Microbial defense system -
Yet, defense systems can be costly [ 54 ], because of production costs when they are required at high concentration [ 55 ], because their activity can be energetically costly [ 56 ], or because they may be incompatible with other cellular mechanisms [ 57 ]. They can also kill the cell by autoimmunity [ 58 ].
Hence, the number of systems under selection for defense by the host cell is expected to depend on the balance between these costs and the rewards given by their ability to protect hosts from MGEs. The observations that genomes have many MGEs and that these encode many defense systems provide an alternative or complementary explanation for why genomes contain so many such systems.
Genomes contain many defense systems because they are acquired within the multiple MGEs that infect microbial cells. Since there are many MGEs in a cell, these sum up to a considerable number of defense genes. Such MGE-encoded defenses may also be multilayered.
For example, E. coli plasmids encoding both BREX and type IV restriction systems have recently been shown to provide complementary protection from phages [ 59 ]. This does not exclude the possibility that cells select for multiple systems of defense, but does suggest that to understand their frequency in cells one must also account for the infectivity of MGEs.
This means that the multiplicity of systems in cellular genomes might be a consequence of the high transmissibility and abundance of MGEs, not only the result of natural selection for protection of the cell.
It is therefore possible that cells encode more defense systems than the theoretical optimal number expected for a host cell, simply because many of the systems are selected for their presence in the MGE, not in the host. Defense systems tend to be different across strains of a species [ 21 , 51 ] and are a significant part of the genetic differences between closely related strains of Vibrio spp.
Why are defense systems so different among strains of a species? The coevolutionary dynamics between defenses and counter-defenses contributes to an endless process of genetic diversification that is often understood in the context of balancing selection [ 60 ].
These are processes where natural selection favors the existence of genetic polymorphism. Interestingly, balancing selection resulting in the presence of diverse defense systems in populations is observed in many immune systems, from bacteria to humans [ 61 ].
Balancing selection can occur by multiple mechanisms. First, it is harder for a parasite to spread in a population with diverse host defenses even in simple systems [ 62 ]. The presence of various systems providing immunity from MGEs within microbial populations increases the likelihood that some individuals are protected, in what has been described as distributed pan immunity [ 26 ].
Relative to microbial genomes, MGEs are more constrained in the number of genes they can carry, especially those packaged in viral particles. Yet, some also carry multiple defense systems [ 8 , 13 , 38 , 44 ], which may allow them to infect different hosts or fend off different MGEs.
Second, variations in time and space of the density, type, and behavior of MGEs may favor different cellular defense systems in different situations. The distribution of MGEs varies across bacterial habitats [ 64 ] and across environmental conditions within habitats [ 65 ].
Hence, locally adapted microbial populations may select for different systems that tackle different types of MGEs resulting in variable defense repertoires across a bacterial species. This is also applicable to defense systems encoded in MGEs.
Their defense systems can be under balancing selection because the hosts and MGEs they encounter vary in space and time. Third, clones that are more abundant in a habitat are more susceptible to phages, because of their density [ 66 ].
In this context, negative frequency—dependent selection may result in selection of rare alleles [ 67 ], i. As the population of individuals with the rare adaptive defense increases, antagonists with the ability to infect it also rise in frequency because they have more hosts available.
This decreases the advantage of the initial clone and eventually cancels it when novel rare clones resistant to the MGEs emerge, thereby restarting the process of negative frequency—dependent selection. While negative frequency dependence in host—pathogen interactions has been extensively studied [ 61 ], there is a paucity of data on its role in MGE—host interactions.
What are the molecular mechanisms driving the variation of bacterial defenses? Some systems have dedicated molecular mechanisms for their own variation. Some R—M systems can also rapidly change their sequence specificity through recombination [ 68 ]. Yet, the available evidence suggests that HGT and gene loss have major complementary roles in the diversification of defense repertoires at the species level.
The abundance of defense systems in MGEs suggests a very straightforward mechanism for the acquisitions of defense systems by the host: Systems are transferred across strains by the MGEs encoding them. Furthermore, MGEs are gained at high rates because of their infectiousness explaining acquisition , and they are frequently lost from populations because of their cost explaining loss.
The rates of gain and loss of defense systems may thus be partly caused by the mobility and lability of the mobile elements encoding them. Beyond explaining the acquisition of novel systems, the presence of defense systems in MGEs also offers some clues on how entirely novel defense strategies emerge.
The recent discovery of many antiphage systems shows that they frequently consist in an assemblage of protein domains that are also present in proteins implicated in other cellular processes such as nucleases, kinases, deaminases, proteases, or ATPases [ 71 ].
For instance, the Stk2 defense kinase is part of a family of kinases whose members are implicated in various cellular process such as the control of the cell cycle or the exit of dormancy [ 72 ]. The antiphage viperins are close homologues to GTP cyclases involved in other functions [ 73 ]. The co-option of proteins, or protein domains, with other functions, and the creation of novel assemblages leading to genetic innovation by recombination and mutation are likely facilitated by the horizontal transfer of defense systems across genetic backgrounds [ 74 ].
