Structural rearrangements allow nucleic acid discrimination by type I-D Cascade.
Journal
Nature communications
ISSN: 2041-1723
Titre abrégé: Nat Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 05 2022
20 05 2022
Historique:
received:
04
10
2021
accepted:
27
04
2022
entrez:
20
5
2022
pubmed:
21
5
2022
medline:
25
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
CRISPR-Cas systems are adaptive immune systems that protect prokaryotes from foreign nucleic acids, such as bacteriophages. Two of the most prevalent CRISPR-Cas systems include type I and type III. Interestingly, the type I-D interference proteins contain characteristic features of both type I and type III systems. Here, we present the structures of type I-D Cascade bound to both a double-stranded (ds)DNA and a single-stranded (ss)RNA target at 2.9 and 3.1 Å, respectively. We show that type I-D Cascade is capable of specifically binding ssRNA and reveal how PAM recognition of dsDNA targets initiates long-range structural rearrangements that likely primes Cas10d for Cas3' binding and subsequent non-target strand DNA cleavage. These structures allow us to model how binding of the anti-CRISPR protein AcrID1 likely blocks target dsDNA binding via competitive inhibition of the DNA substrate engagement with the Cas10d active site. This work elucidates the unique mechanisms used by type I-D Cascade for discrimination of single-stranded and double stranded targets. Thus, our data supports a model for the hybrid nature of this complex with features of type III and type I systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35595728
doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30402-8
pii: 10.1038/s41467-022-30402-8
pmc: PMC9123187
doi:
Substances chimiques
CRISPR-Associated Proteins
0
Nucleic Acids
0
RNA
63231-63-0
DNA
9007-49-2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2829Subventions
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R35 GM138348
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : T32 AI007392
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Hampton, H. G., Watson, B. N. J. & Fineran, P. C. The arms race between bacteria and their phage foes. Nature 577, 327–336 (2020).
pubmed: 31942051
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1894-8
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
Barrangou, R. et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315, 1709–1712 (2007).
pubmed: 17379808
doi: 10.1126/science.1138140
Jackson, S. A. et al. CRISPR-Cas: adapting to change. Science 356, eaal5056 (2017).
Nishimasu, H. & Nureki, O. Structures and mechanisms of CRISPR RNA-guided effector nucleases. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 43, 68–78 (2017).
pubmed: 27912110
doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2016.11.013
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 (2020).
pubmed: 31857715
doi: 10.1038/s41579-019-0299-x
Makarova, K. S. et al. An updated evolutionary classification of CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 722–736 (2015).
pubmed: 26411297
pmcid: 5426118
doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3569
Slaymaker, I. M. & Gaudelli, N. M. Engineering Cas9 for human genome editing. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 69, 86–98 (2021).
pubmed: 33964614
doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2021.03.004
Bravo, J. P. K., Liu, M., Mccool, R. S. & Jung, K. Structural basis for mismatch surveillance by CRISPR/Cas9. Nature 603, 343–347 (2022).
pubmed: 35236982
pmcid: 8907077
doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04470-1
Cameron, P. et al. Harnessing type I CRISPR–Cas systems for genome engineering in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1471–1477 (2019).
pubmed: 31740839
doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0310-0
Csörgő, B. et al. A compact Cascade–Cas3 system for targeted genome engineering. Nat. Methods 17, 1183–1190 (2020).
pubmed: 33077967
pmcid: 7611934
doi: 10.1038/s41592-020-00980-w
Osakabe, K. et al. Genome editing in plants using CRISPR type I-D nuclease. Commun. Biol. 3, 648 (2020).
Dillard, K. E. et al. Assembly and translocation of a CRISPR-Cas primed acquisition complex. Cell 175, 934.e15–946.e15 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.09.039
Jore, M. M. et al. Structural basis for CRISPR RNA-guided DNA recognition by Cascade. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 529–536 (2011).
pubmed: 21460843
doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2019
Hochstrasser, M. L. et al. CasA mediates Cas3-catalyzed target degradation during CRISPR RNA-guided interference. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6618–6623 (2014).
pubmed: 24748111
pmcid: 4020112
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1405079111
Westra, E. R. et al. CRISPR immunity relies on the consecutive binding and degradation of negatively supercoiled invader DNA by Cascade and Cas3. Mol. Cell 46, 595–605 (2012).
pubmed: 22521689
pmcid: 3372689
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.03.018
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).
