Prokaryotes are under nearly constant attack by viral pathogens. To protect against this threat of infection, bacteria and archaea have evolved a wide array of defense mechanisms, singly and in combination. While immune diversity in a single organism likely reduces the chance of pathogen evolutionary escape, it remains puzzling why many prokaryotes also have multiple, seemingly redundant, copies of the same type of immune system. Here, we focus on the highly flexible CRISPR adaptive immune system, which is present in multiple copies in a surprising 28% of the prokaryotic genomes in RefSeq. We use a comparative genomics approach looking across all prokaryotes to demonstrate that on average, organisms are under selection to maintain more than one CRISPR array. Given this surprising conclusion, we consider several hypotheses concerning the source of selection and include a theoretical analysis of the possibility that a trade-off between memory span and learning speed could select for both “long-term memory” and “short-term memory” CRISPR arrays.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MakarovaKS, WolfYI, SnirS, et al.Defense islands in bacterial and archaeal genomes and prediction of novel defense systems. J Bacteriol, 2011; 193:6039–6056. DOI: 10.1128/JB.05535-11.
2.
MakarovaKS, WolfYI, KooninEV. Comparative genomics of defense systems in archaea and bacteria. Nucl Acids Res, 2013; 41:4360–4377. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt157.
3.
van HouteS, BucklingA, WestraER. Evolutionary ecology of prokaryotic immune mechanisms. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 2016; 80:745–763. DOI: 10.1128/MMBR.00011-16.
4.
IranzoJ, LobkovskyAE, WolfYI, et al.Immunity, suicide or both? Ecological determinants for the combined evolution of anti-pathogen defense systems. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 2015; 15:4–3. DOI: 10.1186/s12862-015-0324-2.
5.
MakarovaKS, GrishinNV, ShabalinaSA, et al.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, 2006;1:7. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6150-1-7.
6.
GorenM, YosefI, EdgarR, et al.The bacterial CRISPR/Cas system as analog of the mammalian adaptive immune system. RNA Biol, 2012; 9:549–554. DOI: 10.4161/rna.20177.
7.
MojicaFJM, Díez-VillaseñorC, García-MartínezJ, et al.Intervening sequences of regularly spaced prokaryotic repeats derive from foreign genetic elements. J Mol Evol, 2005; 60:174–182. DOI: 10.1007/s00239-004-0046-3.
8.
BolotinA, QuinquisB, SorokinA, et al.Clustered regularly interspaced short palindrome repeats (CRISPRs) have spacers of extrachromosomal origin. Microbiology, 2005; 151:2551–2561. DOI: 10.1099/mic.0.28048-0.
9.
BarrangouR, FremauxC, DeveauH, et al.CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science, 2007; 315:1709–1712. DOI: 10.1126/science.1138140.
10.
MarraffiniLA, SontheimerEJ. CRISPR interference limits horizontal gene transfer in staphylococci by targeting DNA. Science, 2008; 322:1843–1845. DOI: 10.1126/science.1165771.
11.
MarraffiniLA. CRISPR-Cas immunity in prokaryotes. Nature, 2015; 526:55–61. DOI: 10.1038/nature15386.
12.
MakarovaKS, HaftDH, BarrangouR, et al.Evolution and classification of the CRISPR–Cas systems. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2011; 9:467–477. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro2577.
13.
SorekR, LawrenceCM, WiedenheftB. CRISPR-mediated adaptive immune systems in bacteria and archaea. Annu Rev Biochem, 2013; 82:237–266. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-072911-172315.
14.
BursteinD, HarringtonLB, StruttSC, et al.New CRISPR–Cas systems from uncultivated microbes. Nature, 2017; 542:237–241. DOI: 10.1038/nature21059.
15.
BursteinD, SunCL, BrownCT. Major bacterial lineages are essentially devoid of CRISPR-Cas viral defence systems. Nat Commun, 2016; 7:1061–3. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms10613.
16.
IranzoJ, LobkovskyAE, WolfYI, et al.Evolutionary dynamics of the prokaryotic adaptive immunity system CRISPR-Cas in an explicit ecological context. J Bacteriol, 2013; 195:3834–3844. DOI: 10.1128/JB.00412-13.
17.
WeinbergerAD, WolfYI, LobkovskyAE, et al.Viral diversity threshold for adaptive immunity in prokaryotes. MBio, 2012; 3:e00456–12. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00456-12.
18.
HorvathP, Coûté-MonvoisinA-C, RomeroDA, et al.Comparative analysis of CRISPR loci in lactic acid bacteria genomes. Int J Food Microbiol, 2009; 131:62–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.05.030.
19.
