David R. Edgell

Archaea and the Origin(s) of DNA Replication Proteins

Replication thus joins transcription and translation in compounding the central conundrum of cellular evolution, illustrated in Figure 1Figure 1. The archaeal molecular components responsible for these fundamental cellular processes are more similar to their eukaryotic than their bacterial counterparts. We expect this in a quantitative sense if the structure of the universal tree shown in Figure 1Figure 1 is correct—in fact, such quantitative similarity is the basis of the tree. But there are also qualitative differences between bacteria and archaea–eukaryotes—whole suites of proteins and protein complexes present in the one lineage and absent from the other. Often, the archaeal–eukaryotic system seems more complex (involves more components). And, for much of the latter half of this century we have thought of such complexity as part and parcel of the greater complexity in cellular ultrastructure (in particular, the presence of a cytoskeleton and endomembrane system) that distinguishes eukaryotes from all prokaryotes, archaea included.Perhaps there is no conundrum—perhaps we were just wrong to think that way. But still, the uncoupling of molecular complexity in transcription, translation, and replication from complexity in cell structure is most peculiar. The eukaryotic cytoskeletal system seems to have arisen full blown at the origin of the eukaryotes. Although bacterial and archaeal FtsZ is a likely candidate for the prokaryote homolog of tubulin, amino acid alignments between these proteins are not very convincing. Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1995xDoolittle, R.F. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. (Lond.) B. 1995; 349: 235–240Crossref | PubMedSee all ReferencesDoolittle 1995) has noted that the evolution of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton would require an abrupt change in the rate of sequence evolution for tubulins and their relatives that is of the order of “10- to 100-fold higher” than the observed rate of sequence evolution of tubulins and FtsZ proteins within the domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eucarya. This rate of sequence evolution might also be invoked if DNA replication proteins of the three domains are in fact homologs and diverged from a common ancestral set of proteins.

Barriers to Intron Promiscuity in Bacteria

“The field of bacterial viruses is a fine playground for serious children who ask ambitious questions.” Max Delbruck The first bacterial intron, a self-splicing group I intron, was found to interrupt the thymidylate synthase (td) gene of the Escherichia coli phage T4 (11). The second and third bacterial group I introns were found to interrupt the aerobic (nrdB) and anaerobic (nrdD [initially named sunY]) ribonucleotide reductases of phage T4 (29, 90), and another group I intron was soon discovered in the DNA polymerase gene of SPO1, a Bacillus phage (25). From this (admittedly) small sampling of phage genomes, one might have naively expected that group I introns would be abundant in phage or bacterial genomes, especially since subsequent laboratory experiments demonstrated that group I introns could propagate themselves (by a process called homing) throughout populations of intron-minus alleles with near 100% efficiency (5, 68). That a similar homing phenomenon had also been previously demonstrated for a group I intron in the large rRNA gene of yeast mitochondria (34) gave additional support to the notion that group I introns should be able to spread efficiently throughout populations. However, this expected outcome has never been realized in natural phage populations; some phage populations harbor many introns, while other related phage populations are strangely lacking in any introns whatsoever (Table ​(Table1).1). Why do group I introns have an unusual distribution in phage and bacterial genomes, and what potential barriers might exist to prevent their spread? TABLE 1 Distribution of group I introns in bacteria and bacteriophages A similar question might be asked of group II introns in bacteria. Much was made of the initial finding of group II introns in bacteria, as their discovery added fuel to the debate concerning the evolutionary origins of eukaryotic spliceosomal introns (22, 70) which have both structural and functional similarities to group II introns (53, 79, 84). Yet, the number of group II introns in bacteria is small, many of which are inferred only from database matches to reverse transcriptases or maturases encoded within known introns (13, 41, 73, 89), and only two have been shown to splice or be mobile in vivo (48, 49, 55, 80) (Table ​(Table2).2). While group II intron homing is mechanistically distinct from group I intron homing, the principle is similar; group II introns home from intron-containing to intronless alleles. Many elegant biochemical and genetic experiments have unraveled the complexities of bacterial group II intron homing (14, 48, 49), and based on these results, there seems no a priori reason why group II introns should not be able to spread efficiently through populations of intron-minus alleles. The paucity of bacterial group II introns becomes even more perplexing given the recent demonstration of group II intron transposition to novel chromosomal sites (15). That group II introns are abundant in mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes (52) and present in bacterial genomes but at lower levels (and absent in phages) only adds to the mystery surrounding the lack of group II introns in bacteria, as mitochondria and chloroplasts are typically prokaryotic in genome organization and ultimately are derived from two distinct bacterial lineages. Do similar barriers that prevent group I introns from spreading throughout bacterial populations also apply to preventing the spread of group II introns in bacteria? TABLE 2 Distribution of group II introns in bacteria

Unifying the analysis of high-throughput sequencing datasets: characterizing RNA-seq, 16S rRNA gene sequencing and selective growth experiments by compositional data analysis.