While successful functional innovations by co-option of these systems may be unlikely, the very frequent transfer of systems and their rapid evolution may result in such a high rate of novel combinations of domains that some will eventually evolve to become novel defense systems.
Such processes of co-option may have been at the independent origins of both Cas-9 and Cas proteins from transposon-encoded RNA-guided endonucleases [ 75 , 76 ]. Novel defense systems, even if initially not part of MGEs, will eventually be captured by MGEs for their own use, with the consequence that they will be spread across microbial lineages.
Transposases may play key roles in the process of translocating these systems from the chromosome to MGEs and vice versa. The subsequent transfer of defense systems to different genetic backgrounds is expected to favor the spread of defense systems that are robust to such changes.
Accordingly, there is a broad distribution of most defense systems across the bacterial kingdom [ 35 ]. It is also interesting to note the surprisingly broad activity of some defense systems recently described [ 23 ]. Cloning these genetic systems from distant species into E.
coli and Bacillus subtilis yields defense phenotypes. The presence of defense systems on MGE that move across species might thus favor broad defense capabilities and mechanisms tolerant to changes in the genetic background.
The rapid pace of discovery of novel defense systems has been facilitated by the use of assays where cells are challenged by virulent phages. As a result, the role of defense systems tends to be discussed in the light of phage—bacteria interactions.
It does seem reasonable to assume that systems present in a microbial genome for a long time are protecting it from MGEs and especially against virulent phages given their lethality for the cell. Yet, systems encoded in MGEs are more likely to be selected because they benefit the MGE.
In certain cases, a system increases the fitness of both MGE and host. For example, defense systems encoded in P4-like satellites were shown experimentally to protect the cell from several phages that the P4 element cannot exploit [ 38 ].
In this case, the satellite and the cell have the same interest in preventing infection by phages that can kill the cell. In general, both MGEs and hosts will gain from preventing infection by virulent phages, explaining why MGEs defenses seem to target them frequently.
The interests of the MGE and the cell may not be so well aligned in other circumstances. In some cases, the advantage of the MGE defense system to the cell may be transient.
Temperate phages that defend the cells from virulent phages are common [ 8 , 43 , 77 ] and provide a temporary relief to the host. But they may have little long-term impact in bacterial fitness if the victorious temperate phage is induced and lyses the cell. This is also exemplified by the exclusion systems encoded by conjugative systems or phages to fend off closely related elements [ 78 , 79 ].
Historically, these mechanisms have not been included in defense systems, but they are costly mechanisms that protect the cell from infection by MGEs, i.
For example, the surface exclusion system of plasmid F prevents infection by similar plasmids thanks to the production of thousands of copies of an outer membrane protein that accounts for a large part of the plasmid carrier cost [ 80 ].
An even more extreme case concerns phages encoding defense or antidefense systems against their satellites. These are engaging in an interaction with their parasites in a way that resembles their own interaction with the cell but with their own position reversed as they are now the ones being exploited [ 47 ].
Such phage-encoded defense systems could be highly deleterious to the cell because they remove a protective satellite and favor a phage that will eventually kill the host. The misalignment of interests between MGEs and the host is particularly striking when it concerns abortive infection systems, because these are extremely costly to the cell [ 27 ].
The traditional view is that such strategies can only be selected in very particular cases favoring cooperation between individuals, e. A recent investigation of abortive infection provided by retron elements suggests that retron-encoding bacteria lose in competition with bacteria lacking the retron when challenged by a phage even in a structured environment [ 82 ].
Yet, genomic data suggest that abortive infection systems are very frequent [ 35 ], which requires an explanation. The presence of abortive infection systems on MGEs could facilitate the control of epidemics of competitive elements and would justify their abundance in the host.
Such systems could be deleterious to the host if they drive cell death upon infection by elements with little negative impact on its fitness.
But in other circumstances, the presence of these systems in MGEs could benefit the host by enforcing cooperation [ 83 ], since the transfer of the MGEs to sensitive hosts spreads the abortive system and therefore favors the cooperative process.
To understand the fitness impact of defense systems, it is thus important to know if they are encoded in MGEs. The identification of functional MGEs is difficult both computationally and experimentally, since many MGEs are poorly known and many of the others are defective [ 74 ].
It is often even more difficult to predict which genetic elements are being targeted by the defense system. That many systems are effective against virulent phages may be in part the result of ascertainment biases, since virulent phages are often used to identify defense systems.
One might also argue that virulent phages are going to be targeted by hosts and most MGEs because they kill the host and its MGEs.
However, many systems, among which all those using epigenetic markers like R—M, target generic exogenous DNA independently of it being part of a phage genome. This makes it particularly hard to know who they were selected to target.
The analysis of the spacer content can thus inform on the selection pressure that maintain CRISPR immunity. These results suggest that systems encoded in MGEs may be targeting other competing MGE that are not costly to the cell.
