4.2 Article

Diversity in CRISPR-based immunity protects susceptible genotypes by restricting phage spread and evolution

期刊

JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 1097-1108

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.13638

关键词

CRISPR-Cas; dilution effect; evolutionary emergence; experimental evolution; host-pathogen; phage; Pseudomonas aeruginosa

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MR/N013794/1]
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/M018350/1]
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/J014400/1, BB/M009122/1, BB/N017412/1, BB/R010781/1]
  4. H2020 European Research Council [ERC-STG-2016-714478EVOIMMECH]
  5. People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union's Horizon 2020 [660039]
  6. BBSRC [BB/N017412/1, BB/R010781/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. NERC [NE/M018350/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [660039] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diversity in host resistance often associates with reduced pathogen spread. This may result from ecological and evolutionary processes, likely with feedback between them. Theory and experiments on bacteria-phage interactions have shown that genetic diversity of the bacterial adaptive immune system can limit phage evolution to overcome resistance. Using the CRISPR-Cas bacterial immune system and lytic phage, we engineered a host-pathogen system where each bacterial host genotype could be infected by only one phage genotype. With this model system, we explored how CRISPR diversity impacts the spread of phage when they can overcome a resistance allele, how immune diversity affects the evolution of the phage to increase its host range and if there was feedback between these processes. We show that increasing CRISPR diversity benefits susceptible bacteria via a dilution effect, which limits the spread of the phage. We suggest that this ecological effect impacts the evolution of novel phage genotypes, which then feeds back into phage population dynamics.

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

4.2
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