CaiF, AxenSD, KerfeldCA. Evidence for the widespread distribution of CRISPR-Cas system in the Phylum Cyanobacteria. RNA Biol, 2013; 10:687–693. DOI: 10.4161/rna.24571.
20.
PuigbòP, MakarovaKS, KristensenDM, et al.Reconstruction of the evolution of microbial defense systems. BMC Evol Biol, 2017; 17:9–4. DOI: 10.1186/s12862-017-0942-y.
21.
BoudryP, SemenovaE, MonotM, et al.Function of the CRISPR-Cas system of the human pathogen Clostridium difficile. MBio, 2015; 6:e01112–15. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01112-15.
22.
AndersenJM, ShoupM, RobinsonC, et al.CRISPR diversity and microevolution in Clostridium difficile. Genome Biol Evol, 2016; 8:2841–2855. DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evw203.
23.
MiraA, OchmanH, MoranNA. Deletional bias and the evolution of bacterial genomes. Trends Genet, 2001; 17:589–596.
24.
KuoC-H, OchmanH. Deletional bias across the three domains of life. Genome Biol Evol, 2009; 1:145–152. DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evp016.
25.
O'LearyNA, WrightMW, BristerJR, et al.Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation. Nucl Acids Res, 2016; 44:D733–D745. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkv1189.
26.
BiswasA, StaalsRH, MoralesSE, et al.CRISPRDetect: a flexible algorithm to define CRISPR arrays. BMC Genom, 2016; 17:35–6. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-016-2627-0.
AlmendrosC, MojicaFJ, Díez-VillaseñorC, et al.CRISPR-Cas functional module exchange in Escherichia coli. MBio, 2014; 5:e00767–13.
29.
ShahSA, GarrettRA. CRISPR/Cas and Cmr modules, mobility and evolution of adaptive immune systems. Res Microbiol, 2011; 162:27–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.resmic.2010.09.001.
30.
JiangW, ManivI, ArainF, et al.Dealing with the evolutionary downside of CRISPR immunity: bacteria and beneficial plasmids. PLoS Genet, 2013; 9:e100384–4. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003844.
31.
DatsenkoKA, PougachK, TikhonovA, et al.Molecular memory of prior infections activates the CRISPR/Cas adaptive bacterial immunity system. Nat Commun, 2012; 3:94–5. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1937.
32.
SwartsDC, MosterdC, van PasselMWJ, et al.CRISPR interference directs strand specific spacer acquisition. PLoS One, 2012; 7:e3588–8. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035888.
33.
GarrettRA, ShahSA, VestergaardG, et al.CRISPR-based immune systems of the Sulfolobales: complexity and diversity. Biochem Soc Trans, 2011; 39:51–57. DOI: 10.1042/BST0390051.
34.
GudbergsdottirS, DengL, ChenZ, et al.Dynamic properties of the Sulfolobus CRISPR/Cas and CRISPR/Cmr systems when challenged with vector-borne viral and plasmid genes and protospacers. Mol Microbiol, 2011; 79:35–49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07452.x.
BernickDL, CoxCL, DennisPP, et al.Comparative genomic and transcriptional analyses of CRISPR systems across the genus Pyrobaculum. Front Microbiol, 2012; 3. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00251.
37.
HaleCR, MajumdarS, ElmoreJ, et al.Essential features and rational design of CRISPR RNAs that function with the Cas RAMP module complex to cleave RNAs. Mol Cell, 2012; 45:292–302. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.10.023.
38.
RichterH, ZoephelJ, SchermulyJ, et al.Characterization of CRISPR RNA processing in Clostridium thermocellum and Methanococcus maripaludis. Nucl Acids Res, 2012; 40:9887–9896. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks737.
39.
MakarovaKS, WolfYI, AlkhnbashiOS, et al.An updated evolutionary classification of CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2015; 13:722–736. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro3569.
40.
WatsonBN, StaalsRH, FineranPC. CRISPR-Cas-mediated phage resistance enhances horizontal gene transfer by transduction. MBio, 2018; 9:e02406–17. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.02406-17.
41.
NivalaJ, ShipmanSL, ChurchGM. Spontaneous CRISPR loci generation in vivo by non-canonical spacer integration. Nat Microbiol, 2018; 3:310–318. DOI: 10.1038/s41564-017-0097-z.
42.
Paez-EspinoD, SharonI, MorovicW, et al.CRISPR immunity drives rapid phage genome evolution in Streptococcus thermophilus. MBio, 2015; 6:e00262–15. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00262-15.
43.
ChowC-ET, FuhrmanJA. Seasonality and monthly dynamics of marine myovirus communities. Environ Microbiol, 2012; 14:2171–2183. DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02744.x.
44.