Goldberg, G. W., Jiang, W., Bikard, D. & Marraffini, L. A. Conditional tolerance of temperate phages via transcription-dependent CRISPR-Cas targeting. Nature 514, 633–637 (2014).
pubmed: 25174707
pmcid: 4214910
doi: 10.1038/nature13637
Jia, N. et al. Type III-A CRISPR-Cas Csm complexes: assembly, periodic RNA cleavage, DNase activity regulation, and autoimmunity. Mol. Cell 73, 264.e5–277.e5 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.11.007
Samai, P. et al. Co-transcriptional DNA and RNA cleavage during type III CRISPR-cas immunity. Cell 161, 1164–1174 (2015).
pubmed: 25959775
pmcid: 4594840
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.027
Wang, L. et al. Dynamics of Cas10 govern discrimination between self and non-self in type III CRISPR-Cas immunity. Mol. Cell 73, 278–290.e4 (2019).
pubmed: 30503774
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.11.008
Niewoehner, O. et al. Type III CRISPR-Cas systems produce cyclic oligoadenylate second messengers. Nature 548, 543–548 (2017).
pubmed: 28722012
doi: 10.1038/nature23467
Kazlauskiene, M., Kostiuk, G., Venclovas, Č., Tamulaitis, G. & Siksnys, V. A. cyclic oligonucleotide signaling pathway in type III CRISPR-Cas systems. Science 357, 605–609 (2017).
pubmed: 28663439
doi: 10.1126/science.aao0100
Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I., Snir, S. & Koonin, E. V. Defense islands in bacterial and archaeal genomes and prediction of novel defense systems. J. Bacteriol. 193, 6039–6056 (2011).
pubmed: 21908672
pmcid: 3194920
doi: 10.1128/JB.05535-11
McBride, T. M. et al. Diverse CRISPR-Cas complexes require independent translation of small and large subunits from a single gene. Mol. Cell 80, 971–9 e7 (2020).
pubmed: 33248026
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.11.003
Sofos, N. et al. Structures of the Cmr-β complex reveal the regulation of the immunity mechanism of type III-B CRISPR-Cas. Mol. Cell 79, 741.e7–757.e7 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.07.008
Steens, J. A. et al. SCOPE enables type III CRISPR-Cas diagnostics using flexible targeting and stringent CARF ribonuclease activation. Nat. Commun. 12, 5033 (2021).
pubmed: 34413302
pmcid: 8376896
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25337-5
Manav, M. C. et al. Structural basis for inhibition of an archaeal CRISPR–Cas type I-D large subunit by an anti-CRISPR protein. Nat. Commun. 11, 5993 (2020).
pubmed: 33239638
pmcid: 7689449
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19847-x
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
Shah, S. A., Erdmann, S., Mojica, F. J. M. & Garrett, R. A. Protospacer recognition motifs: mixed identities and functional diversity. RNA Biol. 10, 891–899 (2013).
pubmed: 23403393
pmcid: 3737346
doi: 10.4161/rna.23764
O’Brien, R. E. et al. Structural basis for assembly of non-canonical small subunits into type I-C Cascade. Nat. Commun. 11, 5931 (2020).
pubmed: 33230133
pmcid: 7684278
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19785-8
Jackson, R. N. et al. Structural biology. Crystal structure of the CRISPR RNA-guided surveillance complex from Escherichia coli. Science 345, 1473–1479 (2014).
pubmed: 25103409
pmcid: 4188430
doi: 10.1126/science.1256328
Chowdhury, S. et al. Structure reveals mechanisms of viral suppressors that intercept a CRISPR RNA-guided surveillance complex. Cell 169, 47.e11–57.e11 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.03.012
Lin, J. et al. DNA targeting by subtype I-D CRISPR-Cas shows type i and type III features. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 10470–10478 (2020).
pubmed: 32960267
pmcid: 7544194
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa749
Vink, J. N. A., Baijens, J. H. L. & Brouns, S. J. J. PAM-repeat associations and spacer selection preferences in single and co-occurring CRISPR-Cas systems. Genome Biol. 22, 281 (2021).
Zhou, Y. et al. Structure of a type IV CRISPR-Cas ribonucleoprotein complex. iScience 24, 102201 (2021).
pubmed: 33733066
pmcid: 7937560
doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102201
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
Liu, M. et al. Engineered CRISPR/Cas9 enzymes improve discrimination by slowing DNA cleavage to allow release of off-target DNA. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–13 (2020).
Bravo, J. P. K. et al. Structural basis of rotavirus RNA chaperone displacement and RNA annealing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 41, e2100198118 (2021).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2100198118
Staals, R. H. J. et al. RNA targeting by the type III-A CRISPR-Cas Csm complex of Thermus thermophilus. Mol. Cell 56, 518–530 (2014).
pubmed: 25457165
pmcid: 4342149
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2014.10.005
Osawa, T., Inanaga, H., Sato, C. & Numata, T. Crystal structure of the CRISPR-Cas RNA silencing Cmr complex bound to a target analog. Mol. Cell 58, 418–430 (2015).
pubmed: 25921071
doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.03.018
Taylor, D. W. et al. Structure of the CRISPR-Cmr complex reveal mode of RNA target positioning. Science 348, 581–586 (2015).
pubmed: 25837515
pmcid: 4582657
doi: 10.1126/science.aaa4535
Hrle, A. et al. Structural analyses of the CRISPR protein Csc2 reveal the RNA-binding interface of the type I-D Cas7 family. RNA Biol. 11, 1072–1082 (2014).
pubmed: 25483036
pmcid: 4615900
doi: 10.4161/rna.29893
You, L. et al. Structure studies of the CRISPR-Csm complex reveal mechanism of co-transcriptional interference. Cell 176, 239.e16–253.e16 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.052
Estrella, M. A., Kuo, F. T. & Bailey, S. RNA-activated DNA cleavage by the Type III-B CRISPR–Cas effector complex. Genes Dev. 30, 460–470 (2016).
pubmed: 26848046
pmcid: 4762430
doi: 10.1101/gad.273722.115
Bernheim, A. et al. Prokaryotic viperins produce diverse antiviral molecules. Nature 589, 120–124 (2020).
pubmed: 32937646
pmcid: 7610908
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2762-2
Redding, S. et al. Surveillance and processing of foreign DNA by the Escherichia coli CRISPR-Cas system. Cell 163, 854–865 (2015).
pubmed: 26522594
pmcid: 4636941
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.10.003
Tompa, P. & Csermely, P. The role of structural disorder in the function of RNA and protein chaperones. FASEB J. 18, 1169–1175 (2004).
pubmed: 15284216
doi: 10.1096/fj.04-1584rev
Bravo, J. P. K. et al. Stability of local secondary structure determines selectivity of viral RNA chaperones. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 7924–7937 (2018).
pubmed: 29796667
pmcid: 6125681
doi: 10.1093/nar/gky394
Donlin, M. J., Patel, S. S. & Johnson, K. A. Kinetic partitioning between the exonuclease and polymerase sites in DNA error correction. Biochemistry 30, 538–546 (1991).
pubmed: 1988042
doi: 10.1021/bi00216a031
Thirumalai, D. & Woodson, S. A. Kinetics of folding of proteins and RNA. Acc. Chem. Res. 29, 433–439 (1996).
doi: 10.1021/ar9500933
Suloway, C. et al. Automated molecular microscopy: the new Leginon system. J. Struct. Biol. 151, 41–60 (2005).
