- Article
- Published:
Continuous multiplexed phage genome editing using recombitrons
- Chloe B. Fishman ORCID:orcid.org/0000-0002-4698-44691 na1,
- Kate D. Crawford1,2 na1,
- Santi Bhattarai-Kline1,3 na1,
- Darshini Poola1,4 na1,
- Karen Zhang ORCID:orcid.org/0000-0003-1177-635X1,2,
- Alejandro González-Delgado ORCID:orcid.org/0000-0002-8357-32041,
- Matías Rojas-Montero ORCID:orcid.org/0009-0008-8257-47081 &
- …
- Seth L. Shipman ORCID:orcid.org/0000-0003-3130-80431,5,6
Nature Biotechnology (2024)Cite this article
7879Accesses
159Altmetric
Subjects
Abstract
Bacteriophage genome editing can enhance the efficacy of phages to eliminate pathogenic bacteria in patients and in the environment. However, current methods for editing phage genomes require laborious screening, counterselection or in vitro construction of modified genomes. Here, we present a scalable approach that uses modified bacterial retrons called recombitrons to generate recombineering donor DNA paired with single-stranded binding and annealing proteins for integration into phage genomes. This system can efficiently create genome modifications in multiple phages without the need for counterselection. The approach also supports larger insertions and deletions, which can be combined with simultaneous counterselection for >99% efficiency. Moreover, we show that the process is continuous, with more edits accumulating the longer the phage is cultured with the host, and multiplexable. We install up to five distinct mutations on a single lambda phage genome without counterselection in only a few hours of hands-on time and identify a residue-level epistatic interaction in the T7 gp17 tail fiber.
This is a preview of subscription content,access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
9,800 Yen / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscription info for Japanese customers
We have a dedicated website for our Japanese customers. Please go tonatureasia.com to subscribe to this journal.
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and itsSupplementary Information or will be made available from the authors upon request. Sequencing data associated with this study are available from the NCBI SRA (PRJNA933262).
Code availability
Custom code to process or analyze data from this study is available from GitHub (https://github.com/Shipman-Lab/Multiplexed_Phage_Recombitrons).
References
Żaczek, M., Weber-Dąbrowska, B., Międzybrodzki, R., Łusiak-Szelachowska, M. & Górski, A. Phage therapy in Poland—a centennial journey to the first ethically approved treatment facility in Europe.Front. Microbiol.11, 1056 (2020).
Antimicrobial Resistance CollaboratorsGlobal burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis.Lancet399, 629–655 (2022).
O’Neill, J. Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations. InThe Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. (Government of the United Kingdom, 2016).
Chan, B. K., Stanley, G., Modak, M., Koff, J. L. & Turner, P. E. Bacteriophage therapy for infections in CF.Pediatr. Pulmonol.56, S4–S9 (2021).
Schooley, R. T. et al. Development and use of personalized bacteriophage-based therapeutic cocktails to treat a patient with a disseminated resistantAcinetobacter baumannii infection.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.61, e00954-17 (2017).
Strathdee, S. A., Hatfull, G. F., Mutalik, V. K. & Schooley, R. T. Phage therapy: from biological mechanisms to future directions.Cell186, 17–31 (2023).
Gencay, Y. E. et al. Engineered phage with antibacterial CRISPR–Cas selectively reduceE. coli burden in mice.Nat. Biotechnol.42, 265–274 (2024).
Dedrick, R. M. et al. Engineered bacteriophages for treatment of a patient with a disseminated drug-resistantMycobacterium abscessus.Nat. Med.25, 730–733 (2019).
Mahler, M., Costa, A. R., van Beljouw, S. P. B., Fineran, P. C. & Brouns, S. J. J.Approaches for bacteriophage genome engineering.Trends Biotechnol.41, 669–685 (2023).
Kiro, R., Shitrit, D. & Qimron, U. Efficient engineering of a bacteriophage genome using the type I-E CRISPR–Cas system.RNA Biol.11, 42–44 (2014).
Box, A. M., McGuffie, M. J., O’Hara, B. J. & Seed, K. D. Functional analysis of bacteriophage immunity through a type I-E CRISPR–Cas system inVibrio cholerae and its application in bacteriophage genome engineering.J. Bacteriol.198, 578–590 (2016).