They may even be targeting elements that are adaptive to the cell or targeting the cell itself e. Knowing which genetic elements are being targeted in nature will require a better mechanistic understanding of the defense systems and the ecological contexts where they are selected for.
Acquisition of defense systems requires HGT, but defense systems are expected to decrease the rates of transfer of MGEs, and thus decrease HGT.
Gene flow, including allelic recombination and acquisition of novel genes by HGT, is a key driver of bacterial evolution, and there is an evolutionary cost to restricting it.
For example, epidemic Vibrio cholerae strains depend on a prophage for a key virulence factor the cholera toxin. When they are infected by SXT-like conjugative elements carrying defense systems, they are hampered in their ability to acquire the toxin [ 13 ].
More generally, a computational analysis of approximately 80 species showed that gene flow is decreased between strains with incompatible R—M systems [ 85 ].
As a result, defense systems have the potential to fragment gene flow within bacterial populations. When a population has a single R—M system left , HGT between cells is not affected by restriction. As the diversity of systems increases phylogenetic tree at the center , the subpopulations of individuals with similar R—M systems exchange genes at higher rates high flow than those with different R—M systems low gene flow, right top , leading to fragmentation of gene flow in populations right bottom.
HGT, horizontal gene transfer; R—M, restriction—modification. The presence of mechanisms of defense may impact gene flow in diverse ways. The negative impact of defense systems on gene flow has been regarded as a costly by-product of selection for protection of the cell.
But MGE defense systems may be selected exactly because they block HGT to prevent the cell from acquiring competitor MGEs. The resulting sexual barriers are advantageous for the MGE but can be deleterious to the cell.
Yet, these barriers are not unbreakable. The presence of multiple MGEs in genomes is in itself an indication of this.
Accordingly, R—M systems only provide transient protection from phages [ 88 ], because one single successful infection is enough to result in correctly methylated phages that can pass the restriction barrier and then propagate across the population.
Further work is needed to quantify the impact of different defense systems in gene flow, to identify the types of MGEs that are most affected, and to understand how defenses affect host evolvability.
The effect of defense systems on gene flow is not always negative. In this case, the defense system facilitates gene flow. While many systems have been called defensive relative to their ability to defend bacteria or MGEs from other MGEs, they may be addictive or attack systems when part of MGEs.
A striking example is provided by phage—satellite interactions. The reproduction of virulent phages of the ICP1 family in V.
cholerae is abolished by phage-inducible chromosomal island-like elements PLEs [ 18 ]. In this context, they could be regarded as attack systems from the point of view of the bacterium, because their success results in cell death.
They could also be regarded as phage counter-defenses, if satellites are considered as a bacterial defense system. There is thus some ambiguity between functions of defense, counter-defense, and attack, depending on the perspective of the observer.
Some systems may have multiple roles specifically when encoded in MGEs. R—M systems contribute to the stabilization of plasmids in the cell by acting as poison—antidote addictive systems [ 91 ]. In such cases, loss of the plasmid and its R—M system prevents further expression of the latter.
Since endonucleases have longer half-lives than methylases, this eventually results in genomes that are restricted because they are insufficiently methylated.
R—Ms are thus part of the attack arsenal of plasmids. Yet, these R—M systems can also protect the consortium cell and plasmid from infection by other MGEs, thereby acting as cell defense systems.
Plasmids also frequently encode toxin—antitoxin systems that behave as addiction systems [ 92 ], some of which are implicated in phage defense. Homologues of cell defense systems encoded in MGEs can thus be addiction tools with positive side effects in cellular defense.
It is possible that such systems have started as genetic elements that propagate selfishly in genomes because of their addictive properties and have later been co-opted to become defense systems although the inverse scenario cannot be excluded at this stage.
It was observed a decade ago that defense systems are often clustered in a few loci in microbial chromosomes [ 93 ]. This characteristic was leveraged into a systematic method to discover novel systems by colocalization with known ones [ 23 ]. The clustering of these systems could result from selection for the coregulation of their expression, but there is very little evidence of that.
The presence of defense systems in MGEs provides a simple explanation for the colocalization of defense and counter-defense systems in a few locations of the bacterial chromosome Fig 4. Genes acquired by HGT, and MGEs in particular, tend to integrate at a small number of chromosome hotspots [ 95 — 98 ], and some of these were found to have defense systems over a decade ago [ 51 ].
These MGEs may degenerate by the accumulation of mutations, deletions, and insertions. Chromosome hotspots are thus littered with remnants of previous events of transfer.
As MGEs are integrated and eventually degrade in the hotspot, some genes may remain functional because they are adaptive for the cell [ 74 ].
Since MGEs often carry defense and antidefense systems, their rapid turnover in hotspots may be accompanied by selection for the conservation of some of their defense systems.
Ultimately, this could result in their co-option by the host cell. MGEs tend to integrate the chromosome at a few hotspots and may subsequently be inactivated by mutations resulting in the loss of genes that are not adaptive to the host.
The clustering of defense systems may facilitate the evolution of functional interactions between them or the coregulation of their expression.
