CRISPRCasTyper: Automated Identification,Annotation,and Classification of CRISPR-Cas Loci

Abstract

Automated classification of CRISPR-Cas systems has been challenged by their dynamic nature and expanding classification. Here, we developed CRISPRCasTyper, an automated tool with improved capabilities for identifying and typing CRISPR arrays and cas loci based on the latest nomenclature (44 subtypes/variants). As a novel feature, CRISPRCasTyper uses a machine learning approach to subtype CRISPR arrays based on the sequences of the repeats, which allows the typing of orphan and distant arrays. CRISPRCasTyper provides a graphical output, where CRISPRs and cas operons are visualized as gene maps, thus aiding annotation of partial and novel systems through synteny. CRISPRCasTyper was benchmarked against a manually curated set of 31 subtypes with a median accuracy of 98.6% and used to explore CRISPR-Cas diversity across >3,000 metagenomes. Altogether, we present an up-to-date software for improved automated prediction of CRISPR-Cas loci. CRISPRCasTyper is available through conda and as a web server (cctyper.crispr.dk).

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Pickar-Oliver

, Gersbach

. The next generation of CRISPR-Cas technologies and applications. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 2019; 20:490–507. DOI: 10.1038/s41580-019-0131-5.

Barrangou

, Doudna

. Applications of CRISPR technologies in research and beyond. Nat Biotechnol, 2016; 34:933–941. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3659.

Hille

, Richter

, Wong

, et al. The biology of CRISPR-Cas: backward and forward. Cell, 2018; 172:1239–1259. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.032.

Mohanraju

, Makarova

, Zetsche

, et al. Diverse evolutionary roots and mechanistic variations of the CRISPR-Cas systems. Science, 2016; 353:aad5147. DOI: 10.1126/science.aad5147.

Jackson

, McKenzie

, Fagerlund

, et al. CRISPR-Cas: adapting to change. Science, 2017; 356:eaal5056. DOI: 10.1126/science.aal5056.

Hampton

, Watson

BNJ

, Fineran

. The arms race between bacteria and their phage foes. Nature, 2020; 577:327–336. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1894-8.

Koonin

, Makarova

. Origins and evolution of CRISPR-Cas systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2019; 374:20180087. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2018.0087.

Makarova

, Wolf

, Alkhnbashi

, et al. An updated evolutionary classification of CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2015; 13:722–736. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro3569.

Makarova

, Wolf

, Iranzo

, et al. Evolutionary classification of CRISPR-Cas systems: a burst of class 2 and derived variants. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2020; 18:67–83. DOI: 10.1038/s41579-019-0299-x.

10.

Makarova

, Wolf

, Koonin

. Classification and nomenclature of CRISPR-Cas systems: where from here?. CRISPR J, 2018; 1:325–336. DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2018.0033.

11.

Pinilla-Redondo

, Mayo-Muñoz

, Russel

, et al. Type IV CRISPR-Cas systems are highly diverse and involved in competition between plasmids. Nucleic Acids Res, 2020; 48:2000–2012. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkz1197.

12.

Crawley

, Henriksen

, Barrangou

. CRISPRdisco: an automated pipeline for the discovery and analysis of CRISPR-Cas systems. CRISPR J, 2018; 1:171–181. DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2017.0022.

13.

Couvin

, Bernheim

, Toffano-Nioche

, et al. CRISPRCasFinder, an update of CRISRFinder, includes a portable version, enhanced performance and integrates search for Cas proteins. Nucleic Acids Res, 2018; 46:W246–251. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky425.

14.

Lange

, Alkhnbashi

, Rose

, et al. CRISPRmap: an automated classification of repeat conservation in prokaryotic adaptive immune systems. Nucleic Acids Res, 2013; 41:8034–8044. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt606.

15.

Bernheim

, Bikard

, Touchon

, et al. Atypical organizations and epistatic interactions of CRISPRs and Cas clusters in genomes and their mobile genetic elements. Nucleic Acids Res, 2020; 48:748–760. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkz1091.

16.

Strecker

, Ladha

, Gardner

, et al. RNA-guided DNA insertion with CRISPR-associated transposases. Science, 2019; 365:48–53. DOI: 10.1126/science.aax9181.

17.

Klompe

, Vo

PLH

, Halpin-Healy

, et al. Transposon-encoded CRISPR-Cas systems direct RNA-guided DNA integration. Nature, 2019; 571:219–225. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1323-z.

18.

Chen

, Guestrin

XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In KDD ’16: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York: ACM, 2016, 785–94.

19.

Bland

, Ramsey

, Sabree

, et al. CRISPR Recognition Tool (CRT): a tool for automatic detection of clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats. BMC Bioinformatics, 2007; 8:209. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-8-209.

20.

Yates

, Achuthan

, Akanni

, et al. Ensembl 2020. Nucleic Acids Res, 2020; 48:D682–688. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkz966.

21.

Parks

, Chuvochina

, Waite

, et al. A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life. Nat Biotechnol, 2018; 36:996–1004. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4229.

22.

Smargon

, Cox

DBT

, Pyzocha

, et al. Cas13b is a type VI-B CRISPR-associated RNA-guided RNase differentially regulated by accessory proteins Csx27 and Csx28. Mol Cell, 2017; 65:618–630.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.12.023.

23.

Eddy

SR.

A New generation of homology search tools based on probabilistic inference. Genome Inform, 2009; 23:205–211.

24.

Edgar

RC.

MUSCLE: Multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res, 2004; 32:1792–1797. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkh340.

25.

Yan

, Hunnewell

, Alfonse

, et al. Functionally diverse type V CRISPR-Cas systems. Science, 2019; 363:88–91. DOI: 10.1126/science.aav7271.

26.

Shmakov

, Smargon

, Scott

, et al. Diversity and evolution of class 2 CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2017; 15:169–182. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.184.

27.

Harrington

, Burstein

, Chen

, et al. Programmed DNA destruction by miniature CRISPR-Cas14 enzymes. Science, 2018; 362:839–842. DOI: 10.1126/science.aav4294.

28.

Olson

, Treangen

, Hill

, et al. Metagenomic assembly through the lens of validation: recent advances in assessing and improving the quality of genomes assembled from metagenomes. Brief Bioinform, 2019; 20:1140–1150. DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbx098.

29.

Weissman

, Laljani

RMR

, Fagan

, et al. Visualization and prediction of CRISPR incidence in microbial trait-space to identify drivers of antiviral immune strategy. ISME J, 2019; 13:2589–2602. DOI: 10.1038/s41396-019-0411-2.

30.

Anderson

, Brazelton

, Baross

. Using CRISPRs as a metagenomic tool to identify microbial hosts of a diffuse flow hydrothermal vent viral assemblage. FEMS Microbiol Ecol, 2011; 77:120–133. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01090.x.

31.

Westra

, Dowling

, Broniewski

, et al. Evolution and ecology of CRISPR. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst, 2016; 47:307–331. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-121415-032428.

32.

Iranzo

, Lobkovsky

, Wolf

, et al. Evolutionary dynamics of the prokaryotic adaptive immunity system CRISPR-Cas in an explicit ecological context. J Bacteriol, 2013; 195:3834–3844.

33.

Yan

, Chong

, Zhang

, et al. Cas13d is a compact RNA-targeting type VI CRISPR effector positively modulated by a WYL-domain-containing accessory protein. Mol Cell, 2018; 70:327–339.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.02.028.

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.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB

0.06 MB

0.02 MB

0.05 MB

0.02 MB