628 (2022).
pubmed: 35051352
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.12.021
Liu, G., Lin, Q., Jin, S. & Gao, C. The CRISPR-Cas toolbox and gene editing technologies. Mol. Cell 82, 333–347 (2022).
pubmed: 34968414
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.12.002
Nambiar, T. S., Baudrier, L., Billon, P. & Ciccia, A. CRISPR-based genome editing through the lens of DNA repair. Mol. Cell 82, 348–388 (2022).
pubmed: 35063100
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.12.026
Lapinaite, A. et al. DNA capture by a CRISPR-Cas9 guided adenine base editor. Science 369, 566–571 (2022).
doi: 10.1126/science.abb1390
Hirano, S., Nishimasu, H., Ishitani, R. & Nureki, O. Structural basis for the altered PAM specificities of engineered CRISPR-Cas9. Mol. Cell 61, 886–894 (2016).
pubmed: 26990991
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.02.018
Chen, W. et al. Molecular basis for the PAM expansion and fidelity enhancement of an evolved Cas9 nuclease. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000496 (2019).
pubmed: 31603896
pmcid: 6808508
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000496
Anders, C., Bargsten, K. & Jinek, M. Structural plasticity of PAM recognition by engineered variants of the RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9. Mol. Cell 61, 895–902 (2016).
pubmed: 26990992
pmcid: 5065715
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.02.020
Guo, M. et al. Structural insights into a high fidelity variant of SpCas9. Cell Res. 29, 183–192 (2019).
pubmed: 30664728
pmcid: 6460432
doi: 10.1038/s41422-018-0131-6
Nishimasu, H. et al. Structural basis for the altered PAM recognition by engineered CRISPR-Cpf1. Mol. Cell 67, 139–147.e2 (2017).
pubmed: 28595896
pmcid: 5957533
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.04.019
Shams, A. et al. Comprehensive deletion landscape of CRISPR-Cas9 identifies minimal RNA-guided DNA-binding modules. Nat. Commun. 12, 5664 (2021).
pubmed: 34580310
pmcid: 8476515
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25992-8
Donohoue, P. D. et al. Conformational control of Cas9 by CRISPR hybrid RNA-DNA guides mitigates off-target activity in T cells. Mol. Cell 81, 3637–3649.e5 (2021).
pubmed: 34478654
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.07.035
Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).
pubmed: 34265844
pmcid: 8371605
doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2
Townshend, R. J. L. et al. Geometric deep learning of RNA structure. Science 373, 1047–1051 (2021).
pubmed: 34446608
doi: 10.1126/science.abe5650
Wei, J., Chen, S., Zong, L., Gao, X. & Li, Y. Protein-RNA interaction prediction with deep learning: structure matters. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.12243 (2021).
Nierzwicki, Ł. & Palermo, G. Molecular dynamics to predict cryo-EM: capturing transitions and short-lived conformational states of biomolecules. Front. Mol. Biosci. 8, 641208 (2021).
pubmed: 33884260
pmcid: 8053777
doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2021.641208
Wang, J. et al. Gaussian accelerated molecular dynamics: principles and applications. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 11, e1521 (2021).
pubmed: 34899998
pmcid: 8658739
doi: 10.1002/wcms.1521
Xiao, Y., Luo, M., Dolan, A. E., Liao, M. & Ke, A. Structure basis for RNA-guided DNA degradation by Cascade and Cas3. Science 361, eaat0839 (2018).
pubmed: 29880725
pmcid: 6537108
doi: 10.1126/science.aat0839