These systems are often colocalized [ 53 ]. Even if advantages of their colocalization in the genome are yet unclear, it may facilitate cotranscription or coevolution of the systems. The clustering of these systems in islands could also facilitate their subsequent transfer as a block by HGT to other cells.
This could occur by mechanisms able to transfer large genetic loci such as conjugation starting a conjugative element integrated in the chromosome or lateral transduction starting from a neighboring phage [ 47 ].
MGEs of bacteria and archaea encode accessory functions of adaptive value for the host. That many of these accessory functions concern systems facilitating host infection or MGE protection from other elements testifies to the importance of such interactions for the fitness of MGEs.
These defense systems may also be adaptive to the host, but this should not be taken for granted. Having this conceptual framework in mind can aid the field move forward along the following lines. Their study will shed novel light on the function, evolution, and ecology of microbes.
The authors thank Aude Bernheim, Frédérique Le Roux, and Maria Pilar Garcillan Barcia for comments and suggestions and Marie Touchon for discussions and graphical elements for the figures.
Article Authors Metrics Comments Media Coverage Reader Comments Figures. Abstract Prokaryotes have numerous mobile genetic elements MGEs that mediate horizontal gene transfer HGT between cells.
Introduction: Mobile genetic elements drive gene flow at a sometimes hefty cost Horizontal gene transfer HGT allows bacteria and archaea to rapidly match novel ecological challenges and opportunities.
Box 1. Defense islands : chromosomal loci with high density of defense systems. Phages : bacterial viruses. Download: PPT. Why are there so many defense systems in each genome? Why are defense systems very diverse within species? How is immunity gained? Defending whom from what? How do defense systems affect gene flow?
Fig 3. Diversification of R—M systems changes gene flow within species. Is it defense, counter-defense, addiction, or something else? Fig 4. MGE turnover at hotspots may result in defense islands.
Outlook MGEs of bacteria and archaea encode accessory functions of adaptive value for the host. Many defense systems are poorly known and probably many more remain to be uncovered.
The recent expansion in the number and type of defense systems occurred because researchers searched for novel systems colocalizing with previously known ones.
Many novel systems may be awaiting discovery among the countless MGEs present across microbial genomes. Since these genes are often found at specific locations in MGEs, e. Most of the studies on the mechanisms of defense systems use virulent phages as targets. Yet, systems encoded by MGEs may target different elements and having this information may result in the discovery of novel molecular mechanisms, especially among systems targeting specific MGE functions.
Recent works have revealed defense systems targeting specific molecular mechanisms of phages [ 73 , ]. Maybe other defense systems target mechanisms of conjugative elements or other MGEs.
Counter-defense mechanisms are now being identified for the best-known mechanisms of defense. Integrating the knowledge of the existence of mechanism of defense in an element, its molecular mechanism, and the elements being targeted could provide important clues on where to find novel antidefense systems from known or novel defense systems.
As defense systems provide multiple layers of defense against MGEs, it is important to understand what these layers are and how they interact. Ultimately, immune systems of bacteria might rely on complex networks of functional and genetic interactions between defense systems that provide a robust and thorough response to most parasites.
These networks may resemble those of the eukaryotic immune system. These evolutionary mechanisms may also share similarities across the tree of life, since some regulatory elements or components of the immune system of vertebrates and plants also derive from co-options of MGEs [ , ].
Balancing selection seems to explain the evolutionary patterns of defense systems in bacteria, plants and animals [ 60 ].
Yet, one must keep in mind that a lot of the variation in the bacterial immune response is associated with rapid gain and loss of defense systems, many of which in MGEs, which is different from the processes driving the diversification of immune systems of vertebrates. Knowing the mechanisms of defense systems carried by a specific MGE can hint at their possible targets and therefore reveal the MGEs or host affected by the element.
This can be leveraged to map antagonistic interactions between MGEs. Virulence factors and antimicrobial resistance genes are frequently carried by MGEs. A better understanding of the defense, addiction, or attack systems that these elements employ to ensure their propagation might lead to the identification of novel strategies to counteract the spread of these costly elements, for instance, by favoring competing harmless MGEs.
The presence of antiphage systems on MGEs could also promote the rapid evolution of resistance to phage therapies, and conversely, the identification of counter-defenses deployed by phages and other MGEs might provide solutions for the selection or engineering of more potent therapeutic phages.
Acknowledgments The authors thank Aude Bernheim, Frédérique Le Roux, and Maria Pilar Garcillan Barcia for comments and suggestions and Marie Touchon for discussions and graphical elements for the figures. References 1. Taylor VL, Fitzpatrick AD, Islam Z, Maxwell KL.
The diverse impacts of phage morons on bacterial fitness and virulence. Adv Virus Res. Bennett P. Plasmid encoded antibiotic resistance: acquisition and transfer of antibiotic resistance genes in bacteria. Br J Pharmacol. Baltrus DA. Exploring the costs of horizontal gene transfer.
