Chaoyou Xue, Natalie R. Whitis, Dipali G. Sashital  Molecular Cell 

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Molecular recordings by directed CRISPR spacer acquisition
Advertisements

Cotranscriptional Recruitment of the mRNA Export Factor Yra1 by Direct Interaction with the 3′ End Processing Factor Pcf11  Sara Ann Johnson, Gabrielle.
A Strategy for Antagonizing Quorum Sensing
Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages (November 2014)
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages (September 2005)
Structural Basis of Interdomain Communication in the Hsc70 Chaperone
Structural Changes in TAF4b-TFIID Correlate with Promoter Selectivity
Volume 22, Issue 13, Pages (March 2018)
Tail-Anchored Protein Insertion by a Single Get1/2 Heterodimer
Volume 62, Issue 2, Pages (April 2016)
Interaction of Era with the 30S Ribosomal Subunit
Volume 62, Issue 4, Pages (May 2016)
Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages (June 2012)
Volume 63, Issue 5, Pages (September 2016)
DNase H Activity of Neisseria meningitidis Cas9
Volume 45, Issue 4, Pages (February 2012)
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages (April 2005)
Daan C. Swarts, John van der Oost, Martin Jinek  Molecular Cell 
Volume 63, Issue 6, Pages (September 2016)
Volume 65, Issue 5, Pages e5 (March 2017)
Volume 58, Issue 1, Pages (April 2015)
Volume 37, Issue 1, Pages (January 2010)
Ben B. Hopkins, Tanya T. Paull  Cell 
Volume 65, Issue 1, Pages (January 2017)
Structure of the Endonuclease Domain of MutL: Unlicensed to Cut
John D. Leonard, Geeta J. Narlikar  Molecular Cell 
HyeongJun Kim, Jen Hsin, Yanxin Liu, Paul R. Selvin, Klaus Schulten 
Single-Stranded DNA Cleavage by Divergent CRISPR-Cas9 Enzymes
Guide RNA Functional Modules Direct Cas9 Activity and Orthogonality
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages e3 (September 2017)
Dipali G. Sashital, Blake Wiedenheft, Jennifer A. Doudna 
Volume 21, Issue 13, Pages (December 2017)
Beena Krishnan, Lila M. Gierasch  Chemistry & Biology 
Yanhui Xu, Yu Chen, Ping Zhang, Philip D. Jeffrey, Yigong Shi 
Programmable RNA Cleavage and Recognition by a Natural CRISPR-Cas9 System from Neisseria meningitidis  Beth A. Rousseau, Zhonggang Hou, Max J. Gramelspacher,
Single-Molecule Analysis Reveals Differential Effect of ssDNA-Binding Proteins on DNA Translocation by XPD Helicase  Masayoshi Honda, Jeehae Park, Robert.
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages (December 2007)
Critical Conformational Changes in the Arp2/3 Complex Are Induced by Nucleotide and Nucleation Promoting Factor  Erin D. Goley, Stacia E. Rodenbusch,
NanoRNAs Prime Transcription Initiation In Vivo
Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages (March 2010)
Volume 69, Issue 1, Pages e3 (January 2018)
RNA-Independent DNA Cleavage Activities of Cas9 and Cas12a
Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages (January 2008)
Volume 25, Issue 16, Pages (August 2015)
ATPase Site Architecture and Helicase Mechanism of an Archaeal MCM
Volume 10, Issue 9, Pages (March 2015)
c-Src Activates Endonuclease-Mediated mRNA Decay
Yi Tang, Jianyuan Luo, Wenzhu Zhang, Wei Gu  Molecular Cell 
Cotranscriptional Recruitment of the mRNA Export Factor Yra1 by Direct Interaction with the 3′ End Processing Factor Pcf11  Sara Ann Johnson, Gabrielle.
DNA-Induced Switch from Independent to Sequential dTTP Hydrolysis in the Bacteriophage T7 DNA Helicase  Donald J. Crampton, Sourav Mukherjee, Charles.
