1887

Abstract

pv. actinidiae (Psa) has emerged as a major bacterial pathogen of kiwifruit cultivation throughout the world.

We aim to introduce a CRISPR–Cas9 system, a commonly used genome editing tool, into Psa. The protocols may also be useful in other species.

Using standard molecular biology techniques, we modified plasmid pCas9, which carries the CRISPR–Cas9 sequences from for use in Psa. The final plasmid, pJH1, was produced in a series of steps and is maintained with selection in both and Psa.

We have constructed plasmids carrying a CRISPR–Cas9 system based on that of , which can be maintained, under selection, in Psa. We have shown that the gene targeting capacity of the CRISPR–Cas9 system is active and that the Cas9 protein is able to cleave the targeted sites. The Cas9 was directed to several different sites in the genome. Using Cas9 we have generated Psa transformants that no longer carry the native plasmid present in Psa, and other transformants that lack the integrative, conjugative element, Pac_ICE1. Targeting of a specific gene, a chromosomal non-ribosomal peptide synthetase, led to gene knockouts with the transformants having deletions encompassing the target site.

We have constructed shuttle plasmids carrying a CRISPR–Cas9 system that are maintained in both and pv. actinidiae. We have used this gene editing system to eliminate features of the accessory genome (plasmids or ICEs) from Psa and to target a single chromosomal gene.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001124
2020-01-14
2020-01-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Serizawa S, Ichikawa T, Takikawa Y, Tsuyumu S, Goto M. Occurrence of bacterial canker of kiwifruit in Japan: description of symptoms, isolation of the pathogen and screening of bactericides. Ann Phytopathol Soc Jpn 1989;55:427–436 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chapman JR, Taylor RK, Weir BS, Romberg MK, Vanneste JL et al. Phylogenetic relationships among global populations of Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae. Phytopathology 2012;102:1034–1044 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Sawada H, Miyoshi T, Ide Y. Novel MLSA group (Psa5) of Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae causing bacterial canker of kiwifruit (Actinidia chinensis) in Japan. J Phytopathol 2014;80:171–184 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Zhao ZB, Gao XN, Huang QL, Huang LL, Qin HQ et al. Identification and characterization of the causal agent of bacterial canker of kiwifruit in the Shaanxi Province of China. J Plant Pathol 2013;95:155–162
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kim GH, Kim K-H, Son KI, Choi ED, Lee YS et al. Outbreak and spread of bacterial canker of kiwifruit caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae biovar 3 in Korea. Plant Pathol J 2016;32:545–551 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Vanneste JL. The scientific, economic, and social impacts of the New Zealand outbreak of bacterial canker of kiwifruit (Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae). Annu Rev Phytopathol 2017;55:377–399 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Butler MI, Stockwell PA, Black MA, Day RC, Lamont IL et al. Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae from recent outbreaks of kiwifruit bacterial canker belong to different clones that originated in China. PLoS One 2013;8:e57464 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barrangou R, Fremaux C, Deveau H, Richards M, Boyaval P et al. Crispr provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 2007;315:1709–1712 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA et al. A programmable dual-RNA guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 2012;337:816–821 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Doudna JA, Charpentier E. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 2014;346:1258096 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. McVey M, Lee SE. MMEJ repair of double-strand breaks (director’s cut): deleted sequences and alternative endings. Trends Genet 2008;24:529–538 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Symington LS, Gautier J. Double-Strand Break end resection and repair pathway choice. Annu Rev Genet 2011;45:247–271 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Tian P, Wang J, Shen X, Rey JF, Yuan Q et al. Fundamental CRISPR-Cas9 tools and current applications in microbial systems. Synth Syst Biotechnol 2017;2:219–225 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Vento JM, Crook N, Beisel CL. Barriers to genome editing with CRISPR in bacteria. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2019;46:1327–1341 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Selle K, Barrangou R. Harnessing CRISPR-Cas systems for bacterial genome editing. Trends Microbiol 2015;23:225–232 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Aniukwu J, Glickman MS, Shuman S. The pathways and outcomes of mycobacterial NHEJ depend on the structure of the broken DNA ends. Genes Dev 2008;22:512–527 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bowater R, Doherty AJ. Making ends meet: repairing breaks in bacterial DNA by non-homologous end-joining. PLoS Genet 2006;2:e8 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Weller GR, Kysela B, Roy R, Tonkin LM, Scanlan E. Identification of a DNA nonhomologous end-joining complex in bacteria. Science 2002;297:1686–1689 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Malyarchuk S, Wright D, Castore R, Klepper E, Weiss B et al. Expression of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Ku and Ligase D in Escherichia coli results in RecA and RecB-independent DNA end-joining at regions of microhomology. DNA Repair 2007;6:1413–1424 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Su T, Liu F, Gu P, Jin H, Chang Y et al. A CRISPR-Cas9 assisted non-homologous end-joining strategy for one-step engineering of bacterial genome. Sci Rep 2016;6:37895 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Zhu H, Shuman S. Novel 3′-Ribonuclease and 3′-Phosphatase activities of the bacterial non-homologous end-joining protein, DNA ligase D. J Biol Chem 2005a;280:25973–25981 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhu H, Shuman S. A primer-dependent polymerase function of Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATP-dependent DNA Ligase (LigD). J Biol Chem 2005b;280:418–427 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhu H, Shuman S. Gap filling activities of Pseudomonas DNA ligase (LigD) polymerase and functional interactions of LigD with the DNA end-binding Ku protein. J Biol Chem 2010;285:4815–4825 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Paris Ülvi, Mikkel K, Tavita K, Saumaa S, Teras R et al. Nhej enzymes LigD and Ku participate in stationary-phase mutagenesis in Pseudomonas putida. DNA Repair 2015;31:11–18 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Poulter R, Taiaroa G, Sumpter N, Stockwell P, Butler M. Complete genome sequence of the kiwifruit pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae biovar 5, originating from Japan. Genome Announc 2017;5:e01409–01417 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Poulter RTM, Ho J, Handley T, Taiaroa G, Butler MI. Comparison between complete genomes of an isolate of Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae from Japan and a New Zealand isolate of the pandemic lineage. Sci Rep 2018;8:10915 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Aparicio T, Lorenzo de V, Martínez-García E. CRISPR/Cas9-enhanced ssDNA recombineering for Pseudomonas putida. Microb Biotechnol 2019;12:1076–1089
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Chen W, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Pi Y, Gu T et al. CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and cytidine deaminase-mediated base editing in Pseudomonas species. iScience 2018;6:222–231 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Sun J, Wang Q, Jiang Y, Wen Z, Yang L et al. Genome editing and transcriptional repression in Pseudomonas putida KT2440 via the type II CRISPR system. Microb Cell Fact 2018;17:41 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Cook TB, Rand JM, Nurani W, Courtney DK, Liu SA et al. Genetic tools for reliable gene expression and recombineering in Pseudomonas putida. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2018;45:517–527 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jiang W, Bikard D, Cox D, Zhang F, Marraffini LA. RNA-guided editing of bacterial genomes using CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Biotechnol 2013;31:233–239 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. West SEH, Schweizer HP, Dall C, Sample AK, Runyen-Janecky LJ. Construction of improved Escherichia-Pseudomonas shuttle vectors derived from pUC18/19 and sequence of the region required for their replication in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Gene 1994;148:81–86 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T. Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1989
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Green R, Rogers EJ. Chemical transformation of E. coli. Methods in Enzymology 2013;529:329–336
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hanahan D. Studies on transformation of Escherichia coli with plasmids. J Mol Biol 1983;166:557–580 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Andrews SC. FastQC v0.11.3 Cambridge: Babraham Bioinformatics; 2015