Trends Ecol Evol. Croucher NJ, Mostowy R, Wymant C, Turner P, Bentley SD, Fraser C. Horizontal DNA transfer mechanisms of bacteria as weapons of intragenomic conflict.
PLoS Biol. Touchon M, Rocha EP. Causes of insertion sequences abundance in prokaryotic genomes. Mol Biol Evol. De Toro M, Garcillán-Barcia MP, De La Cruz F. Plasmid diversity and adaptation analyzed by massive sequencing of Escherichia coli plasmids.
Microbiol Spectr. Bobay LM, Touchon M, Rocha EPC. Pervasive domestication of defective prophages by bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Hussain FA, Dubert J, Elsherbini J, Murphy M, VanInsberghe D, Arevalo P, et al.
Rapid evolutionary turnover of mobile genetic elements drives bacterial resistance to phages. Penadés JR, Christie GE. The phage-inducible chromosomal islands: a family of highly evolved molecular parasites. AnnuRev Virol. Smillie C, Pilar Garcillan-Barcia M, Victoria Francia M, Rocha EPC, de la Cruz F.
Mobility of Plasmids. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. Gama JA, Zilhão R, Dionisio F. Harb L, Chamakura K, Khara P, Christie PJ, Young R, Zeng L. ssRNA phage penetration triggers detachment of the F-pilus. LeGault K, Hays SG, Angermeyer A, McKitterick AC, Johura F-t, Sultana M, et al.
Temporal shifts in antibiotic resistance elements govern virus-pathogen conflicts. Baharoglu Z, Bikard D, Mazel D. Conjugative DNA transfer induces the bacterial SOS response and promotes antibiotic resistance development through integron activation.
PLoS Genet. He S, Chandler M, Varani AM, Hickman AB, Dekker JP, Dyda F. Mechanisms of evolution in high-consequence drug resistance plasmids. Wagner PL, Waldor MK.
Bacteriophage control of bacterial virulence. Infect Immun. Paul JH. Prophages in marine bacteria: dangerous molecular time bombs or the key to survival in the seas? ISME J. Seed KD, Lazinski DW, Calderwood SB, Camilli A. Touchon M, Bernheim A, Rocha EP. Genetic and life-history traits associated with the distribution of prophages in bacteria.
Wigington CH, Sonderegger D, Brussaard CPD, Buchan A, Finke JF, Fuhrman JA, et al. Re-examination of the relationship between marine virus and microbial cell abundances.
Nat Microbiol. van Houte S, Buckling A, Westra ER. Evolutionary ecology of prokaryotic immune mechanisms. Hampton HG, Watson BN, Fineran PC. The arms race between bacteria and their phage foes.
Doron S, Melamed S, Ofir G, Leavitt A, Lopatina A, Keren M, et al. Systematic discovery of antiphage defense systems in the microbial pangenome. Gao L, Altae-Tran H, Böhning F, Makarova KS, Segel M, Schmid-Burgk JL, et al. Diverse enzymatic activities mediate antiviral immunity in prokaryotes.
González-Delgado A, Mestre MR, Martínez-Abarca F, Toro N. Prokaryotic reverse transcriptases: from retroelements to specialized defense systems. FEMS Microbiol Rev. Bernheim A, Sorek R. The pan-immune system of bacteria: antiviral defence as a community resource.
Nat Rev Microbiol. Lopatina A, Tal N, Sorek R. Abortive infection: bacterial suicide as an antiviral immune strategy. Annu Rev Virol. Nussenzweig PM, Marraffini LA. Molecular mechanisms of CRISPR-Cas immunity in bacteria. Annu Rev Genet. Cheng K, Wilkinson M, Chaban Y, Wigley DB.
A conformational switch in response to Chi converts RecBCD from phage destruction to DNA repair. Nat Struct Mol Biol. Levy A, Goren MG, Yosef I, Auster O, Manor M, Amitai G, et al. CRISPR adaptation biases explain preference for acquisition of foreign DNA. Kuzmenko A, Oguienko A, Esyunina D, Yudin D, Petrova M, Kudinova A, et al.
DNA targeting and interference by a bacterial Argonaute nuclease. Bobay L-M, Touchon M, Rocha EP. Therefore, we wonder what the rate of molecular evolution of defense systems is compared to the general rate of RSSC genomes.
For this estimation, we used two different estimators, recombination rate ρ and mutation rate θ as proxies of the rate of molecular evolution. Both estimators provide population-scaled data so they are useful for getting an idea about the molecular evolution rate of the defense systems in the RSSC population.
We calculated ρ and, θ for each aligned sequence corresponding to the Pfams of the defense systems. However, some defense systems are rare in RSSC, namely, they are present in only a few strains such as Argonaute , therefore, it was not possible to include in the analysis the systems that lacked the minimum critical number of sequences to perform the calculations.
The average values of ρ and θ calculated for 48 Pfams are 0. These values are 1. This result indicates that the relative contribution of recombination and mutation to the evolution of defense systems is higher than the rest of the genome in RSSC. We set out to describe the diversity of defense systems that are present in the phylotypes of RSSC.