Structure of an RNA Silencing Complex of the CRISPR-Cas Immune System
Hayun Lee, Yi Zhou, David W. Taylor, Dipali G. Sashital  Molecular Cell 
Synthetic Oligonucleotides Inhibit CRISPR-Cpf1-Mediated Genome Editing
Diverse Pore Loops of the AAA+ ClpX Machine Mediate Unassisted and Adaptor- Dependent Recognition of ssrA-Tagged Substrates  Andreas Martin, Tania A. Baker,
Volume 52, Issue 3, Pages (November 2013)
Mechanistic Basis of 5′-3′ Translocation in SF1B Helicases
Volume 54, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Hui Yang, Dinshaw J. Patel  Molecular Cell 
CdpR Inhibits CRISPR-Cas Adaptive Immunity to Lower Anti-viral Defense while Avoiding Self-Reactivity  Ping Lin, Qinqin Pu, Guanwang Shen, Rongpeng Li,
Structure of the Siz/PIAS SUMO E3 Ligase Siz1 and Determinants Required for SUMO Modification of PCNA  Ali A. Yunus, Christopher D. Lima  Molecular Cell 
Maria Spies, Stephen C. Kowalczykowski  Molecular Cell 
Adaptation in CRISPR-Cas Systems
Transcriptional Regulation by p53 through Intrinsic DNA/Chromatin Binding and Site- Directed Cofactor Recruitment  Joaquin M Espinosa, Beverly M Emerson 
Volume 27, Issue 23, Pages e6 (December 2017)
The Conformational Dynamics of the Mitochondrial Hsp70 Chaperone
Volume 73, Issue 2, Pages e4 (January 2019)
DNA Targeting by a Minimal CRISPR RNA-Guided Cascade
A Splicing-Independent Function of SF2/ASF in MicroRNA Processing
Volume 65, Issue 5, Pages e4 (March 2017)
CRISPR Immunological Memory Requires a Host Factor for Specificity
Presentation transcript:

Conformational Control of Cascade Interference and Priming Activities in CRISPR Immunity  Chaoyou Xue, Natalie R. Whitis, Dipali G. Sashital  Molecular Cell  Volume 64, Issue 4, Pages 826-834 (November 2016) DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.09.033 Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Molecular Cell 2016 64, 826-834DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2016.09.033) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Direct Detection of Cse1 Conformational Changes by FRET (A) Full view of apo Cascade structure (PDB: 4TVX). Cse1 NTD, light green; Cse1 CTD, dark green; Cas5, purple; Cse2 subunits, light orange; Cas7 subunits, light blue; Cas6, light red. (B–D) Close-up of Cse1 DNA-binding face (top) and solvent-exposed face (bottom) in apo (B), ssDNA-bound (C), and dsDNA-bound Cascade (D). PDB: 4TVX (B); PDB: 4QYZ (C) with modeled chains from PDB: 4TVX (see Supplemental Experimental Procedures); and PDB: 5H9F (D). The L1 motif is shown in red, and the PAM is shown in yellow in the dsDNA bound structure. Cy3 (green stars) and Cy5 (red stars) labeling sites are indicated, with corresponding distances between sites. See also Table S1 and Movies S1 and S2. (E–G) SDS-PAGE analysis of Cy3 and Cy5 labeling. The gel was analyzed by Coomassie Blue staining (E), Cy3 scan at 560–580 nm (F), or Cy5 scan at ≥665 nm (G). Gel lanes: (1) wild-type (WT) Cse1 or Cse2-Cas6, containing all native Cys residues; (2) minimal-Cys Cse1 or Cse2-Cas6; (3) minimal-Cys N73C Cse1 or Minimal-Cys Cse2-Cas6 containing K169C Cas5. See also Figure S1. (H) Fluorescence emission spectra for individually labeled Cse1 and Cse2-Cas6 and reconstituted FRET-enabled Cascade. Excitation wavelength, 530 nm. (I and J) Fluorescence emission spectra for FRET-enabled Cascade containing Cse1-NTDCy3 (I) or Cse1-CTDCy3 (J) binding to various concentrations of ssDNA (I) or dsDNA (J). The insets show EFRET at various molar equivalents of the DNA substrates; error bar represents mean (n = 3) ± SD. Dashed lines are spectra for Cy3-labeled Cse1 + DNA in the absence of acceptor; solid lines are spectra for FRET-enabled Cascade + DNA. Molecular Cell 2016 64, 826-834DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2016.09.033) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Target Mutations Inhibit Interference through Alteration of Cse1 Conformation (A) Flow cytometry spectra for E. coli cells harboring empty GFP-reporter plasmid (–), GFP-reporter plasmid with targets containing a canonical PAM and fully matching (FM), or seed mismatch (MM; position 1 rG-dG mismatch) protospacer after one growth cycle (8 hr). (B) Flow cytometry