Many bacterial and archaeal viruses encode anti-CRISPR proteins (Acrs) that specifically inhibit CRISPR-Cas systems via various mechanisms. The majority of the Acrs are small, non-enzymatic proteins that abrogate CRISPR activity by binding to Cas effector proteins. The Acrs evolve fast, due to the arms race with the respective CRISPR-Cas systems, which hampers the elucidation of their evolutionary origins by sequence comparison. We performed comprehensive structural modeling using AlphaFold2 for 3693 experimentally characterized and predicted Acrs, followed by a comparison to the protein structures in the Protein Data Bank database. After clustering the Acrs by sequence similarity, 363 high-quality structural models were obtained that accounted for 102 Acr families. Structure comparisons allowed the identification of homologs for 13 of these families that could be ancestors of the Acrs. Despite the limited extent of structural conservation, the inferred origins of Acrs show distinct trends, in particular, recruitment of toxins and antitoxins and SOS repair system components for the Acr function.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarrangouR, HorvathP. A decade of discovery: CRISPR functions and applications. Nat Microbiol, 2017; 2:17092; doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.92 nmicrobiol201792 [pii]
2.
van der OostJ, WestraER, JacksonRN, et al.Unravelling the structural and mechanistic basis of CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2014; 12:479–492; doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3279 nrmicro3279 [pii]
MakarovaKS, WolfYI, IranzoJ, 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.
5.
MaxwellKL. The anti-CRISPR story: A battle for survival. Mol Cell, 2017; 68:8–14; doi: S1097-2765(17)30650-0 [pii] 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.09.002
PonsBJ, van HouteS, WestraER, et al.Ecology and evolution of phages encoding anti-CRISPR proteins. J Mol Biol, 2023:167974; doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2023.167974
9.
YiH, HuangL, YangB, et al.AcrFinder: Genome mining anti-CRISPR operons in prokaryotes and their viruses. Nucleic Acids Res, 2020; 48:W358–W365; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa351
10.
HuangL, YangB, YiH, et al.AcrDB: A database of anti-CRISPR operons in prokaryotes and viruses. Nucleic Acids Res, 2021; 49:D622–D629; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa857
11.
WiegandT, KarambelkarS, Bondy-DenomyJ, et al.Structures and strategies of anti-CRISPR-mediated immune suppression. Annu Rev Microbiol, 2020; 74:21–37; doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-020518-120107
12.
JiaN, PatelDJ. Structure-based functional mechanisms and biotechnology applications of anti-CRISPR proteins. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 2021; 22:563–579; doi: 10.1038/s41580-021-00371-9
13.
LiY, Bondy-DenomyJ. Anti-CRISPRs go viral: The infection biology of CRISPR-Cas inhibitors. Cell Host Microbe, 2021; 29:704–714; doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2020.12.007
14.
MarinoND, Pinilla-RedondoR, CsorgoB, et al.Anti-CRISPR protein applications: Natural brakes for CRISPR-Cas technologies. Nat Methods, 2020; 17:471–479; doi: 10.1038/s41592-020-0771-6
15.
LeeJ, MouH, IbraheimR, et al.Tissue-restricted genome editing in vivo specified by microRNA-repressible anti-CRISPR proteins. RNA, 2019; 25:1421–1431; doi: 10.1261/rna.071704.119
16.
AschenbrennerS, KallenbergerSM, HoffmannMD, et al.Coupling Cas9 to artificial inhibitory domains enhances CRISPR-Cas9 target specificity. Sci Adv, 2020; 6:eaay0187; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aay0187
17.
VyasP, Harish. Anti-CRISPR proteins as a therapeutic agent against drug-resistant bacteria. Microbiol Res, 2022; 257:126963; doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2022.126963
18.
EitzingerS, AsifA, WattersKE, et al.Machine learning predicts new anti-CRISPR proteins. Nucleic Acids Res, 2020; 48:4698–4708; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa219.
19.
GussowAB, ParkAE, BorgesAL, et al.Machine-learning approach expands the repertoire of anti-CRISPR protein families. Nat Commun, 2020; 11:3784; doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17652-0
20.
ZhuL, WangX, LiF, et al.PreAcrs: A machine learning framework for identifying anti-CRISPR proteins. BMC Bioinformatics, 2022; 23:444; doi: 10.1186/s12859-022-04986-3
21.