We found nine protein families of different systems devoted to defense from phage attack and one linked to reducing plasmid transformation. The density of defense systems in RSSC genomes varies over broad range: some defense systems are widely extended in all phylotypes i.
Although the number of defense systems in RSSC is significant, we do not rule out that computer and experimental means might identify other cryptic systems.
In this work, we did not perform in vivo experiments to determine the antiphage or anti-plasmid efficacy of the systems; however, we based our analysis on the results of different colleagues who experimentally validated all of the protein families for the defense capacity in many other bacteria and archaea groups.
Besides, the defense systems are widely distributed in bacteria so it is not rare to find them in RSSC. The RM and TA systems are thought to be ubiquitous in bacteria Makarova et al. The mechanism of action to abolish phage attack is known for some systems e.
Some defense systems in RSSC are particularly interesting to describe. It has several possible cellular functions: it can participate in the regulation of the transcriptional expression of host genes, it might act as a suicide system similar to abortive infection systems that kill a bacterial host under stress conditions and it works as defense against foreign genetic elements such as transposons, phages, and plasmids Lisitskaya et al.
In Betaproteobacteria the class where RSSC is taxonomically located most Argonaute proteins are short-type with only MID and PIWI domains Ryazansky et al.
Although this system is poorly distributed in RSSC phylotypes, it seems to be complete in a few strains of phylotype I, although we do not rule out that it might be present in strains of other phylotypes.
The CRISPR-Cas system in RSSC was first described by da Silva, Xavier et al. Similarly, our results of gene content analysis and HGT indicate that CRISPR-Cas system is ancient and that would have been present in RSSC before the split in phylotypes, agreeing with da Silva, Xavier et al. Thoeris system works to reduce or control the entry of plasmids into the bacterial cell Doron et al.
We found this system in a few strains of our set of strains analyzed here; however, we do not rule out that other strains can also harbor this system.
Conversely, it is well-known the competency of RSSC to natural transformation, so that many strains can exchange DNA fragments up to 90 Kb Coupat et al. How can we accommodate these two seemingly contradictory functions?
Most likely, a dynamic equilibrium of both functions occurs in parallel inside the cell, which guarantees the genetic diversification without the burden of taking useless DNA fragments. We have used different methods to study the evolutionary dynamics of defense systems in RSSC, which offer concordant and complementary results.
All the evidence collected in this work on the evolution of defense systems in RSSC indicates that they have been principally gained as opposed to the rest of genes present on the RSSC genomes that are preferably lost Table 3.
This result is consistent with that reported by Lefeuvre et al. We have also found some traces of gene duplication in a few defense systems mostly at the base of trees or ancestral nodes. Thereby, gene gain and duplication are the main forces that have driven the expansion of the defense gene content in RSSC.
Contrary, it has been demonstrated that the dominant mode of evolution of defense systems in other bacterial groups is gene loss Puigbò et al.
Undoubtedly, the main mechanism of gene gain is HGT, which has played a significant role in shaping defense systems in RSSC. Results of tree reconciliation to detect HGT events Supplementary Figure 2 show a profuse transference of genes between RSSC strains and phylotypes.
This abundant transference of genes in RSSC is not surprising since other studies reported multiple DNA acquisitions along the genome through HGT events Guidot et al. We tested the evolutionary association of defense systems with other non-defense systems such as essential housekeeping and pathogenicity T3E or the CWDE functions.
Results provided by the BayesTraits program suggest that the defense systems of RSSC follow an independent evolutionary pattern than other cellular systems. In other words, the evolution of these systems is not correlated among them, suggesting that defense systems follow an independent evolutionary regime than the other functions.
Maybe this is because the defense systems are subject to different selective pressures, which forces different evolutionary rates than the rest of the cellular functions.
Indeed, we found different evolutionary rates in the defense systems than the rest of the genome, when we calculated the rates of recombination and mutation Supplementary Table 4. The abundance and diversity of defense systems in RSSC implies that they play an important role as a major line of innate defense against a great diversity of phages see Table 1 that reside in the different natural environments where RSSC strains live.
The continuous process of defense and counter-defense mechanisms must constantly evolve to maintain the fitness of both interacting partners. This coevolutionary process generates an enormous phage diversity, which in turn have triggered an adaptive race for increasing resistance in RSSC.
Although much work remains to be done, especially at the experimental level, this study opens the door for further research focused on understanding the dynamic world of RSSC and its parasites. Our study is also useful for designing better phage therapy strategies.
An important problem in phage therapy is that bacteria may evolve resistance to phages, thus making the use of phages fruitless. The knowledge of the defense systems present in particular strains of RSSC can help select more carefully the appropriate phages to avoid possible resistance.
Likewise, studies on the evolutionary dynamics of RSSC-phage interaction could provide useful information about evolutionary parameters such as the fitness cost to maintain resistance to phage types. Alternatively, it would be possible to design experimental evolution assays as is the case of Pseudomonas syringae and four related phages, Koskella et al.