Bari, S. M. N., Walker, F. C., Cater, K., Aslan, B. & Hatoum-Aslan, A. Strategies for editing virulent staphylococcal phages using CRISPR–Cas10.ACS Synth. Biol.6, 2316–2325 (2017).
Ramirez-Chamorro, L., Boulanger, P. & Rossier, O. Strategies for bacteriophage T5 mutagenesis: expanding the toolbox for phage genome engineering.Front. Microbiol.12, 667332 (2021).
Adler, B. A. et al. Broad-spectrum CRISPR–Cas13a enables efficient phage genome editing.Nat. Microbiol.7, 1967–1979 (2022).
Strotskaya, A. et al. The action ofEscherichia coli CRISPR–Cas system on lytic bacteriophages with different lifestyles and development strategies.Nucleic Acids Res.45, 1946–1957 (2017).
Ando, H., Lemire, S., Pires, D. P. & Lu, T. K. Engineering modular viral scaffolds for targeted bacterial population editing.Cell Syst.1, 187–196 (2015).
Nozaki, S. Rapid and accurate assembly of large DNA assisted by in vitro packaging of bacteriophage.ACS Synth. Biol.11, 4113–4122 (2022).
Emslander, Q. et al. Cell-free production of personalized therapeutic phages targeting multidrug-resistant bacteria.Cell Chem. Biol.29, 1434–1445 (2022).
Farzadfard, F. & Lu, T. K. Genomically encoded analog memory with precise in vivo DNA writing in living cell populations.Science346, 1256272 (2014).
Schubert, M. G. et al. High-throughput functional variant screens via in vivo production of single-stranded DNA.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA118, e2018181118 (2021).
Simon, A. J., Morrow, B. R. & Ellington, A. D. Retroelement-based genome editing and evolution.ACS Synth. Biol.7, 2600–2611 (2018).
Lopez, S. C., Crawford, K. D., Lear, S. K., Bhattarai-Kline, S. & Shipman, S. L. Precise genome editing across kingdoms of life using retron-derived DNA.Nat. Chem. Biol.18, 199–206 (2022).
Bobonis, J. et al. Bacterial retrons encode phage-defending tripartite toxin–antitoxin systems.Nature609, 144–150 (2022).
Millman, A. et al. Bacterial retrons function in anti-phage defense.Cell183, 1551–1561 (2020).
Palka, C., Fishman, C. B., Bhattarai-Kline, S., Myers, S. A. & Shipman, S. L. Retron reverse transcriptase termination and phage defense are dependent on host RNase H1.Nucleic Acids Res.50, 3490–3504 (2022).
Gao, L. et al. Diverse enzymatic activities mediate antiviral immunity in prokaryotes.Science369, 1077–1084 (2020).
Mosberg, J. A., Lajoie, M. J. & Church, G. M. Lambda red recombineering inEscherichia coli occurs through a fully single-stranded intermediate.Genetics186, 791–799 (2010).
Nyerges, Á. et al. A highly precise and portable genome engineering method allows comparison of mutational effects across bacterial species.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA113, 2502–2507 (2016).
Wannier, T. M. et al. Improved bacterial recombineering by parallelized protein discovery.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA117, 13689–13698 (2020).
Nyerges, Á. et al. Conditional DNA repair mutants enable highly precise genome engineering.Nucleic Acids Res.42, e62 (2014).
Bhattarai-Kline, S. et al. Recording gene expression order in DNA by CRISPR addition of retron barcodes.Nature608, 217–225 (2022).
Aronshtam, A. & Marinus, M. G. Dominant negative mutator mutations in themutL gene ofEscherichia coli.Nucleic Acids Res.24, 2498–2504 (1996).
Ellis, H. M., Yu, D., DiTizio, T. & Court, D. L. High efficiency mutagenesis, repair, and engineering of chromosomal DNA using single-stranded oligonucleotides.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA98, 6742–6746 (2001).
Weigele, P. & Raleigh, E. A. Biosynthesis and function of modified bases in bacteria and their viruses.Chem. Rev.116, 12655–12687 (2016).
