No abstract

Summary CRISPR-Cas9 technology would be enhanced by the ability to inhibit Cas9 function spatially, temporally, or conditionally. Previously, we discovered small proteins encoded by bacteriophages that inhibit the CRISPR-Cas systems of their host bacteria. These “anti-CRISPRs” were specific to type I CRISPR-Cas systems that do not employ the Cas9 protein. We posited that nature would also yield Cas9 inhibitors in response to the evolutionary arms race between bacteriophages and their hosts. Here, we report the discovery of three distinct families of anti-CRISPRs that specifically inhibit the CRISPR-Cas9 system of Neisseria meningitidis. We show that these proteins bind directly to N. meningitidis Cas9 (NmeCas9), and can be used as potent inhibitors of genome editing by this system in human cells. These anti-CRISPR proteins now enable “off-switches” for CRISPR-Cas9 activity, and provide a genetically-encodable means to inhibit CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in eukaryotes.

CRISPR-Cas systems provide sequence-specific adaptive immunity against foreign nucleic acids(1,2). They are present in approximately half of all sequenced prokaryotes(3) and are expected to constitute a major barrier to horizontal gene transfer. We previously described nine distinct families of proteins encoded in Pseudomonas phage genomes that inhibit CRISPR-Cas function(4,5). We have developed a bioinformatic approach that enabled us to discover additional anti-CRISPR proteins encoded in phages and other mobile genetic elements of diverse bacterial species. We show that five previously undiscovered families of anti-CRISPRs inhibit the type I-F CRISPR-Cas systems of both Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pectobacterium atrosepticum, and a dual specificity anti-CRISPR inactivates both type I-F and I-E CRISPR-Cas systems. Mirroring the distribution of the CRISPR-Cas systems they inactivate, these anti-CRISPRs were found in species distributed broadly across the phylum Proteobacteria. Importantly, anti-CRISPRs originating from species with divergent type I-F CRISPR-Cas systems were able to inhibit the two systems we tested, highlighting their broad specificity. These results suggest that all type I-F CRISPR-Cas systems are vulnerable to inhibition by anti-CRISPRs. Given the widespread occurrence and promiscuous activity of the anti-CRISPRs described here, we propose that anti-CRISPRs play an influential role in facilitating the movement of DNA between prokaryotes by breaching the barrier imposed by CRISPR-Cas systems.