The genomic data analyzed in this study can be found in the NCBI database, see Supplementary Table 1 in Supplementary Data Sheet 1 for details. HS-M and SM performed the phylogenetic and HGT analyses.
KS analyzed evolutionary association. JC conceived and designed the study, analyzed the genomic data, calculated evolutionary rates and wrote the manuscript.
All co-authors contributed to the manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version. This research was partially supported by the Vice Chancellery of Research and Innovation, Yachay Tech University, Ecuador. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
We are grateful to Dr. Florent Lasalle for his critical reading and helpful suggestions to improve the first draft of the manuscript. We wish also to thanks Ms.
Addy, H. Molecular and biological characterization of Ralstonia phage RsoM1USA, a new species of P2virus, isolated in the United States. doi: CrossRef Full Text Google Scholar. Host range and molecular characterization of a lytic pradovirus-like Ralstonia phage RsoP1IDN isolated from Indonesia.
Ahmad, A. Sequencing, genome analysis and host range of a novel Ralstonia phage, RsoP1EGY, isolated in Egypt. Molecular and biological characterization of φRs, a filamentous bacteriophage isolated from a race 3 biovar 2 strain of Ralstonia solanacearum. PLoS ONE e Álvarez, B.
Biocontrol of the major plant pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum in irrigation water and host plants by novel waterborne lytic bacteriophages. Askora, A. Lysogenic conversion of the phytopathogen Ralstonia solanacearum by the P2virus φRSY1. Host recognition and integration of filamentous phage φRSM in the phytopathogen, Ralstonia solanacearum.
Virology , 69— Ayres, D. BEAGLE: an application programming interface and high-performance computing library for statistical phylogenetics. Bae, J. Biocontrol potential of a lytic bacteriophage PE against Bacterial Wilt of tomato.
Bastian, M. Google Scholar. Bhunchoth, A. Two asian jumbo phages, φRSL2 and φRSF1, infect Ralstonia solanacearum and show common features of φKZ-related phages. Virology , 56— Bondy-Denomy, J. Prophages mediate defense against phage infection through diverse mechanisms.
ISME J. Broecker, F. Evolution of immune systems from viruses and transposable elements. Castillo, J. A genome-wide scan for genes under balancing selection in the plant pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum. BMC Evol. Chaudhari, N. BPGA- an ultra-fast pan-genome analysis pipeline.
Chen, K. NOTUNG: a Program for dating gene duplications and optimizing gene family trees. Coupat, B. Natural transformation in the Ralstonia solanacearum species complex: number and size of DNA that can be transferred.
FEMS Microbio. l Ecol. Csúrös, M. Count: evolutionary analysis of phylogenetic profiles with parsimony and likelihood. Bioinformatics 26, — da Silva, Xavier, A. Genomic and biological characterization of a new member of the genus Phikmvvirus infecting phytopathogenic Ralstonia bacteria.
Characterization of CRISPR-Cas systems in the Ralstonia solanacearum species complex. Plant Pathol. Dedrick, R. Prophage-mediated defence against viral attack and viral counter-defence. Doron, S. Systematic discovery of antiphage defense systems in the microbial pangenome.
Science eaar Dy, R. A widespread bacteriophage abortive infection system functions through a type IV toxin—antitoxin mechanism. Nucleic Acids Res. Remarkable mechanisms in microbes to resist phage infections. El-Gebali, S. The Pfam protein families database in Fegan, M.
Allen, P. Prior, and A. Hayward St Paul, MN: APS Press , — Finn, R. HMMER web server: interactive sequence similarity searching. Fujiwara, A. Biocontrol of Ralstonia solanacearum by treatment with lytic bacteriophages. Genomic characterization of Ralstonia solanacearum phage φRSA1 and its related prophage φRSX in strain GMI Guidot, A.
Horizontal gene transfer between Ralstonia solanacearum strains detected by comparative genomic hybridization on microarrays. Hikichi, Y. Regulation involved in colonization of intercellular spaces of host plants in Ralstonia solanacearum.
Plant Sci. Katoh, K. MAFFT online service: multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization.
Kawasaki, T. Genomic characterization of the filamentous integrative bacteriophages φRSS1 and φRSM1, which infect Ralstonia solanacearum. Genomic diversity of large-plaque-forming podoviruses infecting the phytopathogen Ralstonia solanacearum.
Virology , 73— Genomic characterization of Ralstonia solanacearum phage φRSB1, a T7-like wide-host-range phage. Koskella, B. The costs of evolving resistance in heterogeneous parasite environments. B , — Lefeuvre, P. Constraints on genome dynamics revealed from gene distribution among the Ralstonia solanacearum species.
PLoS ONE 8:e Lefort, V. SMS: smart model selection in PhyML. Liao, M. Genomic characterization of the novel Ralstonia phage RPSC1. Lisitskaya, L. DNA interference and beyond: structure and functions of prokaryotic Argonaute proteins.