Bryson, A. L. et al. Covalent modification of bacteriophage T4 DNA inhibits CRISPR–Cas9.mBio6, e00648 (2015).
Fleischman, R. A., Cambell, J. L. & Richardson, C. C. Modification and restriction of T-even bacteriophages. In vitro degradation of deoxyribonucleic acid containing 5-hydroxymethylctosine.J. Biol. Chem.251, 1561–1570 (1976).
Weigel, C. & Seitz, H. Bacteriophage replication modules.FEMS Microbiol. Rev.30, 321–381 (2006).
Wolfson, J., Dressler, D. & Magazin, M. Bacteriophage T7 DNA replication: a linear replicating intermediate (gradient centrifugation–electron microscopy–E. coli–DNA partial denaturation).Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA69, 499–504 (1972).
Bourguignon, G. J., Sweeney, T. K. & Delius, H. Multiple origins and circular structures in replicating T5 bacteriophage DNA.J. Virol.18, 245–259 (1976).
Hochschild, A. & Lewis, M. The bacteriophage lambda CI protein finds an asymmetric solution.Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.19, 79–86 (2009).
Tal, A., Arbel-Goren, R., Costantino, N., Court, D. L. & Stavans, J. Location of the unique integration site on anEscherichia coli chromosome by bacteriophage lambda DNA in vivo.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA111, 7308–7312 (2014).
Filsinger, G. T. et al. Characterizing the portability of phage-encoded homologous recombination proteins.Nat. Chem. Biol.17, 394–402 (2021).
Hernandez, A. J. & Richardson, C. C. Gp2.5, the multifunctional bacteriophage T7 single-stranded DNA binding protein.Semin. Cell Dev. Biol.86, 92–101 (2019).
Werten, S. Identification of the ssDNA-binding protein of bacteriophage T5: implications for T5 replication.Bacteriophage3, e27304 (2013).
Maffei, E. et al. Systematic exploration ofEscherichia coli phage–host interactions with the BASEL phage collection.PLoS Biol.19, e3001424 (2021).
Marinelli, L. J. et al. BRED: a simple and powerful tool for constructing mutant and recombinant bacteriophage genomes.PLoS ONE3, e3957 (2008).
Mosberg, J. A., Gregg, C. J., Lajoie, M. J., Wang, H. H. & Church, G. M. Improving lambda red genome engineering inEscherichia coli via rational removal of endogenous nucleases.PLoS ONE7, e44638 (2012).
Huss, P., Meger, A., Leander, M., Nishikawa, K. & Raman, S.Mapping the functional landscape of the receptor binding domain of T7 bacteriophage by deep mutational scanning.eLife10, e63775 (2021).
Parson, K. A. & Snustad, D. P. Host DNA degradation after infection ofEscherichia coli with bacteriophage T4: dependence of the alternate pathway of degradation which occurs in the absence of both T4 endonuclease II and nuclear disruption on T4 endonuclease IV.J. Virol.15, 221–224 (1975).
Warner, H. R., Drong, R. F. & Berget, S. M. Early events after infection ofEscherichia coli by bacteriophage T5. Induction of a 5′-nucleotidase activity and excretion of free bases.J. Virol.15, 273–280 (1975).
Dunne, M. et al. Reprogramming bacteriophage host range through structure-guided design of chimeric receptor binding proteins.Cell Rep.29, 1336–1350 (2019).
Yehl, K. et al. Engineering phage host-range and suppressing bacterial resistance through phage tail fiber mutagenesis.Cell179, 459–469 (2019).
Datsenko, K. A. & Wanner, B. L. One-step inactivation of chromosomal genes inEscherichia coli K-12 using PCR products.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA97, 6640–6645 (2000).
Jeong, H., Kim, H. J. & Lee, S. J.Complete genome sequence ofEscherichia coli strain BL21.Genome Announc.3, e00134-15 (2015).
Baba, T. et al. Construction ofEscherichia coli K-12 in-frame, single-gene knockout mutants: the Keio collection.Mol. Syst. Biol.2, 2006.0008 (2006).
