4.3 Article

CRISPR Arrays Away from cas Genes

期刊

CRISPR JOURNAL
卷 3, 期 6, 页码 535-549

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2020.0062

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (National Library of Medicine)
  2. National Institutes of Health [GM104071]
  3. Russian Science Foundation [19-74-20130]
  4. Russian Science Foundation [19-74-20130] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CRISPR-Cas systems typically consist of a CRISPR array and cas genes that are organized in one or more operons. However, a substantial fraction of CRISPR arrays are not adjacent to cas genes. Definitive identification of such isolated CRISPR arrays runs into the problem of false-positives, with unrelated types of repetitive sequences mimicking CRISPR. We developed a computational pipeline to eliminate false CRISPR predictions and found that up to 25% of the CRISPR arrays in complete bacterial and archaeal genomes are located away from cas genes. Most of the repeats in these isolated arrays are identical to repeats in cas-adjacent CRISPR arrays in the same or closely related genomes, indicating an evolutionary relationship between isolated arrays and arrays in typical CRISPR-cas loci. The spacers in isolated CRISPR arrays show nearly as many matches to viral genomes as spacers from complete CRISPR-cas loci, suggesting that the isolated arrays were either functionally active recently or continue to function. Reconstruction of evolutionary events in closely related bacterial genomes suggests three routes of evolution of isolated CRISPR arrays: (1) loss of cos genes in a CRISPR-cas locus, (2) de novo generation of arrays from off-target spacer integration into sequences resembling the corresponding repeats, and (3) transfer by mobile genetic elements. Both combination of de novo emerging arrays with cas genes and regain of cas genes by isolated arrays via recombination likely contribute to functional diversification in CRISPR-Cas evolution.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据