Makarova, K. Comparative genomics of defense systems in archaea and bacteria. Defense islands in bacterial and archaeal genomes and prediction of novel defense systems. Mansfield, J. Top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria in molecular plant pathology: top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria.
Marraffini, L. CRISPR-Cas immunity in prokaryotes. Nature , 55— Martin, D. RDP4: detection and analysis of recombination patterns in virus genomes. Virus Evol. Montgomery, M. Yet more evidence of collusion: a new viral defense system encoded by Gordonia phage CarolAnn. mBio e Murugaiyan, S.
Characterization of filamentous bacteriophage PE infecting Ralstonia solanacearum strains. Nei, M. Concerted and birth-and-death evolution of multigene families. Ochman, H. Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation. Nature , — Ozawa, H.
Bacteriophage P, a parasite of Ralstonia solanacearum , encodes a bacteriolytic protein important for lytic infection of its host. Genomics , 95— Pagel, M. Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters.
B , 37— Park, T. Peeters, N. Ralstonia solanacearum , a widespread bacterial plant pathogen in the post-genomic era. Press, M. Genome-scale co-evolutionary inference identifies functions and clients of bacterial Hsp PLoS Genet.
Prior, P. Genomic and proteomic evidence supporting the division of the plant pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum into three species. BMC Genomics Puigbò, P.
Genomes in turmoil: quantification of genome dynamics in prokaryote supergenomes. BMC Biol. Reconstruction of the evolution of microbial defense systems.
Rambaut, A. Posterior summarization in bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1. Rostøl, J. Ph ighting Phages: how bacteria resist their parasites. Cell Host Microbe. Ryazansky, S. The expanded universe of prokaryotic argonaute proteins. mBio 9:e Safni, I. Polyphasic taxonomic revision of the Ralstonia solanacearum species complex: proposal to emend the descriptions of Ralstonia solanacearum and Ralstonia syzygii and reclassify current R.
syzygii strains as Ralstonia syzygii subsp. syzygii subsp. solanacearum phylotype IV strains as Ralstonia syzygii subsp. indonesiensis subsp. celebesensis subsp.
and R. solanacearum phylotype I and III strains as Ralstonia pseudosolanacearum sp. Micro 64, — Sberro, H. Seed, K. Battling phages: how bacteria defend against viral attack.
PLoS Pathog. Stolzer, M. Inferring duplications, losses, transfers and incomplete lineage sorting with nonbinary species trees. Bioinformatics 28, i—i Event inference in multidomain families with phylogenetic reconciliation.
BMC Bioinformatics S8. Su, J. Complete genome sequence of a novel lytic bacteriophage isolated from Ralstonia solanacearum. Suchard, M. Bayesian phylogenetic and phylodynamic data integration using BEAST 1.
Virus Evol 4:vey Swarts, D. DNA-guided DNA interference by a prokaryotic argonaute. Thiaville, J. Novel genomic island modifies DNA with 7-deazaguanine derivatives. Tock, M. The biology of restriction and anti-restriction. Van, T.
Suggestions High-protein diets for tennis players Mixrobial Previous Microbia Next image. Microbial defense system use a systtem of defense Mlcrobial to Pancreatic enzymes off Microboal infection, Improved mental focus some of these systems have led to groundbreaking technologies, such as Healthy Liver Habits gene-editing. Defenze predict there are many more antiviral weapons yet to be found Mivrobial the microbial world. Microbial defense system team led by researchers Micrrobial the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT has discovered and characterized one of these unexplored microbial defense systems. They found that certain proteins in bacteria and archaea together known as prokaryotes detect viruses in surprisingly direct ways, recognizing key parts of the viruses and causing the single-celled organisms to commit suicide to quell the infection within a microbial community. The study is the first time this mechanism has been seen in prokaryotes and shows that organisms across all three domains of life — bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes which includes plants and animals — use pattern recognition of conserved viral proteins to defend against pathogens. To provide protection against viral dwfense and limit the uptake deefnse mobile defdnse elements, bacteria and archaea High-protein diets for tennis players evolved many sysstem defence systems. The discovery and application Microbial defense system CRISPR-Cas adaptive Microbiwl systems has spurred sjstem Microbial defense system in the identification and classification of Microgial types of defence systems. Many new defence systems have recently been reported but there is a lack of accessible tools available to identify homologs of these systems in different genomes. Here, we report the P rokaryotic A ntiviral D efence LOC ator PADLOCa flexible and scalable open-source tool for defence system identification. We show that PADLOC identifies defence systems with high accuracy and sensitivity. Our modular approach to organising the HMMs and system classifications allows additional defence systems to be easily integrated into the PADLOC database.
Wacker, mir scheint es, es ist die ausgezeichnete Phrase
Welche Phrase... Toll, die ausgezeichnete Idee
Wacker, Ihre Phrase einfach ausgezeichnet
Geben Sie wir werden zu diesem Thema reden.
Welche Wörter... Toll, die prächtige Idee