15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Phylogenomics of Cas4 family nucleases

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The Cas4 family endonuclease is a component of the adaptation module in many variants of CRISPR-Cas adaptive immunity systems. Unlike most of the other Cas proteins, Cas4 is often encoded outside CRISPR- cas loci (solo-Cas4) and is also found in mobile genetic elements (MGE-Cas4).

          Results

          As part of our ongoing investigation of CRISPR-Cas evolution, we explored the phylogenomics of the Cas4 family. About 90% of the archaeal genomes encode Cas4 compared to only about 20% of the bacterial genomes. Many archaea encode both the CRISPR-associated form (CAS-Cas4) and solo-Cas4, whereas in bacteria, this combination is extremely rare. The solo- cas4 genes are over-represented in environmental bacteria and archaea with small genomes that typically lack CRISPR-Cas, suggesting that Cas4 could perform uncharacterized defense or repair functions in these microbes. Phylogenomic analysis indicates that both the CRISPR-associated cas4 genes are often transferred horizontally but almost exclusively, as part of the adaptation module. The evolutionary integrity of the adaptation module sharply contrasts the rampant shuffling of CRISPR- cas modules whereby a given variant of the adaptation module can combine with virtually any effector module. The solo- cas4 genes evolve primarily via vertical inheritance and are subject only to occasional horizontal transfer. The selection pressure on cas4 genes does not substantially differ between CAS-Cas4 and solo- cas4, and is close to the genomic median. Thus, cas4 genes, similarly to cas1 and cas2, evolve similarly to ‘regular’ microbial genes involved in various cellular functions, showing no evidence of direct involvement in virus-host arms races. A notable feature of the Cas4 family evolution is the frequent recruitment of cas4 genes by various mobile genetic elements (MGE), particularly, archaeal viruses. The functions of Cas4 in these elements are unknown and potentially might involve anti-defense roles.

          Conclusions

          Unlike most of the other Cas proteins, Cas4 family members are as often encoded by stand-alone genes as they are incorporated in CRISPR-Cas systems. In addition, cas4 genes were repeatedly recruited by MGE, perhaps, for anti-defense functions. Experimental characterization of the solo and MGE-encoded Cas4 nucleases is expected to reveal currently uncharacterized defense and anti-defense systems and their interactions with CRISPR-Cas systems.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12862-017-1081-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Protein homology detection by HMM-HMM comparison.

          Protein homology detection and sequence alignment are at the basis of protein structure prediction, function prediction and evolution. We have generalized the alignment of protein sequences with a profile hidden Markov model (HMM) to the case of pairwise alignment of profile HMMs. We present a method for detecting distant homologous relationships between proteins based on this approach. The method (HHsearch) is benchmarked together with BLAST, PSI-BLAST, HMMER and the profile-profile comparison tools PROF_SIM and COMPASS, in an all-against-all comparison of a database of 3691 protein domains from SCOP 1.63 with pairwise sequence identities below 20%.Sensitivity: When the predicted secondary structure is included in the HMMs, HHsearch is able to detect between 2.7 and 4.2 times more homologs than PSI-BLAST or HMMER and between 1.44 and 1.9 times more than COMPASS or PROF_SIM for a rate of false positives of 10%. Approximately half of the improvement over the profile-profile comparison methods is attributable to the use of profile HMMs in place of simple profiles. Alignment quality: Higher sensitivity is mirrored by an increased alignment quality. HHsearch produced 1.2, 1.7 and 3.3 times more good alignments ('balanced' score >0.3) than the next best method (COMPASS), and 1.6, 2.9 and 9.4 times more than PSI-BLAST, at the family, superfamily and fold level, respectively.Speed: HHsearch scans a query of 200 residues against 3691 domains in 33 s on an AMD64 2GHz PC. This is 10 times faster than PROF_SIM and 17 times faster than COMPASS.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Discovery and Functional Characterization of Diverse Class 2 CRISPR-Cas Systems.