MakarovaKS, WolfYI, KooninEV. In silico approaches for prediction of anti-CRISPR proteins. J Mol Biol, 2023; 7:435; doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2023.168036
22.
JumperJ, EvansR, PritzelA, et al.Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature, 2021; 596:583–589; doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2
23.
DongC, WangX, MaC, et al.Anti-CRISPRdb v2.2: An online repository of anti-CRISPR proteins including information on inhibitory mechanisms, activities and neighbors of curated anti-CRISPR proteins. Database (Oxford), 2022; 2022; doi: 10.1093/database/baac010
24.
SteineggerM, SodingJ. MMseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets. Nat Biotechnol, 2017; 35:1026–1028; doi: 10.1038/nbt.3988
25.
MarianiV, BiasiniM, BarbatoA, et al.lDDT: A local superposition-free score for comparing protein structures and models using distance difference tests. Bioinformatics, 2013; 29:2722–2728; doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt473
26.
HolmL. DALI and the persistence of protein shape. Protein Sci, 2020; 29:128–140; doi: 10.1002/pro.3749
27.
SodingJ. Protein homology detection by HMM-HMM comparison. Bioinformatics, 2005; 21:951–960; doi: bti125 [pii] 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti125
28.
PettersenEF, GoddardTD, HuangCC, et al.UCSF ChimeraX: Structure visualization for researchers, educators, and developers. Protein Sci, 2021; 30:70–82; doi: 10.1002/pro.3943
29.
RaushE, TotrovM, MarsdenBD, et al.A new method for publishing three-dimensional content. PLoS One, 2009; 4:e7394; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007394
30.
LinP, QinS, PuQ, et al.CRISPR-Cas13 inhibitors Block RNA editing in bacteria and mammalian cells. Mol Cell, 2020; 78:850–861.e855; doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.03.033
31.
ChevertonAM, GollanB, PrzydaczM, et al.A Salmonella toxin promotes persister formation through acetylation of tRNA. Mol Cell, 2016; 63:86–96; doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.05.002
32.
RycroftJA, GollanB, GrabeGJ, et al.Activity of acetyltransferase toxins involved in Salmonella persister formation during macrophage infection. Nat Commun, 2018; 9:1993; doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04472-6
33.
MarinoND, ZhangJY, BorgesAL, et al.Discovery of widespread type I and type V CRISPR-Cas inhibitors. Science, 2018; 362:240–242; doi: 10.1126/science.aau5174
34.
DongL, GuanX, LiN, et al.An anti-CRISPR protein disables type V Cas12a by acetylation. Nat Struct Mol Biol, 2019; 26:308–314; doi: 10.1038/s41594-019-0206-1
35.
ZahringerU, VoigtW, SeltmannG. Nourseothricin (streptothricin) inactivated by a plasmid pIE636 encoded acetyl transferase of Escherichia coli: Location of the acetyl group. FEMS Microbiol Lett, 1993; 110:331–334; doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1993.tb06344.x
36.
NiuY, YangL, GaoT, et al.A type I-F anti-CRISPR protein inhibits the CRISPR-Cas surveillance complex by ADP-ribosylation. Mol Cell, 2020; 80:512–524.e515; doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.09.015
37.
SkjerningRB, SenissarM, WintherKS, et al.The RES domain toxins of RES-Xre toxin-antitoxin modules induce cell stasis by degrading NAD+. Mol Microbiol, 2019; 111:221–236; doi: 10.1111/mmi.14150.
38.
PiscottaFJ, JeffreyPD, LinkAJ. ParST is a widespread toxin-antitoxin module that targets nucleotide metabolism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2019; 116:826–834; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1814633116
39.
CollierRJ. Understanding the mode of action of diphtheria toxin: a perspective on progress during the 20th century. Toxicon, 2001; 39:1793–1803; doi: 10.1016/s0041-0101(01)00165-9
40.
JorgensenR, PurdyAE, FieldhouseRJ, et al.Cholix toxin, a novel ADP-ribosylating factor from Vibrio cholerae. J Biol Chem, 2008; 283:10671–10678; doi: 10.1074/jbc.M710008200
41.
LekaO, ValleseF, PirazziniM, et al.Diphtheria toxin conformational switching at acidic pH. FEBS J, 2014; 281:2115–2122; doi: 10.1111/febs.12783
42.