Tegunov, D. & Cramer, P. Real-time cryo-electron microscopy data preprocessing with Warp. Nat. Methods 16, 1146–1152 (2019).
pubmed: 31591575
pmcid: 6858868
doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0580-y
Punjani, A., Rubinstein, J. L., Fleet, D. J. & Brubaker, M. A. CryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination. Nat. Methods 14, 290–296 (2017).
pubmed: 28165473
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4169
Punjani, A., Zhang, H. & Fleet, D. J. Non-uniform refinement: adaptive regularization improves single-particle cryo-EM reconstruction. Nat. Methods 17, 1214–1221 (2020).
pubmed: 33257830
doi: 10.1038/s41592-020-00990-8
Zivanov, J. et al. RELION-3: new tools for automated high-resolution cryo-EM structure determination. Elife 7, 421123 (2018).
Sanchez-Garcia, R. et al. DeepEMhancer: a deep learning solution for cryo-EM volume post-processing. Commun. Biol. 4, 874 (2021).
pubmed: 34267316
pmcid: 8282847
doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-02399-1
Kelley, L. A., Mezulis, S., Yates, C. M., Wass, M. N. & Sternberg, M. J. The Phyre2 web portal for protein modeling, prediction and analysis. Nat. Protoc. 10, 845–858 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/nprot.2015.053
Buchan, D. W. A. & Jones, D. T. The PSIPRED Protein Analysis Workbench: 20 years on. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, W402–W407 (2019).
pubmed: 31251384
pmcid: 6602445
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz297
Emsley, P. & Cowtan, K. Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr. 60, 2126–2132 (2004).
doi: 10.1107/S0907444904019158
Croll, T. I. ISOLDE: a physically realistic environment for model building into low-resolution electron-density maps. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D 74, 519–530 (2018).
doi: 10.1107/S2059798318002425
Goddard, T. D. et al. UCSF ChimeraX: meeting modern challenges in visualization and analysis. Protein Sci. 27, 14–25 (2018).
pubmed: 28710774
doi: 10.1002/pro.3235
Pettersen, E. F. et al. UCSF ChimeraX: structure visualization for researchers, educators, and developers. Protein Sci. 30, 70–82 (2021).
pubmed: 32881101
doi: 10.1002/pro.3943
Afonine, P. V. et al. Real-space refinement in PHENIX for cryo-EM and crystallography. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Struct. Biol. 74, 531–544 (2018).
doi: 10.1107/S2059798318006551
Kidmose, R. T. et al. Namdinator - automatic molecular dynamics flexible fitting of structural models into cryo-EM and crystallography experimental maps. IUCrJ 6, 526–531 (2019).
pubmed: 31316797
pmcid: 6608625
doi: 10.1107/S2052252519007619
Morin, A. et al. Collaboration gets the most out of software. Elife 2013, 1–6 (2013).
Ashkenazy, H. et al. ConSurf 2016: an improved methodology to estimate and visualize evolutionary conservation in macromolecules. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, W344–W350 (2016).
pubmed: 27166375
pmcid: 4987940
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw408
Roy, A., Kucukural, A. & Zhang, Y. I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction. Nat. Protoc. 5, 725–738 (2010).
pubmed: 20360767
pmcid: 2849174
doi: 10.1038/nprot.2010.5
Di Tommaso, P. et al. T-Coffee: a web server for the multiple sequence alignment of protein and RNA sequences using structural information and homology extension. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 13–17 (2011).
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr245
Guzman, L. M., Belin, D., Carson, M. J. & Beckwith, J. Tight regulation, modulation, and high-level expression by vectors containing the arabinose P(BAD) promoter. J. Bacteriol. 177, 4121–4130 (1995).
pubmed: 7608087
pmcid: 177145
doi: 10.1128/jb.177.14.4121-4130.1995
Williams, J. G. K. Construction of specific mutations in photosystem II photosynthetic reaction center by genetic engineering methods in Synechocystis 6803. Methods Enzymol. 167, 766–778 (1988).
doi: 10.1016/0076-6879(88)67088-1
Morris, J. N. et al. Whole genome re-sequencing of two ‘wild-type’ strains of the model cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803. N. Z. J. Bot. 52, 36–47 (2014).
doi: 10.1080/0028825X.2013.846267