spectra for E. coli cells harboring GFP-reporter plasmids containing fully matching protospacer with canonical PAM (AAG) or mutant PAMs (AAA, AGA) after two growth cycles (12 hr each). For (A) and (B), high GFP fluorescence (green) indicates full retention of plasmid, low GFP fluorescence (blue) indicates partial plasmid loss, and GFP− cells (red) indicate complete plasmid loss. (C and D) Primed spacer acquisition against GFP-reporter targets after one 8 hr (C) or two 12 hr (D) growth cycles. CRISPR arrays from genomic DNA were PCR amplified and visualized by gel electrophoresis to detect the acquisition of new spacers (+1 band) relative to original (O) product. (E and F) Quantified interference and priming efficiencies for specified targets after one 8 hr (E) or two 12 hr (F) growth cycles. Interference efficiencies are the percentage of GFP– cells in flow cytometry experiments. Priming efficiencies are quantified from CRISPR amplicons (see Supplemental Experimental Procedures). Error bar represents mean (n = 3) ± SD. (G and H) Changes in EFRET for Cascade containing Cse1-NTDCy3 (G) or Cse1-CTDCy3 (H) upon binding to DNA targets. For each domain, FRET was measured with Cy3 located at two different positions. For (G) and (H), error bar represents mean (n = 3) ± propagated SD (see Supplemental Experimental Procedures). See also Figures S2A–S2C and S2E–S2N. (I) In vitro Cascade-dependent Cas3 cleavage of pUC19 plasmid DNA containing either an FM or MM protospacer (with AAG PAM) analyzed by gel electrophoresis. Cascade was bound to plasmid prior to initiation of Cas3 cleavage, and aliquots were quenched at indicated time points. See also Figure S2D. DNA is labeled as follows: OC, open circle; L, linear; nSC, negatively supercoiled; D, degraded. Molecular Cell 2016 64, 826-834DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2016.09.033) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Cse1 L1 Mutants Switch Immune Response by Promoting the Open Conformation (A) Plasmid loss and spacer acquisition rates for strains expressing WT, F129A, and N131A Cse1 against a GFP-reporter plasmid containing a bona fide target after 8 hr growth. For comparison, WT activity against an AGA target after 8 hr growth is also plotted. WT plasmid loss against the canonical target are reproduced from Figures 2B and 2C. Error bar represents mean (n = 3) ± SD. See also Figures S4A and S4B. (B) In vitro interference assay against plasmid target. Cascade bearing WT, F129A, or N131A Cse1 were bound to DNA prior to initiation of Cas3 cleavage. See also Figures S4C and S4D. (C) Change in EFRET for Cascade containing N131A Cse1-NTDCy3 or N131A Cse1-CTDCy3 upon binding to a canonical dsDNA target with fully matching protospacer and AAG PAM or ssDNA with fully matching protospacer. Cy3 labeling positions: NTD–N73C; CTD–N376C. See also Figures S4E–S4I. (D) Change in EFRET for Cascade containing WT (minimal-Cys) Cse1-NTDCy3 or Cse1-CTDCy3 upon binding to a canonical dsDNA target with fully matching protospacer and AAA PAM or ssDNA with fully matching protospacer. Values are reproduced from experiments shown in Figures 2G and 2H for comparison with (C). For (C) and (D), error bar represents mean (n = 3) ± SD propagated for subtraction (see Experimental Procedures). Molecular Cell 2016 64, 826-834DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2016.09.033) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Model for Conformational Control of Cascade Function (A) When Cse1 adopts the closed conformation, CTD locking leads to recruitment of the Cas3 endonuclease and interference. (B) Alternatively, Cse1 adopts the open conformation, which may promote priming through Cas1-Cas2-dependent recruitment of Cas3 (Redding et al., 2015). The two conformations in (A) and (B) exist in a dynamic equilibrium. Favorable interactions between the PAM-NTD and L1-crRNA promote the closed and locked conformation, while disruption of these interactions through mutation of the PAM, seed, or L1 motif promote the open conformation. Molecular Cell 2016 64, 826-834DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2016.09.033) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions