While bacteriophage applications benefit from effective phage engineering, selecting the desired genotype after subtle modifications remains challenging. Here, we describe a two-phase endogenous CRISPR-Cas-based phage engineering approach that enables selection of small defined edits in Pectobacterium carotovorum phage ZF40. We designed plasmids containing sequences homologous to ZF40 and a mini-CRISPR array. The plasmids allowed genome editing through homologous recombination and counter-selection against non-recombinant phage genomes using an endogenous type I-E CRISPR-Cas system. With this technique, we first deleted target genes and subsequently restored loci with modifications. This two-phase approach circumvented major challenges in subtle phage modifications, including inadequate sequence distinction for CRISPR-Cas counter-selection and the requirement of a protospacer-adjacent motif, limiting sequences that can be modified. Distinct 20-bp barcodes were incorporated through engineering as differential target sites for programmed CRISPR-Cas activity, which allowed quantification of phage variants in mixed populations. This method aids studies and applications that require mixtures of similar phages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HatfullGF, DedrickRM, SchooleyRT. Phage therapy for antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Annu Rev Med, 2022; 73:197–211; doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-080219-122208
2.
StoneE, CampbellK, GrantI, et al.Understanding and exploiting phage-host interactions. Viruses, 2019; 11(6); doi: 10.3390/v11060567
3.
MoyeZD, WoolstonJ, SulakvelidzeA. Bacteriophage applications for food production and processing. Viruses, 2018; 10(4); doi: 10.3390/v10040205
4.
MahlerM, CostaAR, van BeljouwSPB, et al.Approaches for bacteriophage genome engineering. Trends Biotechnol, 2023; 41(5):669–685; doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.08.008
5.
BarrangouR, FremauxC, DeveauH, et al.CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science, 2007; 315(5819):1709–1712; doi: 10.1126/science.1138140
6.
MarraffiniLA, SontheimerEJ. CRISPR interference limits horizontal gene transfer in staphylococci by targeting DNA. Science, 2008; 322(5909):1843–1845; doi: 10.1126/science.1165771
7.
JacksonSA, McKenzieRE, FagerlundRD, et al.CRISPR-Cas: Adapting to change. Science, 2017; 356(6333); doi: 10.1126/science.aal5056
8.
HilleF, RichterH, WongSP, et al.The biology of CRISPR-Cas: Backward and forward. Cell, 2018; 172(6):1239–1259; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.032
9.
MojicaFJM, Díez-VillaseñorC, García-MartínezJ, et al.Short motif sequences determine the targets of the prokaryotic CRISPR defence system. Microbiology (Reading), 2009; 155(Pt 3):733–740; doi: 10.1099/mic.0.023960-0
10.
XuZ, ChenS, WuW, et al.Type I CRISPR-Cas-mediated microbial gene editing and regulation. AIMS Microbiol, 2023; 9(4):780–800; doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023040
11.
Bondy-DenomyJ, PawlukA, MaxwellKL, et al.Bacteriophage genes that inactivate the CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system. Nature, 2013; 493(7432):429–432; doi: 10.1038/nature11723
12.
PawlukA, Bondy-DenomyJ, CheungVH, et al.A new group of phage anti-CRISPR genes inhibits the type I-E CRISPR-Cas system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. mBio, 2014; 5(2):e00896; doi: 10.1128/mBio.00896-14
13.
BariSMN, WalkerFC, CaterK, et al.Strategies for editing virulent staphylococcal phages using CRISPR-Cas10. ACS Synth Biol, 2017; 6(12):2316–2325; doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.7b00240
14.
BoxAM, McGuffieMJ, O’HaraBJ, et al.Functional analysis of Bacteriophage immunity through a Type I-E CRISPR-Cas System in Vibrio cholerae and its application in bacteriophage genome engineering. J Bacteriol, 2016; 198(3):578–590; doi: 10.1128/jb.00747-15
15.
HupfeldM, TrasanidouD, RamazziniL, et al.A functional type II-A CRISPR-Cas system from Listeria enables efficient genome editing of large non-integrating bacteriophage. Nucleic Acids Res, 2018; 46(13):6920–6933; doi: 10.1093/nar/gky544
16.
KiroR, ShitritD, QimronU. Efficient engineering of a bacteriophage genome using the type I-E CRISPR-Cas system. RNA Biol, 2014; 11(1):42–44; doi: 10.4161/rna.27766
17.
SchrovenK, VoetM, LavigneR, et al.Targeted genome editing of virulent Pseudomonas phages using CRISPR-Cas3. Methods Mol Biol, 2024; 2793:113–128; doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-3798-2_8
18.
Mayo-MuñozD, HeF, JørgensenJB, et al.Anti-CRISPR-based and crispr-based genome editing of Sulfolobus islandicus Rod-Shaped Virus 2. Viruses, 2018; 10(12); doi: 10.3390/v10120695
19.
GuanJ, Oromí-BoschA, MendozaSD, et al.Bacteriophage genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas13a. Nat Microbiol, 2022; 7(12):1956–1966; doi: 10.1038/s41564-022-01243-4
BirkholzN, JacksonSA, FagerlundRD, et al.A mobile restriction-modification system provides phage defence and resolves an epigenetic conflict with an antagonistic endonuclease. Nucleic Acids Res, 2022; 50(6):3348–3361; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac147
23.
