Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Alternative functions of CRISPR–Cas systems in the evolutionary arms race

Nature Reviews Microbiology volume 20, pages 351–364 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

CRISPR–Cas systems of bacteria and archaea comprise chromosomal loci with typical repetitive clusters and associated genes encoding a range of Cas proteins. Adaptation of CRISPR arrays occurs when virus-derived and plasmid-derived sequences are integrated as new CRISPR spacers. Cas proteins use CRISPR-derived RNA guides to specifically recognize and cleave nucleic acids of invading mobile genetic elements. Apart from this role as an adaptive immune system, some CRISPR-associated nucleases are hijacked by mobile genetic elements: viruses use them to attack their prokaryotic hosts, and transposons have adopted CRISPR systems for guided transposition. In addition, some CRISPR–Cas systems control the expression of genes involved in bacterial physiology and virulence. Moreover, pathogenic bacteria may use their Cas nuclease activity indirectly to evade the human immune system or directly to invade the nucleus and damage the chromosomal DNA of infected human cells. Thus, the evolutionary arms race has led to the expansion of exciting variations in CRISPR mechanisms and functionalities. In this Review, we explore the latest insights into the diverse functions of CRISPR–Cas systems beyond adaptive immunity and discuss the implications for the development of CRISPR-based applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Collateral damage associated with CRISPR–Cas systems.
Fig. 2: CRISPR–Cas in the evolutionary arms race between phages and bacteria.
Fig. 3: Hijacking of CRISPR–Cas by mobile genetic elements.
Fig. 4: Function of CRISPR–Cas in the regulation of bacterial virulence.
Fig. 5: Direct role of CRISPR–Cas in bacterial virulence.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Koonin, E. V. Horizontal gene transfer: essentiality and evolvability in prokaryotes, and roles in evolutionary transitions. F1000Res 5, 1805 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Vogan, A. A. & Higgs, P. G. The advantages and disadvantages of horizontal gene transfer and the emergence of the first species. Biol. Direct 6, 1 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Tock, M. R. & Dryden, D. T. The biology of restriction and anti-restriction. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 8, 466–472 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Labrie, S. J., Samson, J. E. & Moineau, S. Bacteriophage resistance mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 317–327 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Doron, S. et al. Systematic discovery of antiphage defense systems in the microbial pangenome. Science 359, eaar4120 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Barrangou, R. et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315, 1709–1712 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brouns, S. J. et al. Small CRISPR RNAs guide antiviral defense in prokaryotes. Science 321, 960–964 (2008). This article provides the first insights into the molecular mechanism of antiviral defence by CRISPR–Cas, including the use of designed CRISPRs for dedicated DNA interference.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Elmore, J. R. et al. Bipartite recognition of target RNAs activates DNA cleavage by the type III-B CRISPR-Cas system. Genes Dev. 30, 447–459 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Smargon, A. A. et al. Cas13b is a type VI-B CRISPR-associated RNA-guided RNase differentially regulated by accessory proteins Csx27 and Csx28. Mol. Cell 65, 618–630.e7 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 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). This article is the latest published overview of CRISPR–Cas functional diversity, with emphasis on novel class 2 CRISPR–Cas systems, derived CRISPR–Cas variants and ancillary CRISPR-linked genes.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koonin, E. V. & Makarova, K. S. CRISPR-Cas: evolution of an RNA-based adaptive immunity system in prokaryotes. RNA Biol. 10, 679–686 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Oost, J., Westra, E. R., Jackson, R. N. & Wiedenheft, B. Unravelling the structural and mechanistic basis of CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12, 479–492 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Marraffini, L. A. CRISPR-Cas immunity in prokaryotes. Nature 526, 55–61 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mohanraju, P. et al. Diverse evolutionary roots and mechanistic variations of the CRISPR-Cas systems. Science 353, aad5147 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Li, M. et al. Toxin-antitoxin RNA pairs safeguard CRISPR-Cas systems. Science 372, eabe5601 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Saha, C. et al. Guide-free Cas9 from pathogenic Campylobacter jejuni bacteria causes severe damage to DNA. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz4849 (2020). This study demonstrates that guide-free Cas9 from C. jejuni causes guide-independent, non-specific host-cell DNA damage.