BackgroundExperimental designs that take advantage of high-throughput sequencing to generate datasets include RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq), sequencing of 16S rRNA gene fragments, metagenomic analysis and selective growth experiments. In each case the underlying data are similar and are composed of counts of sequencing reads mapped to a large number of features in each sample. Despite this underlying similarity, the data analysis methods used for these experimental designs are all different, and do not translate across experiments. Alternative methods have been developed in the physical and geological sciences that treat similar data as compositions. Compositional data analysis methods transform the data to relative abundances with the result that the analyses are more robust and reproducible.ResultsData from an in vitro selective growth experiment, an RNA-seq experiment and the Human Microbiome Project 16S rRNA gene abundance dataset were examined by ALDEx2, a compositional data analysis tool that uses Bayesian methods to infer technical and statistical error. The ALDEx2 approach is shown to be suitable for all three types of data: it correctly identifies both the direction and differential abundance of features in the differential growth experiment, it identifies a substantially similar set of differentially expressed genes in the RNA-seq dataset as the leading tools and it identifies as differential the taxa that distinguish the tongue dorsum and buccal mucosa in the Human Microbiome Project dataset. The design of ALDEx2 reduces the number of false positive identifications that result from datasets composed of many features in few samples.ConclusionStatistical analysis of high-throughput sequencing datasets composed of per feature counts showed that the ALDEx2 R package is a simple and robust tool, which can be applied to RNA-seq, 16S rRNA gene sequencing and differential growth datasets, and by extension to other techniques that use a similar approach.

Tapping natural reservoirs of homing endonucleases for targeted gene modification.

Homing endonucleases mobilize their own genes by generating double-strand breaks at individual target sites within potential host DNA. Because of their high specificity, these proteins are used for “genome editing” in higher eukaryotes. However, alteration of homing endonuclease specificity is quite challenging. Here we describe the identification and phylogenetic analysis of over 200 naturally occurring LAGLIDADG homing endonucleases (LHEs). Biochemical and structural characterization of endonucleases from one clade within the phylogenetic tree demonstrates strong conservation of protein structure contrasted against highly diverged DNA target sites and indicates that a significant fraction of these proteins are sufficiently stable and active to serve as engineering scaffolds. This information was exploited to create a targeting enzyme to disrupt the endogenous monoamine oxidase B gene in human cells. The ubiquitous presence and diversity of LHEs described in this study may facilitate the creation of many tailored nucleases for genome editing.

Related homing endonucleases I-BmoI and I-TevI use different strategies to cleave homologous recognition sites

A typical homing endonuclease initiates mobility of its group I intron by recognizing DNA both upstream and downstream of the intron insertion site of intronless alleles, preventing the endonuclease from binding and cleaving its own intron-containing allele. Here, we describe a GIY-YIG family homing endonuclease, I-BmoI, that possesses an unusual recognition sequence, encompassing 1 base pair upstream but 38 base pairs downstream of the intron insertion site. I-BmoI binds intron-containing and intronless substrates with equal affinity but can nevertheless discriminate between the two for cleavage. I-BmoI is encoded by a group I intron that interrupts the thymidylate synthase (TS) gene (thyA) of Bacillus mojavensis s87-18. This intron resembles one inserted 21 nucleotides further downstream in a homologous TS gene (td) of Escherichia coli phage T4. I-TevI, the T4 td intron-encoded GIY-YIG endonuclease, is very similar to I-BmoI, but each endonuclease gene is inserted within a different position of its respective intron. Remarkably, I-TevI and I-BmoI bind a homologous stretch of TS-encoding DNA and cleave their intronless substrates in very similar positions. Our results suggest that each endonuclease has independently evolved the ability to distinguish intron-containing from intronless alleles while maintaining the same conserved recognition sequence centered on DNA-encoding active site residues of TS.

FhuD1, a Ferric Hydroxamate-binding Lipoprotein in Staphylococcus aureus A CASE OF GENE DUPLICATION AND LATERAL TRANSFER

Staphylococcus aureus can utilize ferric hydroxamates as a source of iron under iron-restricted growth conditions. Proteins involved in this transport process are: FhuCBG, which encodes a traffic ATPase; FhuD2, a post-translationally modified lipoprotein that acts as a high affinity receptor at the cytoplasmic membrane for the efficient capture of ferric hydroxamates; and FhuD1, a protein with similarity to FhuD2. Gene duplication likely gave rise to fhuD1 and fhuD2. While the genomic locations of fhuCBG and fhuD2 in S. aureus strains are conserved, both the presence and the location of fhuD1 are variable. The apparent redundancy of FhuD1 led us to examine the role of this protein. We demonstrate that FhuD1 is expressed only under conditions of iron limitation through the regulatory activity of Fur. FhuD1 fractions with the cell membrane and binds hydroxamate siderophores but with lower affinity than FhuD2. Using small angle x-ray scattering, the solution structure of FhuD1 resembles that of FhuD2, and only a small conformational change is associated with ferrichrome binding. FhuD1, therefore, appears to be a receptor for ferric hydroxamates, like FhuD2. Our data to date suggest, however, that FhuD1 is redundant to FhuD2 and plays a minor role in hydroxamate transport. However, given the very real possibility that we have not yet identified the proper conditions where FhuD1 does provide an advantage over FhuD2, we anticipate that FhuD1 serves an enhanced role in the transport of untested hydroxamate siderophores and that it may play a prominent role during the growth of S. aureus in its natural environments.