CharkowskiAO. The changing face of bacterial soft-rot diseases. Annu Rev Phytopathol, 2018; 56:269–288; doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-080417-045906
24.
KimH, KimM, JeeSN, et al.Development of a bacteriophage cocktail against Pectobacterium Carotovorum Subsp. Carotovorum and its Effects on Pectobacterium Virulence. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2022; 88(19):e0076122; doi: 10.1128/aem.00761-22
25.
TovkachFI. [Temperate bacteriophage ZF40 of Erwinia carotovora: Phage particle structure and DNA restriction analysis]. Mikrobiologiia, 2002; 71(1):75–81.
26.
PawlukA, StaalsRHJ, TaylorC, et al.Inactivation of CRISPR-Cas systems by anti-CRISPR proteins in diverse bacterial species. Nat Microbiol, 2016; 1(8):16085; doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.85
27.
FineranPC, GerritzenMJH, Suárez-DiezM, et al.Degenerate target sites mediate rapid primed CRISPR adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2014; 111(16):E1629–E1638; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1400071111
28.
BirkholzN, KamataK, FeussnerM, et al.Phage anti-CRISPR control by an RNA- and DNA-binding helix-turn-helix protein. Nature, 2024; 631(8021):670–677; doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07644-1
29.
LemayML, TremblayDM, MoineauS. Genome engineering of virulent Lactococcal phages using CRISPR-Cas9. ACS Synth Biol, 2017; 6(7):1351–1358; doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.6b00388
30.
MartelB, MoineauS. CRISPR-Cas: An efficient tool for genome engineering of virulent bacteriophages. Nucleic Acids Res, 2014; 42(14):9504–9513; doi: 10.1093/nar/gku628
31.
ShenJ, ZhouJ, ChenGQ, et al.Efficient genome engineering of a virulent Klebsiella bacteriophage using CRISPR-Cas9. J Virol, 2018; 92(17); doi: 10.1128/jvi.00534-18
32.
DuongMM, CarmodyCM, MaQ, et al.Optimization of T4 phage engineering via CRISPR/Cas9. Sci Rep, 2020; 10(1):18229; doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75426-6
33.
SchillingT, DietrichS, HoppertM, et al.A CRISPR-Cas9-based toolkit for fast and precise in vivo genetic engineering of Bacillus subtilis phages. Viruses, 2018; 10(5); doi: 10.3390/v10050241
34.
TaoP, WuX, TangWC, et al.Engineering of bacteriophage T4 genome using CRISPR-Cas9. ACS Synth Biol, 2017; 6(10):1952–1961; doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.7b00179
35.
MarinelliLJ, PiuriM, SwigonováZ, et al.BRED: A simple and powerful tool for constructing mutant and recombinant bacteriophage genomes. PLoS One, 2008; 3(12):e3957; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003957
36.
JensenJD, ParksAR, AdhyaS, et al.λ Recombineering used to engineer the genome of phage T7. Antibiotics (Basel), 2020; 9(11); doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9110805
37.
MilhoC, SillankorvaS. Implication of a gene deletion on a Salmonella Enteritidis phage growth parameters. Virus Res, 2022; 308:198654; doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2021.198654
38.
PulkkinenEM, HinkleyTC, NugenSR. Utilizing in vitro DNA assembly to engineer a synthetic T7 Nanoluc reporter phage for Escherichia coli detection. Integr Biol (Camb), 2019; 11(3):63–68; doi: 10.1093/intbio/zyz005
39.
FaberMS, Van LeuvenJT, EdererMM, et al.Saturation mutagenesis genome engineering of infective ΦX174 Bacteriophage via unamplified oligo pools and golden gate assembly. ACS Synth Biol, 2020; 9(1):125–131; doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.9b00411
40.
ShinJ, JardineP, NoireauxV. Genome replication, synthesis, and assembly of the bacteriophage T7 in a single cell-free reaction. ACS Synth Biol, 2012; 1(9):408–413; doi: 10.1021/sb300049p
41.
DuyvejonckH, MerabishviliM, PirnayJ-P, et al.Development of a qPCR platform for quantification of the five bacteriophages within bacteriophage cocktail 2 (BFC2). Sci Rep, 2019; 9(1):13893; doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50461-0
42.
MorellaNM, YangSC, HernandezCA, et al.Rapid quantification of bacteriophages and their bacterial hosts in vitro and in vivo using droplet digital PCR. J Virol Methods, 2018; 259:18–24; doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2018.05.007
43.
PengX, NguyenA, GhoshD. Quantification of M13 and T7 bacteriophages by TaqMan and SYBR green qPCR. J Virol Methods, 2018; 252:100–107; doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2017.11.012
44.
BasuAS. Digital assays Part I: Partitioning statistics and digital PCR. SLAS Technol, 2017; 22(4):369–386; doi: 10.1177/2472630317705680
45.
PiyaD, NolanN, MooreML, et al.Systematic and scalable genome-wide essentiality mapping to identify nonessential genes in phages. PLoS Biol, 2023; 21(12):e3002416; doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002416
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.