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Lopatina, A., Tal, N. & Sorek, R. Abortive infection: bacterial suicide as an antiviral immune strategy. Annu. Rev. Virol. 7, 371–384 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Samai, P. et al. Co-transcriptional DNA and RNA cleavage during type III CRISPR-Cas immunity. Cell 161, 1164–1174 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Benda, C. et al. Structural model of a CRISPR RNA-silencing complex reveals the RNA-target cleavage activity in Cmr4. Mol. Cell 56, 43–54 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hale, C. R., Cocozaki, A., Li, H., Terns, R. M. & Terns, M. P. Target RNA capture and cleavage by the Cmr type III-B CRISPR-Cas effector complex. Genes Dev. 28, 2432–2443 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tamulaitis, G. et al. Programmable RNA shredding by the type III-A CRISPR-Cas system of Streptococcus thermophilus. Mol. Cell 56, 506–517 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhu, X. & Ye, K. Cmr4 is the slicer in the RNA-targeting Cmr CRISPR complex. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 1257–1267 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kazlauskiene, M., Tamulaitis, G., Kostiuk, G., Venclovas, C. & Siksnys, V. Spatiotemporal control of type III-A CRISPR-cas immunity: coupling DNA degradation with the target RNA recognition. Mol. Cell 62, 295–306 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhu, Y., Klompe, S. E., Vlot, M., van der Oost, J. & Staals, R. H. J. Shooting the messenger: RNA-targetting CRISPR-Cas systems. Biosci. Rep. 38, BSR20170788 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kazlauskiene, M., Kostiuk, G., Venclovas, C., Tamulaitis, G. & Siksnys, V. A cyclic oligonucleotide signaling pathway in type III CRISPR-Cas systems. Science 357, 605–609 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Niewoehner, O. et al. Type III CRISPR-Cas systems produce cyclic oligoadenylate second messengers. Nature 548, 543–548 (2017). Together with Kazlauskiene et al. (2017), this study demonstrates the involvement of secondary messenger molecules (cOAs) in type III CRISPR–Cas immunity.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jiang, W., Samai, P. & Marraffini, L. A. Degradation of phage transcripts by CRISPR-associated RNases enables type III CRISPR-Cas immunity. Cell 164, 710–721 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Rostol, J. T. & Marraffini, L. A. Non-specific degradation of transcripts promotes plasmid clearance during type III-A CRISPR-Cas immunity. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 656–662 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Athukoralage, J. S., Rouillon, C., Graham, S., Gruschow, S. & White, M. F. Ring nucleases deactivate type III CRISPR ribonucleases by degrading cyclic oligoadenylate. Nature 562, 277–280 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Makarova, K. S. et al. Evolutionary and functional classification of the CARF domain superfamily, key sensors in prokaryotic antivirus defense. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 8828–8847 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Jia, N., Jones, R., Yang, G., Ouerfelli, O. & Patel, D. J. CRISPR-Cas III-A Csm6 CARF domain is a ring nuclease triggering stepwise cA4 Cleavage with ApA>p formation terminating RNase activity. Mol. Cell 75, 944–956.e6 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Athukoralage, J. S., Graham, S., Gruschow, S., Rouillon, C. & White, M. F. A type III CRISPR ancillary ribonuclease degrades its cyclic oligoadenylate activator. J. Mol. Biol. 431, 2894–2899 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. McMahon, S. A. et al. Structure and mechanism of a type III CRISPR defence DNA nuclease activated by cyclic oligoadenylate. Nat. Commun. 11, 500 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Rostol, J. T. et al. The Card1 nuclease provides defence during type III CRISPR immunity. Nature 590, 624–629 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Watson, B. N. J. et al. Type I-F CRISPR-Cas resistance against virulent phages results in abortive infection and provides population-level immunity. Nat. Commun. 10, 5526 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Strotskaya, A. et al. The action of Escherichia coli CRISPR-Cas system on lytic bacteriophages with different lifestyles and development strategies. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 1946–1957 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Liu, L. et al. Two Distant catalytic sites are responsible for C2c2 RNase activities. Cell 168, 121–134.e12 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Abudayyeh, O. O. et al. C2c2 is a single-component programmable RNA-guided RNA-targeting CRISPR effector. Science 353, aaf5573 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Meeske, A. J. & Marraffini, L. A. RNA guide complementarity prevents self-targeting in type VI CRISPR systems. Mol. Cell 71, 791–801.e3 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Meeske, A. J., Nakandakari-Higa, S. & Marraffini, L. A. Cas13-induced cellular dormancy prevents the rise of CRISPR-resistant bacteriophage. Nature 570, 241–245 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Stella, S. et al. Conformational activation promotes CRISPR-Cas12a catalysis and resetting of the endonuclease activity. Cell 175, 1856–1871.e21 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Swarts, D. C. & Jinek, M. Mechanistic insights into the cis- and trans-acting DNase activities of Cas12a. Mol. Cell 73, 589–600.e4 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Harrington, L. B. et al. Programmed DNA destruction by miniature CRISPR-Cas14 enzymes. Science 362, 839–842 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Yan, W. X. et al. Functionally diverse type V CRISPR-Cas systems. Science 363, 88–91 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Abudayyeh, O. O. et al. RNA targeting with CRISPR-Cas13. Nature 550, 280–284 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Wang, Q. et al. The CRISPR-Cas13a gene-editing system induces collateral cleavage of RNA in glioma cells. Adv. Sci. 6, 1901299 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Gootenberg, J. S. et al. Nucleic acid detection with CRISPR-Cas13a/C2c2. Science 356, 438–442 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Santiago-Frangos, A. et al. Intrinsic signal amplification by type III CRISPR-Cas systems provides a sequence-specific SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic. Cell Rep. Med. 2, 100319 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. van Beljouw, S. P. B. et al. The gRAMP CRISPR-Cas effector is an RNA endonuclease complexed with a caspase-like peptidase. Science 373, 1349–1353 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Deveau, H., Garneau, J. E. & Moineau, S. CRISPR/Cas system and its role in phage-bacteria interactions. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 64, 475–493 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Semenova, E. et al. Interference by clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) RNA is governed by a seed sequence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10098–10103 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Bondy-Denomy, J., Pawluk, A., Maxwell, K. L. & Davidson, A. R. Bacteriophage genes that inactivate the CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system. Nature 493, 429–432 (2013). This article presents the discovery of phage-encoded protein inhibitors of CRISPR–Cas systems, called ‘Acr proteins’.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bondy-Denomy, J. et al. Multiple mechanisms for CRISPR-Cas inhibition by anti-CRISPR proteins. Nature 526, 136–139 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Trasanidou, D. et al. Keeping CRISPR in check: diverse mechanisms of phage-encoded anti-CRISPRS. Fems Microbiol. Lett. 366, fnz098 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Pawluk, A., Bondy-Denomy, J., Cheung, V. H., Maxwell, K. L. & Davidson, A. R. A new group of phage anti-CRISPR genes inhibits the type I-E CRISPR-Cas system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. mBio 5, e00896 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Thavalingam, A. et al. Inhibition of CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complex assembly by anti-CRISPR AcrIIC2. Nat. Commun. 10, 2806 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Hirschi, M. et al. AcrIF9 tethers non-sequence specific dsDNA to the CRISPR RNA-guided surveillance complex. Nat. Commun. 11, 2730 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Lu, W. T., Trost, C. N., Muller-Esparza, H., Randau, L. & Davidson, A. R. Anti-CRISPR AcrIF9 functions by inducing the CRISPR-Cas complex to bind DNA non-specifically. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 3381–3393 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Osuna, B. A. et al. Listeria phages induce Cas9 degradation to protect lysogenic genomes. Cell Host Microbe 28, 31–40.e9 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Athukoralage, J. S. et al. An anti-CRISPR viral ring nuclease subverts type III CRISPR immunity. Nature 577, 572–575 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Bondy-Denomy, J. et al. A unified resource for tracking anti-CRISPR names. Crispr J. 1, 304–305 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Wiegand, T., Karambelkar, S., Bondy-Denomy, J. & Wiedenheft, B. Structures and strategies of anti-CRISPR-mediated immune suppression. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 74, 21–37 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Osuna, B. A. et al. Critical anti-CRISPR locus repression by a bi-functional Cas9 inhibitor. Cell Host Microbe 28, 23–30.e5 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Stern, A. & Sorek, R. The phage-host arms race: shaping the evolution of microbes. Bioessays 33, 43–51 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Refardt, D. Within-host competition determines reproductive success of temperate bacteriophages. ISME J. 5, 1451–1460 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Sebaihia, M. et al. The multidrug-resistant human pathogen Clostridium difficile has a highly mobile, mosaic genome. Nat. Genet. 