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Chatterjee A, Stockwell PA, Rodger EJ, Morison IM. Comparison of alignment software for genome-wide bisulphite sequence data. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:e79 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M et al. Geneious basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 2012a;28:1647–1649 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kearse M, Sturrock S, Meintjes P. The Geneious 6.0.3 Read Mapper Auckland, New Zealand: Biomatters, Ltd.,; 2012b
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ho J, Taiaroa G, Butler MI, Poulter RTM. The genome sequence of M228, a Chinese isolate of Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae, illustrates insertion sequence element mobility. Microbiol Resour Announc 2019;8:e01427–18 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Rosinski-Chupin I, Sauvage E, Fouet A, Poyart C, Glaser P. Conserved and specific features of Streptococcus pyogenes and Streptococcus agalactiae transcriptional landscapes. BMC Genomics 2019;20:236 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Omotajo D, Tate T, Cho H, Choudhary M. Distribution and diversity of ribosome binding sites in prokaryotic genomes. BMC Genomics 2015;16:604 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Karvelis T, Gasiunas G, Miksys A, Barrangou R, Horvath P et al. crRNA and tracrRNA guide Cas9-mediated DNA interference in Streptococcus thermophilus. RNA Biol 2013;10:841–851 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Nakata PA. Construction of pDUO: a bicistronic shuttle vector series for dual expression of recombinant proteins. Plasmid 2017;89:16–21 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Olsen RH, DeBusscher G, McCombie WR. Development of broad-host-range vectors and gene banks: self-cloning of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO chromosome. J Bacteriol 1982;150:60–69
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Nandi M, Selin C, Brawerman G, Fernando WGD, de Kievit TR. The global regulator ANR is essential for Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain PA23 biocontrol. Microbiology 2016;162:2159–2169 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Deng W-L, Rehm AH, Charkowski AO, Rojas CM, Collmer A. Pseudomonas syringae exchangeable effector loci: sequence diversity in representative pathovars and virulence function in P. syringae pv. syringae B728a. J Bacteriol 2003;185:2592–2602 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Chakravarthy S, Butcher BG, Liu Y, D’Amico K, Coster M et al. Virulence of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 is influenced by the catabolite repression control protein Crc. MPMI 2017;30:283–294 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Choi K-H, Mima T, Casart Y, Rholl D, Kumar A et al. Genetic tools for select-agent-compliant manipulation of Burkholderia pseudomallei. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008;74:1064–1075 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Qiu D, Damron FH, Mima T, Schweizer HP, Yu HD. PBAD-based shuttle vectors for functional analysis of toxic and highly regulated genes in Pseudomonas and Burkholderia spp. and other bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008;74:7422–7426 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Colombi E, Straub C, Künzel S, Templeton MD, McCann HC et al. Evolution of copper resistance in the kiwifruit pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae through acquisition of integrative conjugative elements and plasmids. Environ Microbiol 2017;19:819–832 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Gutiérrez-Barranquero JA, Cazorla FM, de Vicente A, Sundin GW. Complete sequence and comparative genomic analysis of eight native Pseudomonas syringae plasmids belonging to the pPT23A family. BMC Genomics 2017;18:365 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Johnson CM, Grossman AD. Integrative and conjugative elements (ICEs): what they do and how they work. Annu Rev Genet 2015;49:577–601 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Pallen MJ, Wren BW. Bacterial pathogenomics. Nature 2007;449:835–842 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Poulter RTM, Butler MI, Taiaroa G. Copper tolerance / resistance in New Zealand PSA. Report to kiwi vine health and Zespri international, project CP1684, June 10. 2016
  56. Smillie C, Garcillan-Barcia MP, Francia MV, Rocha EPC, de la Cruz F. Mobility of plasmids. Microbiol Mol Biol Biology Reviews 2010;74:434–452 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Beare PA, For RJ, Martin LW, Lamont IL. Siderophore-mediated cell signalling in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: divergent pathways regulate virulence factor production and siderophore receptor synthesis. Mol Microbiol 2003;47:195–207 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001124
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001124
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error