Monomeric site-specific nucleases for genome editing

Targeted manipulation of complex genomes often requires the introduction of a double-strand break at defined locations by site-specific DNA endonucleases. Here, we describe a monomeric nuclease domain derived from GIY-YIG homing endonucleases for genome-editing applications. Fusion of the GIY-YIG nuclease domain to three-member zinc-finger DNA binding domains generated chimeric GIY-zinc finger endonucleases (GIY-ZFEs). Significantly, the I-TevI-derived fusions (Tev-ZFEs) function in vitro as monomers to introduce a double-strand break, and discriminate in vitro and in bacterial and yeast assays against substrates lacking a preferred 5′-CNNNG-3′ cleavage motif. The Tev-ZFEs function to induce recombination in a yeast-based assay with activity on par with a homodimeric Zif268 zinc-finger nuclease. We also fused the I-TevI nuclease domain to a catalytically inactive LADGLIDADG homing endonuclease (LHE) scaffold. The monomeric Tev-LHEs are active in vivo and similarly discriminate against substrates lacking the 5′-CNNNG-3′ motif. The monomeric Tev-ZFEs and Tev-LHEs are distinct from the FokI-derived zinc-finger nuclease and TAL effector nuclease platforms as the GIY-YIG domain alleviates the requirement to design two nuclease fusions to target a given sequence, highlighting the diversity of nuclease domains with distinctive biochemical properties suitable for genome-editing applications.

Mobile DNA Elements in T4 and Related Phages

Mobile genetic elements are common inhabitants of virtually every genome where they can exert profound influences on genome structure and function in addition to promoting their own spread within and between genomes. Phage T4 and related phage have long served as a model system for understanding the molecular mechanisms by which a certain class of mobile DNA, homing endonucleases, promote their spread. Homing endonucleases are site-specific DNA endonucleases that initiate mobility by introducing double-strand breaks at defined positions in genomes lacking the endonuclease gene, stimulating repair and recombination pathways that mobilize the endonuclease coding region. In phage T4, homing endonucleases were first discovered as encoded within the self-splicing td, nrdB and nrdD introns of T4. Genomic data has revealed that homing endonucleases are extremely widespread in T-even-like phage, as evidenced by the astounding fact that ~11% of the T4 genome encodes homing endonuclease genes, with most of them located outside of self-splicing introns. Detailed studies of the mobile td intron and its encoded endonuclease, I-TevI, have laid the foundation for genetic, biochemical and structural aspects that regulate the mobility process, and more recently have provided insights into regulation of homing endonuclease function. Here, we summarize the current state of knowledge regarding T4-encoded homing endonucleases, with particular emphasis on the td/I-TevI model system. We also discuss recent progress in the biology of free-standing endonucleases, and present areas of future research for this fascinating class of mobile genetic elements.

Learning to live together: mutualism between self‑splicing introns and their hosts

Group I and II introns can be considered as molecular parasites that interrupt protein-coding and structural RNA genes in all domains of life. They function as self-splicing ribozymes and thereby limit the phenotypic costs associated with disruption of a host gene while they act as mobile DNA elements to promote their spread within and between genomes. Once considered purely selfish DNA elements, they now seem, in the light of recent work on the molecular mechanisms regulating bacterial and phage group I and II intron dynamics, to show evidence of co-evolution with their hosts. These previously underappreciated relationships serve the co-evolving entities particularly well in times of environmental stress.

Intron-encoded homing endonuclease I-TevI also functions as a transcriptional autorepressor

Customary binding sites of intron-encoded homing endonucleases lie within cognate intronless alleles, at the so-called homing sites. Here, we describe a novel, high-affinity binding site for I-TevI endonuclease, encoded within the group I td intron of phage T4. This site is an operator that overlaps the T4 late promoter, which drives I-TevI expression from within the td intron. I-TevI binds the operator and homing sites with equal affinity, and functions as a transcriptional autorepressor. Distinct sequence and spacing requirements of the catalytic domain result in reduced cleavage activity on operator DNA. Crystallographic studies showed that the overall interactions of the DNA-binding domain with the operator and homing sites are similar, but have some different hydrogen-bonding contacts. We present a model in which the flexibility in protein-DNA interactions allows I-TevI to bind variant intronless alleles to promote intron mobility while facilitating its function in autorepression, and thereby persistence in its host.