38, 779–786 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Minot, S. et al. The human gut virome: inter-individual variation and dynamic response to diet. Genome Res. 21, 1616–1625 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Minot, S. et al. Rapid evolution of the human gut virome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12450–12455 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Seed, K. D., Lazinski, D. W., Calderwood, S. B. & Camilli, A. A bacteriophage encodes its own CRISPR/Cas adaptive response to evade host innate immunity. Nature 494, 489–491 (2013). This study, for the first time, identifies a CRISPR–Cas system encoded in a phage that is used to disarm a phage-inhibitory chromosomal island in its bacterial host.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Ram, G. et al. Staphylococcal pathogenicity island interference with helper phage reproduction is a paradigm of molecular parasitism. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 16300–16305 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. O’Hara, B. J., Barth, Z. K., McKitterick, A. C. & Seed, K. D. A highly specific phage defense system is a conserved feature of the Vibrio cholerae mobilome. PLoS Genet. 13, e1006838 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Bellas, C. M., Anesio, A. M. & Barker, G. Analysis of virus genomes from glacial environments reveals novel virus groups with unusual host interactions. Front. Microbiol. 6, 656 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Chenard, C., Wirth, J. F. & Suttle, C. A. Viruses infecting a freshwater filamentous cyanobacterium (Nostoc sp.) encode a functional CRISPR array and a proteobacterial DNA polymerase B. mBio 7, e00667-16 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Al-Shayeb, B. et al. Clades of huge phages from across Earth’s ecosystems. Nature 578, 425–431 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Pausch, P. et al. CRISPR-CasPhi from huge phages is a hypercompact genome editor. Science 369, 333–337 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Carabias, A. et al. Structure of the mini-RNA-guided endonuclease CRISPR-Cas12j3. Nat. Commun. 12, 4476 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Hooton, S. P. T. & Connerton, I. F. Campylobacter jejuni acquire new host-derived CRISPR spacers when in association with bacteriophages harboring a CRISPR-like Cas4 protein. Front. Microbiol. 5, 744 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Hooton, S. P., Brathwaite, K. J. & Connerton, I. F. The bacteriophage carrier state of campylobacter jejuni features changes in host non-coding RNAs and the acquisition of new host-derived CRISPR spacer sequences. Front. Microbiol. 7, 355 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Godde, J. S. & Bickerton, A. The repetitive DNA elements called CRISPRs and their associated genes: evidence of horizontal transfer among prokaryotes. J. Mol. Evol. 62, 718–729 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Varble, A., Meaden, S., Barrangou, R., Westra, E. R. & Marraffini, L. A. Recombination between phages and CRISPR-cas loci facilitates horizontal gene transfer in staphylococci. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 956–963 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Watson, B. N. J., Staals, R. H. J. & Fineran, P. C. CRISPR-Cas-mediated phage resistance enhances horizontal gene transfer by transduction. mBio 9, e02406-17 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Ozcan, A. et al. Type IV CRISPR RNA processing and effector complex formation in Aromatoleum aromaticum. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 89–96 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Zhou, Y. et al. Structure of a type IV CRISPR-Cas ribonucleoprotein complex. iScience 24, 102201 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Crowley, V. M. et al. A type IV-A CRISPR-cas system in pseudomonas aeruginosa mediates RNA-guided plasmid interference. Vivo. Crispr J. 2, 434–440 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Pinilla-Redondo, R. et al. Type IV CRISPR-Cas systems are highly diverse and involved in competition between plasmids. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 2000–2012 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 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). This article provides the first description of derived CRISPR–Cas systems encoded in Tn7-like transposons and predicts their function in RNA-guided transposition.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Sarnovsky, R. J., May, E. W. & Craig, N. L. The Tn7 transposase is a heteromeric complex in which DNA breakage and joining activities are distributed between different gene products. EMBO J. 15, 6348–6361 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Peters, J. E. & Craig, N. L. Tn7 recognizes transposition target structures associated with DNA replication using the DNA-binding protein TnsE. Genes Dev. 15, 737–747 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Waddell, C. S. & Craig, N. L. Tn7 transposition: two transposition pathways directed by five Tn7-encoded genes. Genes Dev. 2, 137–149 (1988).