WeiY, TernsRM, TernsMP. Cas9 function and host genome sampling in Type II-A CRISPR–Cas adaptation. Genes Dev, 2015; 29:356–361. DOI: 10.1101/gad.257550.114.
45.
KumarMS, PlotkinJB, HannenhalliS. Regulated CRISPR modules exploit a dual defense strategy of restriction and abortive infection in a model of prokaryote-phage coevolution. PLoS Comput Biol, 2015; 11:e100460–3. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004603.
46.
YosefI, GorenMG, QimronU. Proteins and DNA elements essential for the CRISPR adaptation process in Escherichia coli. Nucl Acids Res, 2012; 40:5569–5576. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks216.
47.
LevyA, GorenMG, YosefI, et al.CRISPR adaptation biases explain preference for acquisition of foreign DNA. Nature, 2015; 520:505–510. DOI: 10.1038/nature14302.
48.
SternA, KerenL, WurtzelO, et al.Self-targeting by CRISPR: gene regulation or autoimmunity?. Trends Genet, 2010; 26:335–340. DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2010.05.008.
49.
HynesAP, VillionM, MoineauS. Adaptation in bacterial CRISPR-Cas immunity can be driven by defective phages. Nat Commun, 2014; 5:439–9. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5399.
50.
TouchonM, RochaEPC. The small, slow and specialized CRISPR and anti-CRISPR of Escherichia and Salmonella. PLoS One, 2010; 5:e1112–6. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011126.
51.
TouchonM, CharpentierS, ClermontO, et al.CRISPR distribution within the Escherichia coli species is not suggestive of immunity-associated diversifying selection. J Bacteriol, 2011; 193:2460–2467. DOI: 10.1128/JB.01307-10.
52.
LiR, FangL, TanS, et al.Type I CRISPR-Cas targets endogenous genes and regulates virulence to evade mammalian host immunity. Cell Res, 2016; 26:1273–1287. DOI: 10.1038/cr.2016.135.
53.
MartynovA, SeverinovK, IspolatovI. Optimal number of spacers in CRISPR arrays. PLoS Comput Biol, 2017; 13:e100589–1.
54.
GrissaI, VergnaudG, PourcelC. The CRISPRdb database and tools to display CRISPRs and to generate dictionaries of spacers and repeats. BMC Bioinformatics, 2007; 8:17–2. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-8-172.
55.
PyensonNC, GayvertK, VarbleA, et al.Broad targeting specificity during bacterial type III CRISPR-Cas immunity constrains viral escape. Cell Host Microbe, 2017; 22:343–353. DOI: 10.1016/j.chom.2017.07.016.
56.
StachlerA-E, MarchfelderA. Gene Repression in Haloarchaea using the CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)-Cas I-B system. J Biol Chem, 2016; 291:15226–15242. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M116.724062.
57.
StachlerA-E, Turgeman-GrottI, Shtifman-SegalE, et al.High tolerance to self-targeting of the genome by the endogenous CRISPR-Cas system in an archaeon. Nucl Acids Res, 2017; 45:5208–5216. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkx150.
58.
WeissmanJL, HolmesR, BarrangouR, et al.Immune loss as a driver of coexistence during host-phage coevolution. ISME J, 2018; 12:585–597. DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2017.194.
59.
Bondy-DenomyJ, PawlukA, MaxwellKL, et al.Bacteriophage genes that inactivate the CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system. Nature, 2013; 493:429–432. DOI: 10.1038/nature11723.
60.
PawlukA, Bondy-DenomyJ, CheungVHW, et al.A new group of phage anti-CRISPR gene inhibits the type I-E CRISPR-Cas system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. MBio, 2014; 5:e00896-14. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00896-14.
61.
SilasS, Lucas-ElioP, JacksonSA, et al.Type III CRISPR-Cas systems can provide redundancy to counteract viral escape from type I systems. eLife, 2017; 6. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.27601.
62.
KupczokA, LandanG, DaganT. The contribution of genetic recombination to CRISPR array evolution. Genome Biol Evol, 2015; 7:1925–1939. DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evv113.
63.
WestraER, van HouteS, Oyesiku-BlakemoreS, et al.Parasite exposure drives selective evolution of constitutive versus inducible defense. Curr Biol, 2015; 25:1043–1049. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.065.
64.
StaalsRHJ, JacksonSA, BiswasA, et al.Interference-driven spacer acquisition is dominant over naive and primed adaptation in a native CRISPR-Cas system. Nat Commun, 2016; 7:1285–3. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms12853.
65.
ZengH, ZhangJ, LiC, et al.The driving force of prophages and CRISPR-Cas system in the evolution of Cronobacter sakazakii. Sci Rep, 2017; 7:4020–6. DOI: 10.1038/srep40206.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