Doron, S. et al. Systematic discovery of antiphage defense systems in the microbial pangenome.Science359, eaar4120 (2018).
Fortier, L. C. & Moineau, S. Phage production and maintenance of stocks, including expected stock lifetimes.Methods Mol. Biol.501, 203–219 (2009).
Kropinski, A. M., Mazzocco, A., Waddell, T. E., Lingohr, E. & Johnson, R. P. Enumeration of bacteriophages by double agar overlay plaque assay.Methods Mol. Biol.501, 69–76 (2009).
Rajagopala, S. V., Casjens, S. & Uetz, P. The protein interaction map of bacteriophage lambda.BMC Microbiol.11, 213 (2011).
Epp, C., Pearson, M. L. & Enquist, L. Downstream regulation ofint gene expression by theb2 region in phage lambda.Gene13, 327–337 (1981).
Mazzocco, A., Waddell, T. E., Lingohr, E. & Johnson, R. P. Enumeration of bacteriophages using the small drop plaque assay system.Methods Mol. Biol.501, 81–85 (2009).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (MCB 2137692), the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R21EB031393), the Gary and Eileen Morgenthaler Fund and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (1DP2GM140917). S.L.S. is a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco investigator and acknowledges additional funding support from the L.K. Whittier Foundation and the Pew Biomedical Scholars Program. K.D.C. and K.Z. were supported by National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships and University of California, San Francisco Discovery Fellowships. A.G.-D. was supported by the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine scholar program.
Author information
These authors contributed equally: Chloe B. Fishman, Kate D. Crawford, Santi Bhattarai-Kline, Darshini Poola.
Authors and Affiliations
Gladstone Institute of Data Science and Biotechnology, San Francisco, CA, USA
Chloe B. Fishman, Kate D. Crawford, Santi Bhattarai-Kline, Darshini Poola, Karen Zhang, Alejandro González-Delgado, Matías Rojas-Montero & Seth L. Shipman
Graduate Program in Bioengineering, University of California, San Francisco and Berkeley, CA, USA
Kate D. Crawford & Karen Zhang
UCLA-Caltech Medical Scientist Training Program, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Santi Bhattarai-Kline
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India
Darshini Poola
Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
Seth L. Shipman
Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA, USA
Seth L. Shipman
- Chloe B. Fishman
You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
- Kate D. Crawford
You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
- Santi Bhattarai-Kline
You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
- Darshini Poola
You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
- Karen Zhang
You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
- Alejandro González-Delgado
You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
- Matías Rojas-Montero
You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
- Seth L. Shipman
You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
Contributions
C.B.F., S.B.-K. and S.L.S. conceptualized the study and, with K.D.C., K.A.Z. and A.G.-D., outlined the scope of the project and designed experiments. C.B.F. developed the phage handling and editing protocols. Experiments were performed and analyzed by C.B.F. (Figs.1e,f,i,2a–k and4 and Extended Data Figs.1c–m,2a and4), K.D.C. (Figs.2l,m,3 and5 and Extended Data Figs.1b and3), S.B.-K. (Fig.1b–d and Extended Data Fig.1a), D.P. (Fig.5), K.A.Z. (Figs.1g and3 and Extended Data Figs.1n and3) and A.G.-D. (Fig.2n and Extended Data Fig.2b–d). C.B.F. and S.L.S. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors.
Corresponding author
Correspondence toSeth L. Shipman.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
C.B.F., S.B.K. and S.L.S. are named inventors on a patent application related to the technologies described in this work. S.L.S. is a cofounder of Retronix Bio and Sprint Synthesis. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Biotechnology thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Accompaniment to Fig.1.