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Waddell, C. S. & Craig, N. L. Tn7 transposition: recognition of the attTn7 target sequence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 86, 3958–3962 (1989).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. 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). Complementary to Strecker et al. (2019), this work reveals that interference-deficient subtype I-F CRISPR–Cas systems encoded in Tn7-like transposons enable crRNA-guided transposition.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Strecker, J. et al. RNA-guided DNA insertion with CRISPR-associated transposases. Science 365, 48–53 (2019). Complementary to Klompe et al. (2019), this work reveals that inactivated CRISPR–Cas subtype V-U5 effector proteins encoded in Tn7-like transposons form a complex with the transposase subunit and enable crRNA-guided transposition.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Saito, M. et al. Dual modes of CRISPR-associated transposon homing. Cell 184, 2441–2453.e18 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Vo, P. L. H. et al. CRISPR RNA-guided integrases for high-efficiency, multiplexed bacterial genome engineering. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 480–489 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Rubin, B. E. et al. Targeted genome editing of bacteria within microbial communities. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.17.209189 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. He, F., Vestergaard, G., Peng, W., She, Q. & Peng, X. CRISPR-Cas type I-A cascade complex couples viral infection surveillance to host transcriptional regulation in the dependence of Csa3b. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 1902–1913 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Quax, T. E. et al. Massive activation of archaeal defense genes during viral infection. J. Virol. 87, 8419–8428 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Workman, R. E. et al. A natural single-guide RNA repurposes Cas9 to autoregulate CRISPR-Cas expression. Cell 184, 675–688.e19 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Makarova, K. S., Grishin, N. V., Shabalina, S. A., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. A putative RNA-interference-based immune system in prokaryotes: computational analysis of the predicted enzymatic machinery, functional analogies with eukaryotic RNAi, and hypothetical mechanisms of action. Biol. Direct. 1, 7 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Stern, A., Keren, L., Wurtzel, O., Amitai, G. & Sorek, R. Self-targeting by CRISPR: gene regulation or autoimmunity? Trends Genet. 26, 335–340 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Sampson, T. R. & Weiss, D. S. CRISPR-Cas systems: new players in gene regulation and bacterial physiology. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 4, 37 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Jelsbak, L. & Sogaard-Andersen, L. Pattern formation: fruiting body morphogenesis in Myxococcus xanthus. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 3, 637–642 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Kaiser, D., Robinson, M. & Kroos, L. Myxobacteria, polarity, and multicellular morphogenesis. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2, a000380 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Rajagopalan, R. & Kroos, L. Nutrient-regulated proteolysis of MrpC halts expression of genes important for commitment to sporulation during Myxococcus xanthus development. J. Bacteriol. 196, 2736–2747 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Campbell, A. et al. Combinatorial regulation of the dev operon by MrpC2 and FruA during Myxococcus xanthus development. J. Bacteriol. 197, 240–251 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. SogaardAndersen, L., Slack, F. J., Kimsey, H. & Kaiser, D. Intercellular C-signaling in Myxococcus xanthus involves a branched signal transduction pathway. Genes Dev. 10, 740–754 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Viswanathan, P., Murphy, K., Julien, B., Garza, A. G. & Kroos, L. Regulation of dev, an operon that includes genes essential for Myxococcus xanthus development and CRISPR-associated genes and repeats. J. Bacteriol. 189, 3738–3750 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Boysen, A., Ellehauge, E., Julien, B. & Sogaard-Andersen, L. The DevT protein stimulates synthesis of FruA, a signal transduction protein required for fruiting body morphogenesis in Myxococcus xanthus. J. Bacteriol. 184, 1540–1546 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Thonymeyer, L. & Kaiser, D. Devrs, an autoregulated and essential genetic-locus for fruiting body development in myxococcus-xanthus. J. Bacteriol. 175, 7450–7462 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Rajagopalan, R., Wielgoss, S., Lippert, G., Velicer, G. J. & Kroos, L. devI Is an evolutionarily young negative regulator of Myxococcus xanthus development. J. Bacteriol. 197, 1249–1262 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Rajagopalan, R. & Kroos, L. The dev operon regulates the timing of sporulation during Myxococcus xanthus development. J. Bacteriol. 199, e00788-16 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Wallace, R. A., Black, W. P., Yang, X. S. & Yang, Z. M. A CRISPR with roles in Myxococcus xanthus development and exopolysaccharide production. J. Bacteriol. 196, 4036–4043 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Cady, K. C. & O’Toole, G. A. Non-identity-mediated CRISPR-bacteriophage interaction mediated via the Csy and Cas3 proteins. J. Bacteriol. 193, 3433–3445 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Heussler, G. E. et al. Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat-dependent, biofilm-specific death of pseudomonas aeruginosa mediated by increased expression of phage-related genes. mbio 6, e00129-15 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Zegans, M. E. et al. Interaction between bacteriophage DMS3 and host CRISPR region inhibits group behaviors of pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Bacteriol. 191, 210–219 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Tang, B. et al. Deletion of cas3 gene in Streptococcus mutans affects biofilm formation and increases fluoride sensitivity. Arch. Oral. Biol. 99, 190–197 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Solbiati, J., Duran-Pinedo, A., Godoy Rocha, F., Gibson, F. C. 3rd & Frias-Lopez, J. Virulence of the pathogen Porphyromonas gingivalis is controlled by the CRISPR-Cas protein Cas3. mSystems 5, e00852-20 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. O’Connell, M. R. et al. Programmable RNA recognition and cleavage by CRISPR/Cas9. Nature 516, 263–266 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Rousseau, B. A., Hou, Z., Gramelspacher, M. J. & Zhang, Y. Programmable RNA cleavage and recognition by a natural CRISPR-Cas9 system from Neisseria meningitidis. Mol. Cell 69, 906–914.e4 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Strutt, S. C., Torrez, R. M., Kaya, E., Negrete, O. A. & Doudna, J. A. RNA-dependent RNA targeting by CRISPR-Cas9. eLife 7, e32724 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Dugar, G. et al. CRISPR RNA-dependent binding and cleavage of endogenous RNAs by the Campylobacter jejuni Cas9. Mol. Cell 69, 893–905.e7 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Jiao, C. et al. Noncanonical crRNAs derived from host transcripts enable multiplexable RNA detection by Cas9. Science 372, 941–948 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Medina-Aparicio, L., Davila, S., Rebollar-Flores, J. E., Calva, E. & Hernandez-Lucas, I. The CRISPR-Cas system in Enterobacteriaceae. Pathog. Dis. 76, fty002 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Cui, L. et al. CRISPR-cas3 of Salmonella upregulates bacterial biofilm formation and virulence to host cells by targeting quorum-sensing systems. Pathogens 9, 53 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Faucher, S. P., Curtiss, R. III & Daigle, F. Selective capture of Salmonella enterica serovar typhi genes expressed in macrophages that are absent from the Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium genome. Infect. Immun. 73, 5217–5221 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Li, R. et al. Type I CRISPR-Cas targets endogenous genes and regulates virulence to evade mammalian host immunity. Cell Res. 26, 1273–1287 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Muller-Esparza, H. & Randau, L. Commentary: type I CRISPR-Cas targets endogenous genes and regulates virulence to evade mammalian host immunity. Front. Microbiol. 8, 319 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Haft, D. H., Selengut, J., Mongodin, E. F. & Nelson, K. E. A guild of 45 CRISPR-associated (Cas) protein families and multiple CRISPR/Cas subtypes exist in prokaryotic genomes. PLoS Comput. Biol. 1, e60 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Makarova, K. S. et al. Evolution and classification of the CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 9, 467–477 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Chylinski, K., Le Rhun, A. & Charpentier, E. The tracrRNA and Cas9 families of type II CRISPR-Cas immunity systems. RNA Biol. 10, 726–737 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Gao, N. J. et al. Functional and proteomic analysis of Streptococcus pyogenes virulence upon loss of its native Cas9 nuclease. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1967 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Sarkar, P. & Sumby, P. Regulatory gene mutation: a driving force behind group a Streptococcus strain- and serotype-specific variation. Mol. Microbiol. 103, 576–589 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Jones, C. L., Sampson, T. R., Nakaya, H. I., Pulendran, B. & Weiss, D. S. Repression of bacterial lipoprotein production by Francisella novicida facilitates evasion of innate immune recognition. Cell Microbiol. 