Tag: Bacteriophages

  • Manik, M. K. et al. Cyclic ADP ribose isomers: production, chemical structures, and immune signaling. Science 377, eadc8969 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ofir, G. et al. Antiviral activity of bacterial TIR domains via immune signalling molecules. Nature 600, 116–120 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cohen, D. et al. Cyclic GMP-AMP signalling protects bacteria against viral infection. Nature 574, 691–695 (2019).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Leavitt, A. et al. Viruses inhibit TIR gcADPR signaling to overcome bacterial defense. Nature 611, 326–331 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Yirmiya, E. et al. Phages overcome bacterial immunity via diverse anti-defense proteins. Nature 625, 352–359 (2024).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Huiting, E. et al. Bacteriophages inhibit and evade cGAS-like immune function in bacteria. Cell 186, 864–876 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jenson, J. M., Li, T., Du, F., Ea, C. K. & Chen, Z. J. Ubiquitin-like conjugation by bacterial cGAS enhances anti-phage defence. Nature 616, 326–331 (2023).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cao, X. et al. Phage anti-CBASS protein simultaneously sequesters cyclic trinucleotides and dinucleotides. Mol. Cell 84, 375–385 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Doron, S. et al. Systematic discovery of antiphage defense systems in the microbial pangenome. Science 359, eaar4120 (2018).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gao, L. et al. Diverse enzymatic activities mediate antiviral immunity in prokaryotes. Science 369, 1077–1084 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Millman, A. et al. An expanded arsenal of immune systems that protect bacteria from phages. Cell Host Microbe 30, 1556–1569 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rousset, F. et al. Phages and their satellites encode hotspots of antiviral systems. Cell Host Microbe 30, 740–753 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Vassallo, C. N., Doering, C. R., Littlehale, M. L., Teodoro, G. I. C. & Laub, M. T. A functional selection reveals previously undetected anti-phage defence systems in the E. coli pangenome. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1568–1579 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Johnson, M. C. et al. Core defense hotspots within Pseudomonas aeruginosa are a consistent and rich source of anti-phage defense systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, 4995–5005 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Stanley, S. Y. & Maxwell, K. L. Phage-encoded anti-CRISPR defenses. Annu. Rev. Genet. 52, 445–464 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Li, Y. & Bondy-Denomy, J. Anti-CRISPRs go viral: the infection biology of CRISPR-Cas inhibitors. Cell Host Microbe 29, 704–714 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jia, N. & Patel, D. J. Structure-based functional mechanisms and biotechnology applications of anti-CRISPR proteins. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 22, 563–579 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Davidson, A. R. et al. Anti-CRISPRs: protein inhibitors of CRISPR-Cas systems. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 89, 309–332 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gao, Z. & Feng, Y. Bacteriophage strategies for overcoming host antiviral immunity. Front. Microbiol. 14, 1211793 (2023).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hobbs, S. J. et al. Phage anti-CBASS and anti-Pycsar nucleases subvert bacterial immunity. Nature 605, 522–526 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Athukoralage, J. S. et al. An anti-CRISPR viral ring nuclease subverts type III CRISPR immunity. Nature 577, 572–575 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Whiteley, A. T. et al. Bacterial cGAS-like enzymes synthesize diverse nucleotide signals. Nature 567, 194–199 (2019).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Fatma, S., Chakravarti, A., Zeng, X. & Huang, R. H. Molecular mechanisms of the CdnG-Cap5 antiphage defense system employing 3′,2′-cGAMP as the second messenger. Nat. Commun. 12, 6381 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Millman, A., Melamed, S., Amitai, G. & Sorek, R. Diversity and classification of cyclic-oligonucleotide-based anti-phage signalling systems. Nat. Microbiol. 5, 1608–1615 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Burroughs, A. M., Zhang, D., Schäffer, D. E., Iyer, L. M. & Aravind, L. Comparative genomic analyses reveal a vast, novel network of nucleotide-centric systems in biological conflicts, immunity and signaling. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 10633–10654 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Davies, B. W., Bogard, R. W., Young, T. S. & Mekalanos, J. J. Coordinated regulation of accessory genetic elements produces cyclic di-nucleotides for V. cholerae virulence. Cell 149, 358–370 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Duncan-Lowey, B., McNamara-Bordewick, N. K., Tal, N., Sorek, R. & Kranzusch, P. J. Effector-mediated membrane disruption controls cell death in CBASS antiphage defense. Mol. Cell 81, 5039–5051 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tesson, F. et al. Systematic and quantitative view of the antiviral arsenal of prokaryotes. Nat. Commun. 13, 2561 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wu, Y. et al. Bacterial defense systems exhibit synergistic anti-phage activity. Cell Host Microbe 32, 557–572 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • van Beljouw, S. P. B., Sanders, J., Rodriguez-Molina, A. & Brouns, S. J. J. RNA-targeting CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 21, 21–34 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tal, N. et al. Cyclic CMP and cyclic UMP mediate bacterial immunity against phages. Cell 184, 5728–5739 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Molina, R., Sofos, N. & Montoya, G. Structural basis of CRISPR-Cas type III prokaryotic defence systems. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 65, 119–129 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lau, R. K. et al. Structure and mechanism of a cyclic trinucleotide-activated bacterial endonuclease mediating bacteriophage immunity. Mol. Cell 77, 723–733 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ye, Q. et al. HORMA domain proteins and a Trip13-like ATPase regulate bacterial cGAS-like enzymes to mediate bacteriophage immunity. Mol. Cell 77, 709–722 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Thomas, J. A. et al. Extensive proteolysis of head and inner body proteins by a morphogenetic protease in the giant Pseudomonas aeruginosa phage φKZ. Mol. Microbiol. 84, 324–339 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Fossati, A. et al. Next-generation proteomics for quantitative Jumbophage-bacteria interaction mapping. Nat. Commun. 14, 5156 (2023).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Guan, J. et al. Bacteriophage genome engineering with CRISPR–Cas13a. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1956–1966 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Uribe, R. V. et al. Discovery and characterization of Cas9 inhibitors disseminated across seven bacterial phyla. Cell Host Microbe 25, 233–241 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jenal, U., Reinders, A. & Lori, C. Cyclic di-GMP: second messenger extraordinaire. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15, 271–284 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Morehouse, B. R. et al. STING cyclic dinucleotide sensing originated in bacteria. Nature 586, 429–433 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Mahendra, C. et al. Broad-spectrum anti-CRISPR proteins facilitate horizontal gene transfer. Nat. Microbiol. 5, 620–629 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Slavik, K. M. et al. cGAS-like receptors sense RNA and control 3′2′-cGAMP signalling in Drosophila. Nature 597, 109–113 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cai, H. et al. The virus-induced cyclic dinucleotide 2′3′-c-di-GMP mediates STING-dependent antiviral immunity in Drosophila. Immunity 56, 1991–2005 (2023).

  • Grüschow, S., Adamson, C. S. & White, M. F. Specificity and sensitivity of an RNA targeting type III CRISPR complex coupled with a NucC endonuclease effector. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 13122–13134 (2021).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • McMahon, S. A. et al. Structure and mechanism of a type III CRISPR defence DNA nuclease activated by cyclic oligoadenylate. Nat. Commun. 11, 500 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Niewoehner, O. et al. Type III CRISPR–Cas systems produce cyclic oligoadenylate second messengers. Nature 548, 543–548 (2017).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kazlauskiene, M., Kostiuk, G., Venclovas, Č., Tamulaitis, G. & Siksnys, V. A. Cyclic oligonucleotide signaling pathway in type III CRISPR-Cas systems. Science 357, 605–609 (2017).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Otwinowski, Z. & Minor, W. Processing of X-ray diffraction data collected in oscillation mode. Methods Enzymol. 276, 307–326 (1997).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Adams, P. D., Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W., Hung, L. W., Ioerger, T. R. & Terwilliger, T. C. PHENIX: building new software for automated crystallographic structure determination. Acta Crystallogr. D 58, 1948–1954 (2002).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. & Cowtan, K. Features and development of Coot. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 486–501 (2010).

  • Qiu, D., Damron, F. H., Mima, T., Schweizer, H. P. & Yu, H. D. PBAD-based shuttle vectors for functional analysis of toxic and highly regulated genes in Pseudomonas and Burkholderia spp. and other bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 7422–7426 (2008).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Choi, K. H. & Schweizer, H. P. Mini-Tn7 insertion in bacteria with single attTn7 sites: example Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nat. Protoc. 1, 153–161 (2006).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Choi, K. H. et al. Genetic tools for select-agent-compliant manipulation of Burkholderia pseudomallei. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 1064–1075 (2008).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Abby, S. S., Néron, B., Ménager, H., Touchon, M. & Rocha, E. P. MacSyFinder: a program to mine genomes for molecular systems with an application to CRISPR-Cas systems. PLoS ONE 9, e110726 (2014).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Steinegger, M. & Söding, J. MMseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1026–1028 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Katoh, K., Rozewicki, J. & Yamada, K. D. MAFFT online service: multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Brief. Bioinform. 20, 1160–1166 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2—approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS ONE 5, e9490 (2010).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Letunic, I. & Bork, P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, W293–w296 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

[ad_2]

Source link

  • Anti-viral defence by an mRNA ADP-ribosyltransferase that blocks translation

    Anti-viral defence by an mRNA ADP-ribosyltransferase that blocks translation

    [ad_1]

    Statistics and reproducibility

    Unless otherwise noted, representative images depict one of three biological replicates.

    Bacterial and phage growth and culture conditions

    E. coli was routinely grown in LB medium at 37 °C unless otherwise stated. Phages were propagated and handled as described previously4.

    Plasmid and strain construction

    Primers, strains and plasmids are listed in Supplementary Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively. In all cases, when plasmids were used as PCR templates, PCR samples were treated with DpnI at 37 °C for 1 h to eliminate the plasmid template before transformation. Finished DNA constructs were transformed into DH5α and verified with Sanger and/or long-read sequencing (Primordium) before transformation into the wild-type MG1655 background. For phage assays, the cmdTAC operon was present in low-copy pCD1 (Chloramphenicol-resistant (Cmr), pSC101 origin of replication) and expressed from its native promoter (Pnative). To construct the variant pCV49 (cmdT*AC) by site-directed mutagenesis, complementary primers containing the Y to A mutation (CV109 and CV110) were used to amplify pCD2 for 15 cycles with KAPA DNA polymerase. pCV39 was constructed using the same primer set with pCD4 as the plasmid template.

    Low-copy, PnativecmdTANT-3×HAC (pCV43) was engineered using primers CV127 and CV128 to amplify pCD2 such that amplicon ends were located downstream of the CmdA start codon. A synthetic DNA fragment with three YPYDVPDYA codons plus GGGSGGG linker codons (3×HA tag, CV115) with ends complementary to the PCR-amplified vector was then ligated to this vector amplicon by Gibson assembly. PnativecmdTACNT-Flag (pCV44) (NT Flag indicates an N-terminal Flag tag) was constructed by amplification of pCD2 with outward facing and 5′-phosphorylated primers CV120 and CV122 which included DYKDDDDK codons followed by intramolecular blunt-end ligation with T4 DNA ligase. To construct PnativecmdTCT-FlagAC, primers CD41 and CD42 were used to amplify pCD2 and primers CD43 and CD44 were used to amplify C-terminally Flag-tagged (CT-Flag) CmdT sequence from pCD10 (see below for pCD10 construction) which was then ligated using Gibson assembly. To construct PnativecmdTCT-FlagANT-3×HACNT-His6 (pCV42), first, a His6 epitope tag encoding fragment was added to cmdC on pCD2 by the intramolecular blunt-end ligation strategy using primers CV120 and CV122. Next, primers CD41 and CD42 were used to amplify this plasmid and primers CD43 and CD44 were used to amplify CT-Flag cmdT from pCD10 which was then assembled using Gibson assembly. Finally, to insert three tandem HA tags onto the N terminus of CmdA, this intermediate construct was amplified by PCR with CV123 and CV124 such that amplicon ends were located downstream of the CmdA ATG start codon. The synthetic DNA fragment CV115 (HA tag) was used as a PCR template with primers CV125 and CV126 which was then ligated to the vector amplicon by Gibson assembly to produce pCV42.

    To construct pCV45 used for the deletion of alt.-3 from T4, complimentary oligonucleotides CV118 and CV119 with pCAS9 compatible overhanging sites were annealed by slow cooling from 98 °C in the presence of 50 mM NaCl to form a duplex spacer insert. pCAS9 and the annealed oligonucleotide were incubated with T4 DNA ligase and BsaI-v2 (NEB) in a one-pot reaction.

    For pBAD30 constructs (kanamycin-resistant (Kmr), medium-copy p15a origin), primers CD5 and CD6 were used to amplify and linearize pBAD30. Insert fragments were amplified with the relevant primers (CD7-10, CD13-15, CD20-21, CD30-33, CD38-40) using T4 genomic DNA, plasmid DNA, or MG1655 genomic DNA as a template. pBAD-cmdTNT-HISA (pCD19) was created using PCR site-directed mutagenesis of pCD4 using primers CD45 and CD46. pBAD-cmdTNT-HIS (∆cmdA, pCD9) was created by using primers CV1 and CV2 (which exclude the open reading frame of cmdA) to amplify pCD19. This PCR amplicon was intramolecularly ligated with T4 DNA ligase. In some experiments, pAJM677 (Kmr, p15A origin), a variant of pBAD, was used to express CmdTA due to its higher expression after induction with arabinose and tighter repression (pCV41). To engineer pCV41, pAJ677 was amplified and linearized with primers CV113 and CV114. The insert containing cmdTA was amplified from pCD4 with primers CV116 and CV117. Plasmid and insert fragments were ligated by Gibson Assembly. To add the 3×HA tag to cmdA in this context, pCV41 was used as a PCR template with primers CV127 and CV128, and this amplicon was ligated to CV115 fragment by Gibson assembly. Anhydrotetracycline inducible (Ptet) pIF (carbenicillin-resistant (Cbr), low-copy pSC101 origin) and pKVS45 (Cbr, p15A origin) constructs were similarly constructed by PCR amplification of the vectors using primers CD24 and CD25 and inserts (CD26-29, CD36-37), followed by Gibson assembly.

    To construct the gp23 expression plasmid pCD16, primers CD16 and CD17 or CD18 and CD19 were used to amplify the high-copy origin from pUC19 (pMB1* origin) and pBAD30 without its origin, respectively. These fragments were assembled using Gibson assembly to create a high-copy inducible vector. Subsequently, the backbone was amplified by PCR using primers CD5 and CD6 and gp23 was amplified by PCR from T4 genomic DNA using primers CD34 and CD35. The two fragments were ligated using Gibson assembly.

    Plaque and phage assays

    Overnight cultures of indicated strains were mixed 1:80 with melted LB with 0.5% agar and then overlaid on plates containing LB with 1.2% agar. For plaque assays done with induction of an arabinose-inducible promoter, base layer plates contained 0.2% w/w arabinose. A tenfold dilution series of the indicated phage was spotted onto plates and the plates grown at 30 °C overnight and plaque-forming units (PFU) were enumerated. log10(protection) (Fig. 1c) was measured as −log10 EOP, where EOP is the ratio PFUexperimental/PFUcontrol, where the subscript indicates the conditions. Unless otherwise noted, experiments were performed in biological triplicate and representative images are shown.

    To measure survival of strains infected with T4, overnight cultures were diluted to OD600 0.1. Cultures were grown to OD600 0.3 and then adjusted to ~3 × 107 colony-forming units (CFUs) in a 1 ml volume in a 1.7 ml Eppendorf tube. Cells were infected with T4 at an MOI of 10 and incubated at 37 °C with rotation. At 0 and 18 min post-infection, cells were pelleted and washed twice with PBS to remove excess phages. One-hundred microlitres of tenfold dilutions were spread onto LB agar plates with chloramphenicol or kanamycin and CFUs were quantified. Survival was measured as CFU ml−1 at 18 min post-infection divided by CFU ml−1 at 0 min post-infection. To combat progeny phages in the empty vector strain inhibiting CFU formation, all samples were plated with ~107  chloramphenicol-treated, chloramphenicol-sensitive companion plating cells (MG1655).

    ECOI assays were conducted by diluting overnight cultures to OD600 0.1 in 20 ml LB. Cultures were grown until they reached OD600 0.3–0.4 at which point they were infected with T4 at an MOI of 0.1. After 20 min, 1 ml was pelleted and washed twice with PBS. One-hundred microlitres of tenfold dilutions were mixed with 50 µl of indicator strain and 3 ml LB 0.5% agar and overlayed onto LB plates. To control for unadsorbed phages, a ∆ompC strain (OmpC is the receptor for T4) was assayed in parallel. CFUs were enumerated and ECOI was calculated as PFU ml−1 of the cmdTAC-containing strain divided by PFU ml−1 of empty vector, after subtracting PFU ml−1 of the ∆ompC control experiment from each value.

    To determine burst size, cell cultures of empty vector and CmdTAC-containing strains were grown in LB + 20 µg ml−1 chloramphenicol in a water bath at 37 °C until OD600 measured 0.5. l-Tryptophan was then added to 20 µg ml−1 to each culture to assist adsorption of T4. One hundred microlitres of a 107 PFU ml−1 T4 stock were added to 9.9 ml of each culture and incubated without shaking for 2 min to allow adsorption. Next, for each culture, 100 µl T4-infected culture from this adsorption flask was added to 9.9 ml LB + 20 µg ml−1 chloramphenicol (flask A). Flask A was again diluted 1:10 into flask B, and again 1:10 into flask C. Five hundred microlitres from flask A was added to 200 µl ice-cold chloroform and vortexed for 10 s. Viable PFUs from this chloroform-treated sample represent unadsorbed phage (adsorption control). Next, 100 µl from each flask A (time 0 sample) or the adsorption control was mixed with 3.5 ml LB 0.5% agar maintained at 50 °C to which was added 50 µl of an overnight culture of indicator strain. This mixture was vortexed briefly and overlayed onto LB + 20 µg ml−1 chloramphenicol + 1.2% agar plates. All flasks were then left to incubate in a shaking water bath at 30 °C. After 60 min, 100 µl from flask C of the empty vector strain and flask A of the +cmdTAC strain were overlayed with indicator strain on agar plates. After overnight incubation at 37 °C, plaques were enumerated, and normalized to the adsorption control. Burst size was recorded as the number of plaques from each plate multiplied by their dilution factor, and then divided by the number of plaques at time 0.

    Growth curves

    For measuring growth during T4 infection, overnight cultures of +cmdTAC and empty vector cells were back-diluted 1:200 in 96-well plates and infected with T4 at the indicated MOIs. Cultures were grown at 37 °C with orbital shaking on a plate reader (Biotek) for 6 h. For ectopic expression of Gp23 and Gp31 with CmdTAC, overnight cultures were back-diluted to OD600 of 0.05 in M9L + 0.2% w/w glucose + 100 ng ml−1 anhydrotetracycline (aTc) and grown for 3 h at 37 °C to pre-induce Gp31. Cultures were then pelleted and resuspended at an OD600 of 0.05 in fresh M9L + 0.2% w/w glucose + 100 ng ml−1 aTc or M9L + 0.2% w/w glucose + 100 ng ml−1 aTc. Cultures were grown at 37 °C with orbital shaking on a plate reader for 12 h.

    RNA extraction following phage infection

    Overnight cultures of +cmdTAC and empty vector cells were back-diluted and grown at 37 °C to OD600 between 0.2 and 0.3 before being infected with T4 at a MOI of 10. RNA was extracted from cells at multiple timepoints post-infection as previously described44. In brief, 1 ml of cells was mixed with 1 ml of boiling lysis buffer (SDS 2%, 4 mM EDTA pH 8) and incubated at 100 °C for 5 min before flash freezing in liquid nitrogen. Two millilitres of acid-buffered phenol solution (pH 4.3, Sigma) heated to 67 °C was added to thawed samples, vortexed, and then incubated at 67 °C for 2 min. Samples were spun down at 20,000g for 10 min and hot phenol extraction repeated on the collected aqueous layer. A third extraction was then done using 2 ml of acid-buffered phenol-chloroform solution (Ambion). RNA from the final extraction was then precipitated at −20 °C for at least 1 h or at −80 °C overnight with 1× volume isopropanol, 1/10× volume 3 M sodium acetate (pH 5.5, Thermo Fisher), and 1/100× volume GlycoBlue. RNA was pelleted by centrifugation at 4 °C and 20,000g for 30 min. Pellets were washed twice with 800 ml of ice-cold 70% ethanol, air-dried, and resuspended in 90 μl RNAse-free H2O (Thermo Fisher).

    To remove DNA, 10 μl of 10× Turbo DNase buffer (Ambion) and 2 μl of Turbo DNase I (Ambion) was added to each sample and incubated at 37 °C for 20 min. An additional 2 μl of Turbo DNase I was then added, and samples again incubated at 37 °C for 20 min. RNA was extracted from this digest by precipitation with 3× volume ethanol, 1/10× volume 3 M sodium acetate (pH 5.5), and 1/100× volume GlycoBlue. Pelleting and washing were performed the same as described above. RNA yield was verified using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer.

    RNA extraction from non-infected cells

    Cells were grown until desired conditions and then 900 μl of culture was mixed with 100 μl of stop solution (5% acid phenol, 95% ethanol) and inverted to mix. Samples were then spun down at 13,000g for 30 s, the supernatant removed, and pellets flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. To each pellet, 400 μl of TRIzol Reagent (Invitrogen) heated to 65 °C was added and mixed using a thermomixer for 10 min at 65 °C and 2,000 rpm before freezing at −80 °C for at least 10 min. Samples were thawed and then centrifuged at 20,000g for 5 min at 4 °C to pellet any debris and the TRIzol solution moved to a new tube. RNA was purified using the Direct-zol RNA Miniprep kit (Zymo Research) following manufacture’s protocol including optional on-column DNAse treatment. RNA yield was verified using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer.

    Immuno-northern blotting

    Novex 6% TBE-urea gels in 1× TBE buffer (Invitrogen) were pre-run at 180 V for at least 50 min prior to sample loading. Each RNA sample was mixed with equal volume of Novex 2× TBE-urea sample buffer (Invitrogen), heated at 90 °C for 10 min, and then placed on ice for 2–3 min just before loading. Gels were run at 180 V for 30–50 min depending on expected product length. Gels were removed from casing and incubated in 40 ml 1× TBE with added 4 μl of SYBR Gold stain (Thermo Fisher) for 10 min. Gels were imaged on a ChemiDoc MP imaging system (Bio-Rad) set for SYBR Gold imaging. RNA was transferred from the gel to a Hybond-N+ nylon membrane (Cytiva) via semi-dry transfer at 0.38 A for 90 min. After transfer, RNA was bound to the membrane by exposure to 120,000 μJ of UV radiation in a Stratalinker UV Crosslinker. Membranes were then incubated with shaking in 0.2% iBlock (Invitrogen) in 1× PBST for 10 min at room temperature or overnight at 4 °C. Primary antibody treatment was done with Poly/Mono-ADP Ribose rabbit antibody (Cell Signaling Technologies) diluted 1:1,000 in 0.2% iBlock + 1× PBST either for 2 h at room temperature or overnight at 4 °C with shaking. Following primary antibody treatment, membranes were washed 3 times for 10 min each with 1× PBST. For secondary antibody treatment, membranes were incubated for 1 h with shaking at room temperature with goat anti-rabbit IgG (H + L) secondary antibody, HRP (Invitrogen) diluted 1:1,000 in 0.2% iBlock + 1× PBST. Membranes were then again washed 3 times for 10 min each in 1× PBST. Signal was developed using SuperSignal West Femto maximum sensitivity substrate (Thermo Fisher) and imaged on a ChemiDoc MP imaging system set for chemiluminescence detection. Dot blots were conducted identically except 250 ng DNA or 1 µg RNA were spotted on membranes.

    For agarose immuno-northern blots, 0.8 g of agarose was melted in 66.7 ml of H2O and allowed to cool to 65 °C. 8 ml of 0.2 M (10×) 3-(N-morpholino)propanesulfonic acid (MOPS) buffer, 5.4 ml of formaldehyde and 5 µl of 10 mg ml−1 ethidium bromide were added to the agarose, and a 14×12 cm gel was cast and allowed to cool. 4 µg RNA were added to 17 µl sample buffer (2 µl 10× MOPS, 4 µl formaldehyde, 10 µl de-ionized formamide, and 1 µl ethidium bromide) and samples were denatured at 80 °C for 10 min then cooled on ice for 5 min. Prior to sample loading, the empty gel was run at 115 V for 5 min. 2 µl of loading dye (50% glycerol, bromophenol blue and xylene cyanol) were added to each RNA sample. Samples were then electrophoresed at 100 V for 80 min in 1× MOPS buffer. The gel was visualized before soaking in H2O for 10 min followed by a 20-minute equilibration in transfer buffer (3 M NaCl, 0.01 N NaOH). RNA was transferred onto Hybond-N+ nylon membrane by upward capillary transfer at room temperature for 75 min in transfer buffer. Immunoblotting was performed as described above. All immunoblotting experiments were performed in at least biological duplicate.

    RNA immunoprecipitation and sequencing

    Cells were collected and RNA collected as described above for infected cells. rRNA was removed using a previously described ribosomal RNA subtraction method46. rRNA-depleted RNA was then fragmented using sonication. For each sample to be sonicated, 4 μg of RNA was added to 100 μl 1× TE buffer (Sigma) in a 1.5 ml TPX microtube (Diagenode) and incubated on ice for 15 min. Tubes were then placed in a Bioruptor 300 sonicator water bath chilled to 4 °C for 60 cycles of 30 s on, 30 s off at high power setting. Every ten cycles tubes were briefly spun down in a microcentrifuge to ensure all liquid stayed below the water line in the sonicator. Each sample was then brought to a total volume of 200 μl with RNAse-free water and then precipitated at −20 °C for at least 1 h or at −80 °C overnight with 600 μl 100% ethanol, 20 μl of 3 M sodium acetate (pH 5.5), and 2 μl GlycoBlue. RNA was pelleted by centrifugation at 4 °C and 21,000g for 30 min. Pellets were washed twice with 800 ml of ice-cold 70% ethanol, air-dried, and resuspended in 90 μl RNAse-free H2O.

    ADP ribose RNA immunoprecipitation was based on a methylated RNA immunoprecipitation sequencing (MeRIP-seq) protocol for low-input samples47. One-hundred microlitres of Dynabeads Protein G beads were washed 3 times in IP buffer (150 mM NaCl, 10 mM pH 7.5 Tris-HCl, 0.1% NP-40 substitute). Ten microlitres of Poly/Mono-ADP Ribose rabbit antibody (Cell Signaling Technologies) was added to washed beads resuspended in 500 μl IP buffer and then incubated overnight at 4 °C with end-to-end rotation. Following incubation, antibody conjugated beads were washed twice with IP buffer and then resuspended in 500 μl IP buffer with 20 μg fragmented, rRNA-depleted RNA and 5 μl Superase-In RNAse inhibitor and incubated overnight at 4 °C with end-to-end rotation. Samples were then washed twice with 1 ml IP buffer, twice with 1 ml low-salt wash (50 mM NaCl, 10 mM pH 7.5 Tris-HCl, 0.1% NP-40 substitute), and twice with 1 ml high-salt wash (500 mM NaCl, 10 mM pH 7.5 Tris-HCl, 0.1% NP-40 substitute). For each wash, beads were incubated in the wash solution for 10 min at 4 °C with end-to-end rotation. After the final wash, beads were incubated in 200 μl RLT buffer from the Qiagen RNeasy kit for 2 min at room temperature with end-to-end rotation. Supernatant was separated from the beads using a magnetic rack, transferred to a new tube, and mixed with 200 μl of 100% ethanol. This mixture was passed through a RNeasy MiniElute spin column by centrifugation at 20,000g at 4 °C for 1 min. Spin columns were then washed once with 500 μl RNeasy RPE buffer and once with 500 μl 80% ethanol with each spin done at 20,000g for 1 min at 4 °C. Columns were then spun at 20,000g for 5 min to remove residual ethanol. RNA was eluted from the column in 15 μl RNAse-free H2O with a spin at 20,000g for 5 min at 4 °C. RNA yield and integrity was verified using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer and a Novex 6% TBE-urea gel (Invitrogen), respectively.

    Pre- and post-immunoprecipitation RNA (50–100 ng) was then used to make RNA-seq libraries using the NEBNext Ultra II RNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina following the manufacturer’s protocol for use with rRNA-depleted formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded RNA. Paired-end sequencing of the libraries was performed on a Singular G4 machine at the MIT BioMicroCenter. FASTQ files were then mapped to the MG1655 genome (NC_00913.2), the T4 genome (NC_000866), and the plasmid pKVS45-CmdTAC as previously described44,48.

    Library preparation for RNA-seq

    Cells were collected and RNA collected as described above for infected cells. rRNA was removed using a previously described ribosomal RNA subtraction method46. One-hundred nanograms of each rRNA-depleted RNA sample was then used to make RNA-seq libraries using the NEBNext Ultra II RNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina following the manufacturer’s protocol for use with purified mRNA or rRNA-depleted RNA. Paired-end sequencing of the libraries was performed on an Illumina NextSeq 5000 machine at the MIT BioMicroCenter. FASTQ files were then mapped to the MG1655 genome (NC_00913.2), the T4 genome (NC_000866), and the plasmid pKVS45-CmdTAC, as previously described44,48.

    Co-immunoprecipitation and LC–MS/MS

    Overnight cultures of +cmdTAC and +cmdTA/Flag-C or +cmdT-Flag/AC cells were back-diluted in 250 ml LB and grown at 37 °C to an OD600 of 0.3 and then for +cmdTAC and +cmdTA/Flag-C samples infected with T4 at an MOI of 10. At 0 min for all samples and 15 min post-infection for +cmdTAC and +cmdTA/Flag-C cultures 64 ml of sample was pelleted by centrifugation at 7,500g for 5 min. Pellets were decanted and resuspended in 1 ml of lysis buffer (25 mM Tris-HCL, 150 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 5% glycerol, 1% Triton X-100) supplemented with 1 μl ml−1 Ready-Lyse Lysozyme (Fischer Scientific), 1 μl ml−1 benzonase (Sigma), and cOmplete Protease Inhibitor Cocktail (Roche) and then flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. Samples were kept in liquid nitrogen until all timepoints were collected. Samples were subjected to two freeze-thaw cycles in liquid nitrogen to ensure complete lysis of cells. Additional lysis buffer was added to samples as needed to normalize sample concentrations by OD600. Samples were spun at 20,000g for 10 min at 4 °C to pellet any debris. For each sample, 50 μl of Pierce Anti-DYKDDDDK magnetic agarose beads was mixed with 450 μl lysis buffer and then collected to the side of the tube using a magnetic rack. Beads were then washed twice with 500 μl lysis buffer. After the final wash, beads were mixed with 1 ml of sample and incubated for 20 min at room temperature on an end-to-end rotor. After incubation, beads were washed in wash buffer (1× PBS, 150 mM NaCl) twice and then once with MilliQ H2O.

    On-bead reduction, trypsin digest, and LC–MS/MS were done by the MIT Biopolymers and Proteomics Core as previously described42. In brief, proteins were reduced for 1 h at 56 °C with 10 mM dithiothreitol (Sigma) and then alkylated for 1 h at 25 °C in the dark with 20 mM iodoacetamide (Sigma). Proteins were digested with modified trypsin (Promega) overnight in 100 mM, pH 8 ammonium bicarbonate at a 1:50 enzyme:substrate ratio. Formic acid (99.9%, Sigma) was added to stop trypsin digest. Digested peptides were desalted using Pierce Peptide Desalting Spin Columns (Thermo) then lyophilized. Peptides were separated on a PepMap RSLC C18 column (Thermo) over 90 min by reverse phase HPLC (Thermo Ultimate 3000) before nano-electrospray with an Orbitrap Exploris 480 mass spectrometer (Thermo). Mass spectrometer run was done in data-dependent mode. Full scan parameters were resolution of 120,000 across 375–1600 m/z and maximum IT 25 ms. This was followed by MS/MS for as many precursor ions in a two second cycle with a resolution of 30,000, dynamic exclusion of 20 s, and a NCE of 28. Detected peptides were mapped to MG1655, plasmid, and T4 protein sequences and the abundance of proteins were estimated by number of spectrum counts/molecular mass to normalize for protein sizes. The ratio of spectral counts between the Flag pulldowns and untagged pulldowns at each timepoint were used to generate the data in the figures with a pseudocount added to each count.

    In vitro transcription and translation

    In vitro transcription–translation assays were conducted using the PURExpress kit (NEB) according to the manufacturer’s protocol with a 2-h incubation at 37 °C. Each reaction was supplemented with 1 U µl−1 Riboguard RNase inhibitor (LGC Biosearch Technologies), with or without 1 mM NAD+ and protein eluants as indicated. When supplying mRNA as a translation template, primers were used to amplify the DHFR gene using PCR from the PURExpress control DHFR plasmid. The PCR amplicon was purified using the DNA Clean & Concentrator Kit (Zymogen). Then, mRNA was synthesized from the PCR template by incubating 300 ng DNA with 200 U T7 RNA polymerase, 0.5 mM NTPs, and 5 mM DTT in a final reaction volume of 40 µl at 37 °C for 4.5 h. The resulting RNA was purified from the reaction using the RNA Clean and Concentrator Kit (Zymogen) with on-column DNase I treatment. Pure mRNA was then treated with CmdT or control mock purified protein in 1× ADPr buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0 and 150 mM NaCl) with 1 mM NAD+ and 1 U µl−1 Riboguard at 37 °C for 2 h. RNA was again purified as before, and 1 µg was supplied in the PURExpress reaction for 4 h at 37 °C. From this reaction, 2.5 µl was then denatured in Laemmli buffer and run on a 8–16% polyacrylamide gel by SDS–PAGE and stained with either Brilliant Blue R250 or Coomassie Fluor Orange (Molecular Probes) and visualized on a Bio-Rad ChemiDoc MP imager.

    Protein immunoblotting

    Cell cultures were grown overnight and diluted 1:200 in fresh LB containing the appropriate antibiotics. Cultures were grown at 37 °C to mid-exponential phase and then treated with T4 at an MOI of 10, or the appropriate inducers as dictated by the experiment. At various timepoints, cells were pelleted, flash frozen and subsequently resuspended in Laemmli buffer with 2.5% 2-mercaptoethanol in a volume normalized to culture turbidity (100 µl OD600−1 ml−1). Samples were run by standard SDS–PAGE on 12% polyacrylamide gels. Transfer onto 0.2 µm PVDF membranes was done at 90 V for 40 min for CmdA–HA, and otherwise was done at 100 V for 60 min. Membranes were blocked in Tris-buffered saline with 0.05% Tween-20 (TBST) and 5% non-fat milk for 60 min at room temperature and incubated with primary monoclonal antibody (1:1,000 rabbit anti-Flag or anti-HA, Cell Signaling Technologies) overnight at 4 °C. Membranes were washed with TBST and incubated with HRP-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen) in blocking buffer for 60 min at room temperature. Membranes were again washed and incubated with SuperSignal West Femto Maximum Sensitivity Substrate (Thermo Scientific) before exposure on a Bio-Rad ChemiDoc MP imager. Membranes were stained with Brilliant blue R250 as a loading control. To quantify band intensity, we used the gel analysis tool in ImageJ. Pixel intensity from the antibody signal was normalized to pixel intensity of total protein stain.

    For immunoblots, membrane chemiluminescence was imaged directly followed by imaging of pre-stained molecular weight markers. Images were aligned, as shown in Supplementary Fig. 1, to relate chemiluminescent bands to molecular weight markers, as shown in main figures.

    Non-denaturing blots were performed by lysing cells with a buffer composed of 50% BPER-II (Thermo Scientific), 0.1 mg ml−1 lysozyme, cOmplete protease inhibitor (Sigma-Aldrich), 6 U DNase I (NEB) and 3 µl RNase A (NEB) in volumes normalized to OD600 of culture samples. Samples were incubated until clear at room temperature and then spun at max speed in a table-top centrifuge for 5 min to pellet insoluble material. Native loading dye (6×; 600 mM Tris-HCl, 50% glycerol, 0.02% bromophenol blue) was added to samples and loaded onto a 12% polyacrylamide Mini-Protean TGX pre-cast gel (Bio-Rad, does not contain SDS). Samples were electrophoresed in 25 mM Tris, 192 mM glycine running buffer at 75 V for 90 min. Transfer was conducted onto 0.2 µm PVDF membranes as described in this section at 100 V for 1 h at 4 °C. Blots were processed as described above. Blots shown are representative images of at least two biological replicates.

    T4 genome engineering and evolution

    The evolution of T4 on cmdTAC-containing cells was performed as described previously49 for four rounds, resulting in the alt.-3 C-terminal extensions in all five replicates. To generate alt.-3 mutants for further evolution experiments, T4 stock was overlayed onto strains containing Cas9 and spacers directed toward alt.-3 or a control plasmid with no spacer (ML4233 and ML4234). The number of plaques formed on the spacer-containing strain was compared to the control to determine whether there was any selection imposed by the spacer. Despite attempting eight potential spacers, no selection was observed. To mitigate this, we repeated the experiment with T4 ∆agtbgt (DNA contains non-glucosylated, 5-hydroxymethyl cytosine) on an E. colimcrAmcrBC background required for viability of T4 ∆agtbgt. This T4 formed fewer plaques in the presence of the alt.-3 spacer, suggesting that selection for alt.-3 mutants was imposed in this condition. The alt.-3 region was amplified by PCR and Sanger sequenced from plaques that were able to form on the spacer-containing strain. Of those plaques, we isolated a strain that harboured a mutation encompassing nearly the entire open reading frame of alt.-3. The T4 ∆alt.-3 strain was propagated in the presence of the spacer and stored as a stock at 4 °C. Evolution of this T4 strain on cmdTAC-containing cells was conducted the same as before, for 17 rounds, without observing mutations that increased plaquing ability.

    Radiolabel incorporation assays

    Overnight cultures of +cmdTAC and +cmdT*AC cells were back-diluted in LB + 20 µg ml−1 chloramphenicol and grown at 37 °C to an OD600 between 0.2 and 0.3. An aliquot of each culture was collected before T4 infection at an MOI of 10 and again at each indicated timepoint (t = 10, 20, 30, 40 min post-infection). Each collected sample was incubated with EasyTag EXPRESS-35S protein labelling mix (Perkin Elmer) at 23 µCi ml−1 for 2 min at 37 °C. Labelling was chased with an unlabelled cysteine/methionine mixture at 5 mM and then samples precipitated in 13% w/v ice-cold TCA. Samples were pelleted by centrifugation at 16,000g for 10 min at 4 °C, washed twice with 500 µl ice-cold acetone, and then resuspended in resuspension buffer (100 mM Tris pH 11.0, 3% w/v SDS). Samples were run on 4–20% SDS–PAGE gels (Bio-Rad), the gels incubated in Gel-Dry Drying Solution (Invitrogen) for 10 min, and then dried on a vacuum gel dryer for 2 h at 80 °C. Dried gels were exposed to a phosphorimaging screen overnight before imaging on an Amersham Typhoon imager.

    Protein purification

    Five millilitres of cultures of ML4207 and ML4232 were grown overnight at 37 °C in LB + 0.2% glucose. The following day, 5 ml of each culture was washed of glucose twice and used to inoculate 495 ml of LB + 25 µg ml−1 kanamycin. After 1 h of additional growth, arabinose was added to a final concentration of 0.2%. Cultures were grown an additional 95 min, pelleted, washed with H2O, again pelleted, and flash frozen in liquid N2. The following day, cell pellets were resuspended in 4 ml lysis buffer (50 mM Tris pH 7.5, 500 mM NaCl, 0.05% Tween-20, EDTA-free protease inhibitor, 0.5 mM PMSF, 0.5 mg ml−1 lysozyme, 5 mM imidazole, and 5% glycerol) on ice. Cells were then lysed by sonication in a Bioruptor 300 for two rounds of 10 cycles each, high setting, 30 s on/30 s off. One millilitre of Ni-NTA agarose resin (Qiagen, 0.5 ml bed volume) was equilibrated in lysis buffer. Cell lysate was clarified by centrifugation then incubated with the Ni resin for 1 h at 4 °C with gentle rocking. The following steps were conducted at 4 °C. The resin was then passed through a 10 ml chromatography column and then washed 5× with 2.5 ml of wash buffer (same as lysis buffer but without lysozyme, and imidazole at 20 mM). Protein was then eluted 5× with 2.5 ml elution buffer (wash buffer with imidazole concentration at 300 mM). Eluted proteins were buffer-exchanged into Tris pH 7.4 using Micro Bio-Spin chromatography columns (Bio-Rad) and concentrated using Amicon Ultra 0.5 ml centrifugal filters with a 3-kDa cutoff.

    In vitro ADP-ribosylation by CmdT

    A typical reaction was assembled on ice as follows. To a buffer composed of 20 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0 and 150 mM NaCl, we added 1 U µl−1 Riboguard RNase inhibitor, 1 mM NAD+ (NEB), 4 µg of DNA or RNA oligonucleotide, and protein at the concentrations indicated. The reactions were then incubated in a thermocycler at 37 °C. To stop the reaction, an equal volume of 2× 6 M urea sample buffer (Novex) was added. RNA was denatured at 95 °C for 10 min and then immediately placed on ice. One microgram of RNA samples were then subject to electrophoresis in 15% polyacrylamide TBE-urea gels at 180 V for 75 min. Gels were stained both with SYBR Gold and with a concentrated solution of 0.2% methylene blue in 0.1× TBE buffer for 15 min, de-stained with several changes of H2O and imaged.

    In vitro ADP ribose RNA pulldown

    Twenty micrograms of total RNA were ADP-ribosylated with CmdT as described above with 0.25 mM 6-Biotin-17-NAD+ (Cayman Chemical) for 4 h at 37 °C and then continued at 4 °C overnight. Two control reactions were set up identically except with mock purified protein, or with standard NAD+ in place of 6-Biotin-17-NAD+. Ten micrograms of each reaction were kept at −80 °C as the pre-pulldown sample. The remaining 10 µg were incubated with streptavidin conjugated superparamagnetic beads (Dynabeads MyOne Streptavidin C1) following the manufacturer’s protocol. RNA was stripped from the beads by addition of 0.5 ml Trizol and incubation at 25 °C for 15 min on a thermomixer at 1,000 rpm. Beads were then precipitated with a magnet and 100 µl of chloroform were added. The phases were separated by centrifugation at 14,000g for 15 min. Finally, the aqueous phase was purified using the RNA Clean and Concentrate Kit (Zymogen). Pre- and post-pulldown samples were electrophoresed on a 6% TBE-urea gel for 45 min, stained with SYBR Gold and imaged. The samples from pre- and post-pulldown reactions containing 6-Biotin-17-NAD+ and CmdT were subject to RNA-seq as described in this section, but without rRNA depletion.

    HPLC analysis of ribonucleosides

    Ten micrograms each of no-U and no-C RNA oligonucleotides (Fig. 4d) were subjected to ADP-ribosylation as described above. Controls were included in which purified CmdT was replaced by a mock purification, or in which NAD+ was omitted. Next, samples were split and treated with either 100 U Nuclease P1 (NEB) and 10 U antarctic phosphatase, or, the same with the addition of 1 U Phosphodiesterase I from Crotalus adamanteus venom (SVPD, Millipore Sigma). Reactions were incubated in digest buffer (25 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.6, 50 mM NaCl2, 1 mM ZnCl2, and 10 mM MgCl2) at 37 °C for 3.5 h in a total volume of 110 µl. One-hundred microlitres of digested and dephosphorylated nucleosides (10 µg) were injected onto a Vydac C18 4.6 ×250 mm reverse phase silica column (218TP54) equilibrated with 90% buffer A (0.1 M triethylammonium acetate (TEAA), pH 7.0)/10% buffer B (0.1 M TEAA, 20% acetonitrile, pH 7.0). HPLC was run with a mobile phase gradient composed of buffer A and B, 10–60% B from 1–21 min and 60–97% B from 21–26 min at a flow rate of 1 ml min−1. Analytes were measured at A254. On a replicate run, samples without SVPD treatment were collected as fractions and relevant fractions were lyophilized. The samples were then resuspended in digest buffer, and again incubated for 3.5 h with 10 U antarctic phosphatase and 1 U SVPD and analysed by HPLC as described above.

    Mass spectrometry of modified nucleosides

    Fractions collected from HPLC analysis were dried in a speed-vac and resuspended in 200 µl of 50% acetonitrile in 0.1% formic acid. The fractions, or a buffer blank, were directly infused by syringe pump into a Thermo Q Exactive with an API source and electrospray ionization probe at a flow rate of 5 µl min−1. The instrument was operated in positive ion mode. MS/MS was conducted at collision energies of both 25 and 40 CE. Instrument parameters were as follows: spray voltage, 3.8 kV; capillary tube temperature, 280 °C; sheath gas, 20; auxiliary gas, 5; sweep gas, 5.

    Bioinformatic analyses

    The CmdT sequence logo was generated from the CmdT hmm file from DefenseFinder50 using skylign.org.

    Hidden Markov model profiles of CmdT and CmdC were downloaded from DefenseFinder50 and searched against the RefSeq non-redundant protein database using hmmscan and default parameters. Protein hits were then identified in all available RefSeq bacterial genomes and CmdTAC was called if both CmdT and CmdC were present within two proteins of each other in the genome. CmdA was not included in calling as it both has higher sequence variability and is often unannotated in clearly homologous systems. All datasets were downloaded in July 2023. The complete taxonomic lineage of RefSeq genomes was created and filtered to include bacteria of current interest (genera with greater than 1,000 sequenced genomes). A taxonomic relationship of these genera was produced with NCBI Common Tree, and presence/absence was recorded from the taxonomic profiles of the CmdT/C hmmscan.

    Structural predictions

    Protein homology was assessed using HHpred51. Predictions of the structures of individual components and CmdTAC as a complex were done using AlphaFold252 with the multimer module and default parameters on the reduced database with 1 prediction generated per model. Structural homology searches based on the AlphaFold2-predicted structures of CmdT and CmdC were done using Foldseek53 and the top hit for each search used for subsequent analyses. Electrostatics modelling was done using the coulombic function in ChimeraX. All predicted structure visualization was done using ChimeraX.

    RNA-seq and RIP-seq read mapping

    FASTQ files for each sample were trimmed using cutadapt54 (version 1.15) and then mapped to the E. coli MG1655 genome (NC_00913.2), the T4 genome (NC_000866), and the plasmid pKVS45-CmdTAC using bowtie255 (version 2.3.4.1) with the following arguments: -D 20, -I 40, -X 300, -R 3, -N 0, -L 20, -i S,1,0.50. Sam files generated from bowtie2 mapping were then converted to bam files using samtools56 (version 1.7) and then further converted to numpy arrays using the genomearray3 python library57 for use in downstream analyses. For in vivo RIP–seq analyses only highly expressed transcripts as determined by transcripts with an RNA TPM for both replicates greater than or equal to the minimum mean TPM of any T4 transcript were used. For statistical comparisons of TPM ratios between RNA types a Welch’s t-test was used.

    Reporting summary

    Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Phages reconstitute NAD+ to counter bacterial immunity

    [ad_1]

  • Millman, A. et al. An expanded arsenal of immune systems that protect bacteria from phages. Cell Host Microbe 30, 1556–1569 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Garb, J. et al. Multiple phage resistance systems inhibit infection via SIR2-dependent NAD+ depletion. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1849–1856 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ofir, G. et al. Antiviral activity of bacterial TIR domains via immune signalling molecules. Nature 600, 116–120 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zaremba, M. et al. Short prokaryotic Argonautes provide defence against incoming mobile genetic elements through NAD+ depletion. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1857–1869 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gao, L. A. et al. Prokaryotic innate immunity through pattern recognition of conserved viral proteins. Science 377, eabm4096 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Morehouse, B. R. et al. STING cyclic dinucleotide sensing originated in bacteria. Nature 586, 429–433 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tal, N. et al. Cyclic CMP and cyclic UMP mediate bacterial immunity against phages. Cell 184, 5728–5739 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Chen, Y. et al. From bacteria to biomedicine: developing therapies exploiting NAD+ metabolism. Bioorg. Chem. 142, 106974 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Erhardt, H. et al. Organization of the Escherichia coli aerobic enzyme complexes of oxidative phosphorylation in dynamic domains within the cytoplasmic membrane. MicrobiologyOpen 3, 316–326 (2014).

    Article 
    MathSciNet 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rodionova, I. A. et al. Metabolic and bactericidal effects of targeted suppression of NadD and NadE enzymes in mycobacteria. mBio 5, e00747-13 (2014).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Mikolcevic, P., Hlousek-Kasun, A., Ahel, I. & Mikoc, A. ADP-ribosylation systems in bacteria and viruses. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 19, 2366–2383 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wilkinson, A., Day, J. & Bowater, R. Bacterial DNA ligases. Mol. Microbiol. 40, 1241–1248 (2001).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rousset, F. et al. A conserved family of immune effectors cleaves cellular ATP upon viral infection. Cell 186, 3619–3631 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Maffei, E. et al. Systematic exploration of Escherichia coli phage-host interactions with the BASEL phage collection. PLoS Biol. 19, e3001424 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Iyer, L. M., Burroughs, A. M., Anantharaman, V. & Aravind, L. Apprehending the NAD+–ADPr-dependent systems in the virus world. Viruses 14, 1977 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gazzaniga, F., Stebbins, R., Chang, S. Z., McPeek, M. A. & Brenner, C. Microbial NAD metabolism: lessons from comparative genomics. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 73, 529–541 (2009).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tang, D. et al. Multiple enzymatic activities of a Sir2-HerA system cooperate for anti-phage defense. Mol. Cell 83, 4600–4613 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Galeazzi, L. et al. Identification of nicotinamide mononucleotide deamidase of the bacterial pyridine nucleotide cycle reveals a novel broadly conserved amidohydrolase family. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 40365–40375 (2011).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Raffaelli, N. et al. The Escherichia coli NadR regulator is endowed with nicotinamide mononucleotide adenylyltransferase activity. J. Bacteriol. 181, 5509–5511 (1999).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Khorana, H. G., Fernandes, J. F. & Kornberg, A. Pyrophosphorylation of ribose 5-phosphate in the enzymatic synthesis of 5-phosphorylribose 1-pyrophosphate. J. Biol. Chem. 230, 941–948 (1958).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Yirmiya, E. et al. Phages overcome bacterial immunity via diverse anti-defence proteins. Nature 625, 352–359 (2024).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Revollo, J. R., Grimm, A. A. & Imai, S. The NAD biosynthesis pathway mediated by nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase regulates Sir2 activity in mammalian cells. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 50754–50763 (2004).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hove-Jensen, B. et al. Phosphoribosyl diphosphate (PRPP): biosynthesis, enzymology, utilization, and metabolic significance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 81, e00040-16 (2017).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sabonis, D. et al. TIR domains produce histidine-ADPR conjugates as immune signaling molecules in bacteria. Preprint at bioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.01.03.573942v1 (2024).

  • Cook, R. et al. INfrastructure for a PHAge REference Database: identification of large-scale biases in the current collection of cultured phage genomes. Phage 2, 214–223 (2021).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lee, J. Y., Li, Z. & Miller, E. S. Vibrio phage KVP40 encodes a functional NAD+ salvage pathway. J. Bacteriol. 199, e00855-16 (2017).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gao, Z. & Feng, Y. Bacteriophage strategies for overcoming host antiviral immunity. Front. Microbiol. 14, 1211793 (2023).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Mayo-Munoz, D., Pinilla-Redondo, R., Camara-Wilpert, S., Birkholz, N. & Fineran, P. C. Inhibitors of bacterial immune systems: discovery, mechanisms and applications. Nat. Rev. Genet. 25, 237–254 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhang, F., Song, G. & Tian, Y. Anti-CRISPRs: the natural inhibitors for CRISPR-Cas systems. Animal Model. Exp. Med. 2, 69–75 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hobbs, S. J. et al. Phage anti-CBASS and anti-Pycsar nucleases subvert bacterial immunity. Nature 605, 522–526 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Huang, N. et al. Structure and function of an ADP-ribose-dependent transcriptional regulator of NAD metabolism. Structure 17, 939–951 (2009).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rodionov, D. A. et al. Transcriptional regulation of NAD metabolism in bacteria: NrtR family of Nudix-related regulators. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, 2047–2059 (2008).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tal, N. et al. Bacteria deplete deoxynucleotides to defend against bacteriophage infection. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1200–1209 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Goldstone, D. C. et al. HIV-1 restriction factor SAMHD1 is a deoxynucleoside triphosphate triphosphohydrolase. Nature 480, 379–382 (2011).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Heer, C. D. et al. Coronavirus infection and PARP expression dysregulate the NAD metabolome: an actionable component of innate immunity. J. Biol. Chem. 295, 17986–17996 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Brenner, C. Viral infection as an NAD+ battlefield. Nat. Metab. 4, 2–3 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Minh, B. Q., Nguyen, M. A. & von Haeseler, A. Ultrafast approximation for phylogenetic bootstrap. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 1188–1195 (2013).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Chung, C. T., Niemela, S. L. & Miller, R. H. One-step preparation of competent Escherichia coli: transformation and storage of bacterial cells in the same solution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 86, 2172–2175 (1989).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Doron, S. et al. Systematic discovery of antiphage defense systems in the microbial pangenome. Science 359, eaar4120 (2018).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hove-Jensen, B., Bentsen, A. K. & Harlow, K. W. Catalytic residues Lys197 and Arg199 of Bacillus subtilis phosphoribosyl diphosphate synthase. Alanine-scanning mutagenesis of the flexible catalytic loop. FEBS J. 272, 3631–3639 (2005).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Eriksen, T. A., Kadziola, A., Bentsen, A. K., Harlow, K. W. & Larsen, S. Structural basis for the function of Bacillus subtilis phosphoribosyl-pyrophosphate synthetase. Nat. Struct. Biol. 7, 303–308 (2000).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Adler, B. A. et al. Broad-spectrum CRISPR-Cas13a enables efficient phage genome editing. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1967–1979 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Leavitt, A. et al. Viruses inhibit TIR gcADPR signalling to overcome bacterial defence. Nature 611, 326–331 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Baba, T. et al. Construction of Escherichia coli K-12 in-frame, single-gene knockout mutants: the Keio collection. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2, 2006.0008 (2006).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Thomason, L. C., Costantino, N. & Court, D. L. E. coli genome manipulation by P1 transduction. Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol. 79, 1.17.1–1.17.8 (2007).

  • Mazzocco, A., Waddell, T. E., Lingohr, E. & Johnson, R. P. Enumeration of bacteriophages using the small drop plaque assay system. Methods Mol. Biol. 501, 81–85 (2009).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kitaoka, M. Automatic calculation of the kinetic parameters of enzymatic reactions with their standard errors using Microsoft Excel. J. Appl. Glycosci. 70, 33–37 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zheng, L. et al. Fumarate induces redox-dependent senescence by modifying glutathione metabolism. Nat. Commun. 6, 6001 (2015).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Steinegger, M. & Soding, J. MMseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1026–1028 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sievers, F. et al. Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 539 (2011).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Nguyen, L. T., Schmidt, H. A., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 268–274 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Letunic, I. & Bork, P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v4: recent updates and new developments. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, W256–W259 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Diverse viral cas genes antagonize CRISPR immunity

    [ad_1]