WenY, BehielsE, FelixJ, et al.The bacterial antitoxin HipB establishes a ternary complex with operator DNA and phosphorylated toxin HipA to regulate bacterial persistence. Nucleic Acids Res, 2014; 42:10134–10147; doi: 10.1093/nar/gku665
43.
RauchBJ, SilvisMR, HultquistJF, et al.Inhibition of CRISPR-Cas9 with bacteriophage proteins. Cell, 2017; 168:150–158.e110; doi: S0092-8674(16)31683-X [pii] 10.1016/j.cell.2016.12.009
44.
SchureckMA, MaehigashiT, MilesSJ, et al.Structure of the Proteus vulgaris HigB-(HigA)2-HigB toxin-antitoxin complex. J Biol Chem, 2014; 289:1060–1070; doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.512095
45.
SchureckMA, MeisnerJ, HofferED, et al.Structural basis of transcriptional regulation by the HigA antitoxin. Mol Microbiol, 2019; 111:1449–1462; doi: 10.1111/mmi.14229
46.
ShehreenS, BirkholzN, FineranPC, et al.Widespread repression of anti-CRISPR production by anti-CRISPR-associated proteins. Nucleic Acids Res, 2022; 50:8615–8625; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac674
47.
GaoX, ZouT, MuZ, et al.Structural insights into VirB-DNA complexes reveal mechanism of transcriptional activation of virulence genes. Nucleic Acids Res, 2013; 41:10529–10541; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt748
48.
PawlukA, StaalsRH, TaylorC, et al.Inactivation of CRISPR-Cas systems by anti-CRISPR proteins in diverse bacterial species. Nat Microbiol, 2016; 1:16085; doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.85nmicrobiol201685 [pii]
49.
OtsukaY, YonesakiT. Dmd of bacteriophage T4 functions as an antitoxin against Escherichia coli LsoA and RnlA toxins. Mol Microbiol, 2012; 83:669–681; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2012.07975.x
50.
WeiY, GaoZQ, OtsukaY, et al.Structure-function studies of Escherichia coli RnlA reveal a novel toxin structure involved in bacteriophage resistance. Mol Microbiol, 2013; 90:956–965; doi: 10.1111/mmi.12409
51.
WeiY, GaoZ, ZhangH, et al.Structural characterizations of phage antitoxin Dmd and its interactions with bacterial toxin RnlA. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2016; 472:592–597; doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.03.025
52.
WanH, OtsukaY, GaoZQ, et al.Structural insights into the inhibition mechanism of bacterial toxin LsoA by bacteriophage antitoxin Dmd. Mol Microbiol, 2016; 101:757–769; doi: 10.1111/mmi.13420
53.
HirschiM, LuWT, Santiago-FrangosA, et al.AcrIF9 tethers non-sequence specific dsDNA to the CRISPR RNA-guided surveillance complex. Nat Commun, 2020; 11:2730; doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16512-1
54.
PawlukA, AmraniN, ZhangY, et al.Naturally occurring off-switches for CRISPR-Cas9. Cell, 2016; 167:1829–1838.e1829; doi: S0092-8674(16)31589-6 [pii] 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.017
55.
KimY, LeeSJ, YoonHJ, et al.Anti-CRISPR AcrIIC3 discriminates between Cas9 orthologs via targeting the variable surface of the HNH nuclease domain. FEBS J, 2019; 286:4661–4674; doi: 10.1111/febs.15037
56.
YosefI, GorenMG, QimronU. Proteins and DNA elements essential for the CRISPR adaptation process in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res, 2012; 40:5569–5576; doi: 10.1093/nar/gks216 gks216 [pii]
57.
BertelsenMB, SenissarM, NielsenMH, et al.Structural basis for toxin inhibition in the VapXD toxin-antitoxin system. Structure, 2021; 29:139–150.e133; doi: 10.1016/j.str.2020.10.002
58.
MakarovaKS, AnantharamanV, AravindL, et al.Live virus-free or die: coupling of antivirus immunity and programmed suicide or dormancy in prokaryotes. Biol Direct, 2012; 7:40; doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-7-40 1745-6150-7-40 [pii]
59.
ZhangZ, PanS, LiuT, et al.Cas4 nucleases can effect specific integration of CRISPR spacers. J Bacteriol, 2019; 201; doi: 10.1128/JB.00747-18
60.
LeeH, DhingraY, SashitalDG. The Cas4-Cas1-Cas2 complex mediates precise prespacer processing during CRISPR adaptation. Elife, 2019; 8; doi: 10.7554/eLife.44248
61.
LeeH, ZhouY, TaylorDW, et al.Cas4-dependent prespacer processing ensures high-fidelity programming of CRISPR arrays. Mol Cell, 2018; 70:48–59.e45; doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.03.003
62.
BuddME, ChoeW, CampbellJL. The nuclease activity of the yeast DNA2 protein, which is related to the RecB-like nucleases, is essential in vivo. J Biol Chem, 2000; 275:16518–16529; doi: 10.1074/jbc.M909511199
63.
Lima-NoronhaMA, FonsecaDLH, OliveiraRS, et al.Sending out an SOS—The bacterial DNA damage response. Genet Mol Biol, 2022; 45:e20220107; doi: 10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2022-0107
64.
ChatterjeeC, MajumdarS, DeshpandeS, et al.Real-time kinetic studies of Mycobacterium tuberculosis LexA-DNA interaction. Biosci Rep, 2021; 41; doi: 10.1042/BSR20211419
65.
SchumacherMA, TonthatNK, KwongSM, et al.Mechanism of staphylococcal multiresistance plasmid replication origin assembly by the RepA protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2014; 111:9121–9126; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1406065111
66.
ForsbergKJ, BhattIV, SchmidtkeDT, et al.Functional metagenomics-guided discovery of potent Cas9 inhibitors in the human microbiome. Elife, 2019; 8; doi: 10.7554/eLife.46540
67.
PetrovaV, SatyshurKA, GeorgeNP, et al.X-ray crystal structure of the bacterial conjugation factor PsiB, a negative regulator of RecA. J Biol Chem, 2010; 285:30615–30621; doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.152298
68.
LeonLM, ParkAE, BorgesAL, et al.Mobile element warfare via CRISPR and anti-CRISPR in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nucleic Acids Res, 2021; 49:2114–2125; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab006
69.
RamirezBE, VoloshinON, Camerini-OteroRD, et al.Solution structure of DinI provides insight into its mode of RecA inactivation. Protein Sci, 2000; 9:2161–2169; doi: 10.1110/ps.9.11.2161
70.
AlushinGM, LanderGC, KelloggEH, et al.High-resolution microtubule structures reveal the structural transitions in alphabeta-tubulin upon GTP hydrolysis. Cell, 2014; 157:1117–1129; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.053
71.
UribeRV, van der HelmE, MisiakouMA, et al.Discovery and characterization of Cas9 inhibitors disseminated across seven bacterial phyla. Cell Host Microbe, 2019; 26:702; doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2019.09.005
72.
ChabanY, LurzR, BrasilèsS, et al.Structural rearrangements in the phage head-to-tail interface during assembly and infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2015; 112:7009–14; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1504039112
73.
MarinoND, ZhangJY, BorgesAL, et al.Discovery of widespread type I and type V CRISPR-Cas inhibitors. Science, 2018; 362:240–242; doi: 10.1126/science.aau5174
74.
ShenBW, LandthalerM, ShubDA, et al.DNA binding and cleavage by the HNH homing endonuclease I-HmuI. J Mol Biol, 2004; 342:43–56; doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2004.07.032
75.
KooninEV, DoljaVV, KrupovicM. The logic of virus evolution. Cell Host Microbe, 2022; 30:917–929; doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2022.06.008
76.
BenlerS, KooninEV. Recruitment of mobile genetic elements for diverse cellular functions in prokaryotes. Front Mol Biosci, 2022; 9:821197; doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.821197
JohnsonMC, HilleLT, KleinstiverBP, et al.Lack of Cas13a inhibition by anti-CRISPR proteins from Leptotrichia prophages. Mol Cell, 2022; 82:2161–2166.e2163; doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2022.05.002
79.
KooninEV, MakarovaKS, WolfYI, et al.Evolutionary entanglement of mobile genetic elements and host defence systems: Guns for hire. Nat Rev Genet, 2020; 21:119–131; doi: 10.1038/s41576-019-0172-9
80.
RollinsMF, ChowdhuryS, CarterJ, et al.Structure reveals a mechanism of CRISPR-RNA-guided nuclease recruitment and anti-CRISPR viral mimicry. Mol Cell, 2019; 74:132–142.e135; doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.02.001
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.