a. Left: Edited phage T2 genomes (%). With forward (blue) or reverse (purple) RT-DNA. Open circles are three biological replicates, closed circles are means. Right: Recombitron editing at site 143,279 (R) (±SD) versus a dRT control (unpaired, two-sided t-test,P = 0.77).b. Editing of wild-type and mutant T4 without modified cytosines, shown as in a (N = 3) (two-way ANOVA, effect of modified bases,P = 0.0061).c. Editing (%) of lambda and lambda_ΔcI in different host strains at site 14,070 (R). Open circles show 3 (wt in bSLS.114), 5 (ΔcI in bSLS.114), and 2 (ΔcI in bCF.5) biological replicates, closed circles show the mean (one-way ANOVA, effect of strain/phage,P = 0.2421).d. Editing (%) of lambda without induction of CspRecT at site 14,126, shown as in a (N = 3).e. Titer (PFU/mL) of phage lambda, T7, and T5 after propagation through host cells of different conditions, compared to amount of phage added to the culture, without recombitrons (open black circles), with uninduced recombitrons (open pink circles), with induced recombitrons (closed pink circles), and with induced recombitrons targeting a different phage (closed blue circles). Individual biological replicates are shown.f. Editing (%) of lambda, T7, and T5 from the induced, on-target recombitron condition in panel d, shown as in a (N = 3).g. Editing (%) of T7 with supplemental expression of lambda genes gam or beta, shown as in a (N = 3, one-way ANOVAP < 0.0001).h. Editing (%) of lamda with supplemental expression of lambda genes gam or beta, shown as in a (N = 3, one-way ANOVAP = 0.0904).i. Editing (%) of T7 with supplemental expression ofE. coli SSB and lambda genes gam or beta, shown as in a (N = 3, one-way ANOVAP < 0.0001).j. Editing (%) of lambda with supplemental expression ofE. coli SSB and lambda genes gam or beta, as in a (N = 3, one-way ANOVAP < 0.0001).k. Editing (%) of lambda at site 14126 (F) compared to editing with supplemental expression of T5 SSB, shown as in a (N = 3).l. Editing (%) of T7 at site 22872 (R) compared to editing with supplemental expression of T5 SSB, shown as in a (N = 3).m. Editing (%) of T5 at site 88634 (F) with supplemental expression ofE. coli SSB, T7 SSB, or T5 SSB, shown as in a (N = 3).n. Editing (%) of phages from the basal collection, Bas46 (A19798T) and Bas47 (A6332G), that contain modified bases with the RT induced (+) or uninduced (-), as in f (N = 3).
Extended Data Fig. 2 Accompaniment to Fig.2.
a. Rate of acquiring only the scanning edit in lambda when donors contain both scanning and central edits. (open circles are biological replicates, closed circles are the mean).b. PAGE analysis of retron RT-DNA in differentE. coli strains.c. Editing (%) of lambda with editing cultures started at different initial multiplicities of infection (MOI), using MG1655 (Δexo1,ΔrecJ) as the editing host (one-way ANOVAP < 0.0001) (open circles are 3 biological replicates, closed circles are the mean).d. Editing (%) of lambda with editing cultures incubated at different temperatures, using MG1655 (Δexo1,ΔrecJ) as the editing host (unpaired, two-sided t-testP = 0.0013) (open circles are 3 biological replicates, closed circles are the mean).
Extended Data Fig. 3 Accompaniment to Fig.3.
a. Comparison of edited phages measure by amplicon (Illumina) or amplification-free (Oxford Nanopore) sequencing. Open orange circles represent biological replicates of amplicon data and filled orange circle represents the mean. Filled blue circle represents the aggregate nanopore data from three replicates.b. Coverage of the editing site in long-read nanopore sequencing for deletions in which we observe editing.c. Coverage of the editing site in long-read nanopore sequencing for deletions in which we do not observe any edits. Estimated limit of detection for these samples is calculated by dividing 100 by the coverage of the site.d. Examples of nanopore reads for different deletion conditions.e. Coverage of the editing site in long-read nanopore sequencing for large insertions, for which we do not observe any edits. Estimated limit of detection for these samples is calculated by dividing 100 by the coverage of the site.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Accompaniment to Fig.4.
Editing (%) from Sanger sequencing of plaques at each site from mixed recombitron cultures after 3 rounds of editing. Three biological replicates are shown in open circles for each site, clustered over the number of recombitrons used.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Fig. 1 and Tables 1 and 3.
Supplementary Table 2
Recombitron plasmid details.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Fishman, C.B., Crawford, K.D., Bhattarai-Kline, S.et al. Continuous multiplexed phage genome editing using recombitrons.Nat Biotechnol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02370-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
