4.8 Article

Metagenomic reconstructions of bacterial CRISPR loci constrain population histories

期刊

ISME JOURNAL
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 858-870

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2015.162

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Energy [DE-FG02-07ER64505]
  2. Army Research Office [W911NF-10-0046]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial CRISPR-Cas systems provide insight into recent population history because they rapidly incorporate, in a unidirectional manner, short fragments (spacers) from coexisting infective virus populations into host chromosomes. Immunity is achieved by sequence identity between transcripts of spacers and their targets. Here, we used metagenomics to study the stability and dynamics of the type I-E CRISPR-Cas locus of Leptospirillum group II bacteria in biofilms sampled over 5 years from an acid mine drainage (AMD) system. Despite recovery of 452 686 spacers from CRISPR amplicons and metagenomic data, rarefaction curves of spacers show no saturation. The vast repertoire of spacers is attributed to phage/plasmid population diversity and retention of old spacers, despite rapid evolution of the targeted phage/plasmid genome regions (proto-spacers). The oldest spacers (spacers found at the trailer end) are conserved for at least 5 years, and 12% of these retain perfect or near-perfect matches to proto-spacer targets. The majority of proto-spacer regions contain an AAG proto-spacer adjacent motif (PAM). Spacers throughout the locus target the same phage population (AMDV1), but there are blocks of consecutive spacers without AMDV1 target sequences. Results suggest long-term coexistence of Leptospirillum with AMDV1 and periods when AMDV1 was less dominant. Metagenomics can be applied to millions of cells in a single sample to provide an extremely large spacer inventory, allow identification of phage/plasmids and enable analysis of previous phage/plasmid exposure. Thus, this approach can provide insights into prior bacterial environment and genetic interplay between hosts and their viruses.

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

4.8
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