            Microbial CRISPR-Cas systems are divided into Class 1, with multisubunit effector complexes, and Class 2, with single protein effectors. Currently, only two Class 2 effectors, Cas9 and Cpf1, are known. We describe here three distinct Class 2 CRISPR-Cas systems. The effectors of two of the identified systems, C2c1 and C2c3, contain RuvC-like endonuclease domains distantly related to Cpf1. The third system, C2c2, contains an effector with two predicted HEPN RNase domains. Whereas production of mature CRISPR RNA (crRNA) by C2c1 depends on tracrRNA, C2c2 crRNA maturation is tracrRNA independent. We found that C2c1 systems can mediate DNA interference in a 5'-PAM-dependent fashion analogous to Cpf1. However, unlike Cpf1, which is a single-RNA-guided nuclease, C2c1 depends on both crRNA and tracrRNA for DNA cleavage. Finally, comparative analysis indicates that Class 2 CRISPR-Cas systems evolved on multiple occasions through recombination of Class 1 adaptation modules with effector proteins acquired from distinct mobile elements.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              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

              Background All archaeal and many bacterial genomes contain Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindrome Repeats (CRISPR) and variable arrays of the CRISPR-associated (cas) genes that have been previously implicated in a novel form of DNA repair on the basis of comparative analysis of their protein product sequences. However, the proximity of CRISPR and cas genes strongly suggests that they have related functions which is hard to reconcile with the repair hypothesis. Results The protein sequences of the numerous cas gene products were classified into ~25 distinct protein families; several new functional and structural predictions are described. Comparative-genomic analysis of CRISPR and cas genes leads to the hypothesis that the CRISPR-Cas system (CASS) is a mechanism of defense against invading phages and plasmids that functions analogously to the eukaryotic RNA interference (RNAi) systems. Specific functional analogies are drawn between several components of CASS and proteins involved in eukaryotic RNAi, including the double-stranded RNA-specific helicase-nuclease (dicer), the endonuclease cleaving target mRNAs (slicer), and the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. However, none of the CASS components is orthologous to its apparent eukaryotic functional counterpart. It is proposed that unique inserts of CRISPR, some of which are homologous to fragments of bacteriophage and plasmid genes, function as prokaryotic siRNAs (psiRNA), by base-pairing with the target mRNAs and promoting their degradation or translation shutdown. Specific hypothetical schemes are developed for the functioning of the predicted prokaryotic siRNA system and for the formation of new CRISPR units with unique inserts encoding psiRNA conferring immunity to the respective newly encountered phages or plasmids. The unique inserts in CRISPR show virtually no similarity even between closely related bacterial strains which suggests their rapid turnover, on evolutionary scale. Corollaries of this finding are that, even among closely related prokaryotes, the most commonly encountered phages and plasmids are different and/or that the dominant phages and plasmids turn over rapidly. Conclusion We proposed previously that Cas proteins comprise a novel DNA repair system. The association of the cas genes with CRISPR and, especially, the presence, in CRISPR units, of unique inserts homologous to phage and plasmid genes make us abandon this hypothesis. It appears most likely that CASS is a prokaryotic system of defense against phages and plasmids that functions via the RNAi mechanism. The functioning of this system seems to involve integration of fragments of foreign genes into archaeal and bacterial chromosomes yielding heritable immunity to the respective agents. However, it appears that this inheritance is extremely unstable on the evolutionary scale such that the repertoires of unique psiRNAs are completely replaced even in closely related prokaryotes, presumably, in response to rapidly changing repertoires of dominant phages and plasmids. This article was reviewed by: Eric Bapteste, Patrick Forterre, and Martijn Huynen. Open peer review Reviewed by Eric Bapteste, Patrick Forterre, and Martijn Huynen. For the full reviews, please go to the Reviewers' comments section.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                koonin@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
                Journal
                BMC Evol Biol
                BMC Evol. Biol
                BMC Evolutionary Biology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2148
                28 November 2017
                28 November 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 232
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2297 5165, GRID grid.94365.3d, National Center for Biotechnology Information, , National Institutes of Health, ; Bethesda, MD USA
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0555 3608, GRID grid.454320.4, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, ; Skolkovo, 143025 Russia
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 738X, GRID grid.213876.9, Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, , Genetics, and Microbiology, University of Georgia, ; Athens, GA USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3943-8299
                Article
                1081
                10.1186/s12862-017-1081-1
                5704561
                29179671
                72d5f1be-8861-417d-bac9-c1f7294c28cb
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 7 August 2017
                : 16 November 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000016, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;
                Award ID: Intramural Funds
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002, National Institutes of Health;
                Award ID: R35 GM118160
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Evolutionary Biology
                Evolutionary Biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article