Selection of chromosomal DNA libraries using a multiplex CRISPR system

  1. Owen W Ryan
  2. Jeffrey M Skerker
  3. Matthew J Maurer
  4. Xin Li
  5. Jordan C Tsai
  6. Snigdha Poddar
  7. Michael E Lee
  8. Will DeLoache
  9. John E Dueber
  10. Adam P Arkin
  11. Jamie H D Cate  Is a corresponding author
  1. BP Biofuels Global Technology Center, United States
  2. Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, United States

Abstract

The directed evolution of biomolecules to improve or change their activity is central to many engineering and synthetic biology efforts. However, selecting improved variants from gene libraries in living cells requires plasmid expression systems that suffer from variable copy number effects, or the use of complex marker-dependent chromosomal integration strategies. We developed quantitative gene assembly and DNA library insertion into the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome by optimizing an efficient single-step and marker-free genome editing system using CRISPR-Cas9. With this Multiplex CRISPR (CRISPRm) system, we selected an improved cellobiose utilization pathway in diploid yeast in a single round of mutagenesis and selection, which increased cellobiose fermentation rates by over ten-fold. Mutations recovered in the best cellodextrin transporters reveal synergy between substrate binding and transporter dynamics, and demonstrate the power of CRISPRm to accelerate selection experiments and discoveries of the molecular determinants that enhance biomolecule function.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Owen W Ryan

    BP Biofuels Global Technology Center, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    Owen W Ryan, A patent application related to this work has been filed by J. Cate and O. Ryan on behalf of the Regents of the University of California.
  2. Jeffrey M Skerker

    Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Matthew J Maurer

    Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Xin Li

    Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Jordan C Tsai

    Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Snigdha Poddar

    Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Michael E Lee

    Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Will DeLoache

    Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. John E Dueber

    Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Adam P Arkin

    Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Jamie H D Cate

    Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    For correspondence
    jcate@lbl.gov
    Competing interests
    Jamie H D Cate, A patent application related to this work has been filed by J. Cate and O. Ryan on behalf of the Regents of the University of California.

Copyright

© 2014, Ryan et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 13,562
    views
  • 2,545
    downloads
  • 313
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Owen W Ryan
  2. Jeffrey M Skerker
  3. Matthew J Maurer
  4. Xin Li
  5. Jordan C Tsai
  6. Snigdha Poddar
  7. Michael E Lee
  8. Will DeLoache
  9. John E Dueber
  10. Adam P Arkin
  11. Jamie H D Cate
(2014)
Selection of chromosomal DNA libraries using a multiplex CRISPR system
eLife 3:e03703.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03703

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03703

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Jinsai Shang, Douglas J Kojetin
    Research Advance

    Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a nuclear receptor transcription factor that regulates gene expression programs in response to ligand binding. Endogenous and synthetic ligands, including covalent antagonist inhibitors GW9662 and T0070907, are thought to compete for the orthosteric pocket in the ligand-binding domain (LBD). However, we previously showed that synthetic PPARγ ligands can cooperatively cobind with and reposition a bound endogenous orthosteric ligand to an alternate site, synergistically regulating PPARγ structure and function (Shang et al., 2018). Here, we reveal the structural mechanism of cobinding between a synthetic covalent antagonist inhibitor with other synthetic ligands. Biochemical and NMR data show that covalent inhibitors weaken—but do not prevent—the binding of other ligands via an allosteric mechanism, rather than direct ligand clashing, by shifting the LBD ensemble toward a transcriptionally repressive conformation, which structurally clashes with orthosteric ligand binding. Crystal structures reveal different cobinding mechanisms including alternate site binding to unexpectedly adopting an orthosteric binding mode by altering the covalent inhibitor binding pose. Our findings highlight the significant flexibility of the PPARγ orthosteric pocket, its ability to accommodate multiple ligands, and demonstrate that GW9662 and T0070907 should not be used as chemical tools to inhibit ligand binding to PPARγ.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yuanyuan Wang, Fan Xu ... Yongning He
    Research Article

    SCARF1 (scavenger receptor class F member 1, SREC-1 or SR-F1) is a type I transmembrane protein that recognizes multiple endogenous and exogenous ligands such as modified low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) and is important for maintaining homeostasis and immunity. But the structural information and the mechanisms of ligand recognition of SCARF1 are largely unavailable. Here, we solve the crystal structures of the N-terminal fragments of human SCARF1, which show that SCARF1 forms homodimers and its epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domains adopt a long-curved conformation. Then, we examine the interactions of SCARF1 with lipoproteins and are able to identify a region on SCARF1 for recognizing modified LDLs. The mutagenesis data show that the positively charged residues in the region are crucial for the interaction of SCARF1 with modified LDLs, which is confirmed by making chimeric molecules of SCARF1 and SCARF2. In addition, teichoic acids, a cell wall polymer expressed on the surface of gram-positive bacteria, are able to inhibit the interactions of modified LDLs with SCARF1, suggesting the ligand binding sites of SCARF1 might be shared for some of its scavenging targets. Overall, these results provide mechanistic insights into SCARF1 and its interactions with the ligands, which are important for understanding its physiological roles in homeostasis and the related diseases.