14, 1531–1543 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. Sampson, T. R., Saroj, S. D., Llewellyn, A. C., Tzeng, Y. L. & Weiss, D. S. A CRISPR/Cas system mediates bacterial innate immune evasion and virulence. Nature 497, 254–257 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Sampson, T. R., Saroj, S. D., Llewellyn, A. C., Tzeng, Y. L. & Weiss, D. S. Author correction: a CRISPR/Cas system mediates bacterial innate immune evasion and virulence. Nature 570, E30–E31 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Ratner, H. K. et al. Catalytically active Cas9 mediates transcriptional interference to facilitate bacterial virulence. Mol. Cell 75, 498–510.e5 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Ma, K. et al. cas9 enhances bacterial virulence by repressing the regR transcriptional regulator in streptococcus agalactiae. Infect. Immun. 86, e00552-17 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Wang, Y. et al. Cas9 regulated gene expression and pathogenicity in Riemerella anatipestifer. Microb. Pathog. 136, 103706 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Louwen, R. et al. A novel link between Campylobacter jejuni bacteriophage defence, virulence and Guillain-Barre syndrome. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 32, 207–226 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Mo, C. Y. et al. Type III-A CRISPR immunity promotes mutagenesis of staphylococci. Nature 592, 611–615 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  145. Sundaresan, R., Parameshwaran, H. P., Yogesha, S. D., Keilbarth, M. W. & Rajan, R. RNA-independent DNA cleavage activities of Cas9 and Cas12a. Cell Rep. 21, 3728–3739 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Jacob, F. Evolution and tinkering. Science 196, 1161–1166 (1977).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Koonin, E. V. & Makarova, K. S. Origins and evolution of CRISPR-Cas systems. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20180087 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Zetsche, B. et al. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell 163, 759–771 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Liu, J. J. et al. CasX enzymes comprise a distinct family of RNA-guided genome editors. Nature 566, 218–223 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. Shmakov, S. et al. Discovery and functional characterization of diverse class 2 CRISPR-cas systems. Mol. Cell 60, 385–397 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  152. Karvelis, T. et al. PAM recognition by miniature CRISPR-Cas12f nucleases triggers programmable double-stranded DNA target cleavage. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 5016–5023 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Harrington, L. B. et al. A scoutRNA is required for some type V CRISPR-Cas systems. Mol. Cell 79, 416–424.e5 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  154. Levy, A. et al. CRISPR adaptation biases explain preference for acquisition of foreign DNA. Nature 520, 505–510 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. Dupuis, M. E., Villion, M., Magadan, A. H. & Moineau, S. CRISPR-Cas and restriction-modification systems are compatible and increase phage resistance. Nat. Commun. 4, 2087 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  156. Arslan, Z., Hermanns, V., Wurm, R., Wagner, R. & Pul, U. Detection and characterization of spacer integration intermediates in type I-E CRISPR-Cas system. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 7884–7893 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. Nunez, J. K., Lee, A. S., Engelman, A. & Doudna, J. A. Integrase-mediated spacer acquisition during CRISPR-Cas adaptive immunity. Nature 519, 193–198 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  158. Garneau, J. E. et al. The CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system cleaves bacteriophage and plasmid DNA. Nature 468, 67–71 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Wiedenheft, B. et al. RNA-guided complex from a bacterial immune system enhances target recognition through seed sequence interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10092–10097 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  160. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge financial support from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) (NWO TOP-grant 714.015.001) and the European Research Council (ERC-AdG-834279) to J.v.d.O. R.H.J.S was supported by the NWO (VIDI grant VI.Vidi.203.074). C.S. is a graduate student at the Erasmus Postgraduate School of Molecular Medicine and is partially supported by the I&I Fund (Erasmus Vrienden Fonds) and LSH-TKI foundation grant LSHM18006. R.L. is supported by the Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and the Department of Bioinformatics, Erasmus University Medical Center.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Microbiology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands

    Prarthana Mohanraju, Raymond H. J. Staals & John van der Oost

  2. Department of Anatomy and Embryology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands

    Prarthana Mohanraju

  3. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands

    Chinmoy Saha & Rogier Louwen

  4. Host–Microbe Interactomics Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands

    Peter van Baarlen

Authors
  1. Prarthana Mohanraju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chinmoy Saha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter van Baarlen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rogier Louwen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raymond H. J. Staals
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John van der Oost
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

P.M., R.H.J.S. and J.v.d.O. researched data for the article. All authors contributed substantially to the discussion of the content. P.M., R.H.J.S. and J.v.d.O. wrote the article. All authors reviewed/edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Raymond H. J. Staals or John van der Oost.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

J.v.d.O. is scientific advisor of NTrans Technologies, and J.v.d.O. and R.H.J.S. are scientific advisors of Scope Biosciences. P.M., P.v.B., R.L., R.H.J.S. and J.v.d.O. are included as inventors on CRISPR–Cas-related patents. C.S. declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Microbiology thanks Luciano Marraffini and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Glossary

Horizontal gene transfer

Exchange of genetic material between organisms that may be phylogenetically unrelated.

Transposons

Segments of DNA that can move within and between genomes by integrating into target sites using one or more transposon-encoded enzymes (transposase, recombinase or integrase).

Mobile genetic elements

(MGEs). Clusters of selfish genes, either naked or packaged in capsid-like structures, that need to invade cellular organisms for their replication and proliferation.

Evolutionary arms race

The continuous arms race of developing infection and anti-infection strategies resulting in a rapid co-evolution of the parasite’s offence systems and the host’s defence systems.

CRISPR array

Genomic locus located adjacent to the CRISPR-associated genes (cas genes), consisting of multiple variable spacer sequences separated by tandem invariable repeats.

Spacers

Unique segments of DNA that are frequently derived from viral genomes and plasmids, and that are inserted between repeats in a CRISPR array.

CRISPR RNA

Short RNA molecules, produced by primary processing of the long precursor transcript of a CRISPR array, consisting of a spacer flanked on one or both sides by repeat-derived handles. CRISPR RNAs guide the Cas protein(s) to target cognate foreign DNA or RNA.

Protospacer adjacent motif

(PAM). A short signature sequence flanking the protospacer that enables self–non-self discrimination. In most CRISPR–Cas systems, the PAM sequence is essential for both adaptation and target recognition.

Collateral cleavage

Nuclease activity exhibited by some Cas proteins leading to indiscriminate degradation of any nearby non-target single-stranded DNA or RNA, respectively, upon target recognition.

HD domain

A nuclease domain with a conserved catalytic site that includes a metal-binding histidine–aspartate (HD) pair. The HD domain of Cas3 and Cas10 in type I and type III CRISPR–Cas systems, respectively, is responsible for endonucleolytic degradation of DNA targets.

Palm domain

A domain typically found in nucleotide cyclases and polymerases (as part of their fingers, palm and thumb-like architecture). The palm domain in the type III Cas10 proteins is characterized by a conserved GGDD motif, which catalyses the cyclase reaction to form cyclic oligoadenylate messenger molecules from ATP molecules.

CRISPR-associated Rossman fold (CARF) domain

A domain often found fused to an effector domain with (ribo)nuclease activity or other catalytic activities. The CARF domain acts as a sensory domain that binds ligands (for example, cyclic oligoadenylate messenger molecules produced by Cas10 in type III systems) that allosterically activate the fused effector domain.

Burst size

The number of newly synthesized phage particles released from a bacterium infected by a single phage.

Helix–turn–helix (HTH) domain

A widespread domain found in many proteins that bind DNA. The domain is characterized by two α-helices that bind the major groove of double-stranded DNA.

trans-activating crRNA

(tracrRNA). RNA encoded by all known type II and some type V CRISPR–Cas systems that includes an antirepeat part that base-pairs with the repeat portion of CRISPR RNA (crRNA) to form a functional guide RNA. tracrRNA is essential for crRNA maturation and target interference in the respective CRISPR–Cas systems.

SOS response

A coordinated cellular response to genotoxic stress comprising an error-prone DNA repair system that allows restarting of stalled replication forks past lesions or errors.

Adeno-associated virus delivery

Transduction of genes to cells and organisms using adeno-associated viruses, which is generally considered safer than use of adenoviral and retroviral vectors. It can be used to transduce genes into both proliferating and non-proliferating cells, and can impart long-term expression in non-dividing cells.

Base editing

Genome editing technology that consists of a catalytically inactive CRISPR–Cas nuclease fused to a single-stranded DNA deaminase and, in some cases, to proteins that manipulate DNA repair machinery; cytosine base editors catalyse the conversion of C•G base pairs to T•A base pairs; and adenine base editors catalyse the conversion of A•T base pairs to G•C base pairs .

Prime editing

Genome editing technology based on the fusion proteins formed between a Cas9 nickase (inactivated HNH nuclease domain) and an engineered reverse transcriptase domain, including a synthetic single guide (prime editing guide RNA) consisting of CRISPR RNA, trans-activating CRISPR RNA and a prime editing extension.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mohanraju, P., Saha, C., van Baarlen, P. et al. Alternative functions of CRISPR–Cas systems in the evolutionary arms race. Nat Rev Microbiol 20, 351–364 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-021-00663-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-021-00663-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Microbiology

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Microbiology newsletter — what matters in microbiology research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Microbiology