  • Bondy-Denomy, J., Pawluk, A., Maxwell, K. L. & Davidson, A. R. Bacteriophage genes that inactivate the CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system. Nature 493, 429–432 (2013).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bondy-Denomy, J. et al. Multiple mechanisms for CRISPR–Cas inhibition by anti-CRISPR proteins. Nature 526, 136–139 (2015).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rauch, B. J. et al. Inhibition of CRISPR–Cas9 with bacteriophage proteins. Cell 168, 150–158 e110 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Knott, G. J. et al. Broad-spectrum enzymatic inhibition of CRISPR–Cas12a. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 26, 315–321 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dong, L. et al. An anti-CRISPR protein disables type V Cas12a by acetylation. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 26, 308–314 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Niu, Y. et al. A type I-F anti-CRISPR protein inhibits the CRISPR–Cas surveillance complex by ADP-ribosylation. Mol. Cell 80, 512–524 e515 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sahakyan, H., Makarova, K. S. & Koonin, E. V. Search foroOrigins of anti-CRISPR proteins by structure comparison. CRISPR J. 6, 222–231 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Chowdhury, S. et al. Structure reveals mechanisms of viral suppressors that intercept a CRISPR RNA-guided surveillance complex. Cell 169, 47–57 e11 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rollins, M. F. et al. Structure reveals a mechanism of CRISPR-RNA-guided nuclease recruitment and anti-CRISPR viral mimicry. Mol. Cell 74, 132–142 e135 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Krupovic, M., Cvirkaite-Krupovic, V., Prangishvili, D. & Koonin, E. V. Evolution of an archaeal virus nucleocapsid protein from the CRISPR-associated Cas4 nuclease. Biol. Direct 10, 65 (2015).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hudaiberdiev, S. et al. Phylogenomics of Cas4 family nucleases. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 232 (2017).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Goodman, D. A. & Stedman, K. M. Comparative genetic and genomic analysis of the novel fusellovirus Sulfolobus spindle-shaped virus 10. Virus Evol. 4, vey022 (2018).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhang, Z., Pan, S., Liu, T., Li, Y. & Peng, N. Cas4 nucleases can effect specific integration of CRISPR spacers. J. Bacteriol. 201, e00747–18 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Al-Shayeb, B. et al. Diverse virus-encoded CRISPR–Cas systems include streamlined genome editors. Cell 185, 4574–4586 e4516 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Meeske, A. J. & Marraffini, L. A. RNA guide complementarity prevents self-targeting in type VI CRISPR systems. Mol. Cell 71, 791–801 e793 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Meeske, A. J., Nakandakari-Higa, S. & Marraffini, L. A. Cas13-induced cellular dormancy prevents the rise of CRISPR-resistant bacteriophage. Nature 570, 241–245 (2019).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Meeske, A. J. et al. A phage-encoded anti-CRISPR enables complete evasion of type VI-A CRISPR–Cas immunity. Science 369, 54–59 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Williams, M. C. et al. Restriction endonuclease cleavage of phage DNA enables resuscitation from Cas13-induced bacterial dormancy. Nat. Microbiol. 8, 400–409 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lauer, P., Chow, M. Y., Loessner, M. J., Portnoy, D. A. & Calendar, R. Construction, characterization, and use of two Listeria monocytogenes site-specific phage integration vectors. J. Bacteriol. 184, 4177–4186 (2002).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Mahendra, C. et al. Broad-spectrum anti-CRISPR proteins facilitate horizontal gene transfer. Nat. Microbiol. 5, 620–629 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Osuna, B. A. et al. Critical anti-CRISPR locus repression by a bi-functional Cas9 inhibitor. Cell Host Microbe 28, 23–30 e25 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Osuna, B. A. et al. Listeria phages induce Cas9 degradation to protect lysogenic genomes. Cell Host Microbe 28, 31–40 e39 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lu, M. et al. Structure and genome editing of type I-B CRISPR–Cas. Nat. Commun. 15, 4126 (2024).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Luo, M. L., Mullis, A. S., Leenay, R. T. & Beisel, C. L. Repurposing endogenous type I CRISPR–Cas systems for programmable gene repression. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 674–681 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rath, D., Amlinger, L., Hoekzema, M., Devulapally, P. R. & Lundgren, M. Efficient programmable gene silencing by Cascade. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 237–246 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hu, C. et al. Allosteric control of type I-A CRISPR-Cas3 complexes and establishment as effective nucleic acid detection and human genome editing tools. Mol. Cell 82, 2754–2768 e2755 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Camargo, A. P. et al. IMG/VR v4: an expanded database of uncultivated virus genomes within a framework of extensive functional, taxonomic, and ecological metadata. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, D733–D743 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Krupovic, M., Makarova, K. S., Forterre, P., Prangishvili, D. & Koonin, E. V. Casposons: a new superfamily of self-synthesizing DNA transposons at the origin of prokaryotic CRISPR–Cas immunity. BMC Biol. 12, 36 (2014).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kapitonov, V. V., Makarova, K. S. & Koonin, E. V. ISC, a novel group of bacterial and archaeal DNA transposons that encode Cas9 homologs. J. Bacteriol. 198, 797–807 (2015).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Varble, A. et al. Prophage integration into CRISPR loci enables evasion of antiviral immunity in Streptococcus pyogenes. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 1516–1525 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Camara-Wilpert, S. et al. Bacteriophages suppress CRISPR–Cas immunity using RNA-based anti-CRISPRs. Nature 623, 601–607 (2023).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rollie, C. et al. Targeting of temperate phages drives loss of type I CRISPR–Cas systems. Nature 578, 149–153 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. & Lipman, D. J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410 (1990).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Notredame, C., Higgins, D. G. & Heringa, J. T-Coffee: a novel method for fast and accurate multiple sequence alignment. J. Mol. Biol. 302, 205–217 (2000).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tamura, K., Stecher, G. & Kumar, S. MEGA11: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 11. Mol. Biol. Evol. 38, 3022–3027 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Makarova, K. S. et al. Evolutionary classification of CRISPR–Cas systems: a burst of class 2 and derived variants. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 67–83 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Quinlan, A. R. & Hall, I. M. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics 26, 841–842 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lee, W. & Chen, S. L. Genome-tools: a flexible package for genome sequence analysis. Biotechniques 33, 1334–1341 (2002).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Russel, J., Pinilla-Redondo, R., Mayo-Munoz, D., Shah, S. A. & Sorensen, S. J. CRISPRCasTyper: automated identification, annotation, and classification of CRISPR–Cas loci. CRISPR J. 3, 462–469 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Krüger, D. H., Schroeder, C., Hansen, S. & Rosenthal, H. A. Active protection by bacteriophages T3 and T7 against E. coli B- and K-specific restriction of their DNA. Mol. Gen. Genet. 153, 99–106 (1977).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Yirmiya, E. et al. Phages overcome bacterial immunity via diverse anti-defence proteins. Nature 625, 352–359 (2024).

  • Seemann, T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30, 2068–2069 (2014).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gilchrist, C. L. M. & Chooi, Y. H. clinker & clustermap.js: automatic generation of gene cluster comparison figures. Bioinformatics 37, 2473–2475 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Architecture and activation mechanism of the bacterial PARIS defence system

    [ad_1]

  • Georjon, H. & Bernheim, A. The highly diverse antiphage defence systems of bacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 21, 686–700 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hampton, H. G., Watson, B. N. J. & Fineran, P. C. The arms race between bacteria and their phage foes. Nature 577, 327–336 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gao, L. A. et al. Prokaryotic innate immunity through pattern recognition of conserved viral proteins. Science 377, eabm4096 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Doron, S. et al. Systematic discovery of antiphage defense systems in the microbial pangenome. Science 359, eaar4120 (2018).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rousset, F. et al. Phages and their satellites encode hotspots of antiviral systems. Cell Host Microbe 30, 740–753 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gao, Z. & Feng, Y. Bacteriophage strategies for overcoming host antiviral immunity. Front. Microbiol. 14, 1211793 (2023).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Vassallo, C. N., Doering, C. R., Littlehale, M. L., Teodoro, G. I. C. & Laub, M. T. A functional selection reveals previously undetected anti-phage defence systems in the E. coli pangenome. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1568–1579 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I., Snir, S. & Koonin, E. V. Defense islands in bacterial and archaeal genomes and prediction of novel defense systems. J. Bacteriol. 193, 6039–6056 (2011).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Benler, S. et al. Cargo genes of Tn7-like transposons comprise an enormous diversity of defense systems, mobile genetic elements, and antibiotic resistance genes. mBio 12, e0293821 (2021).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wu, Y. et al. Bacterial defense systems exhibit synergistic anti-phage activity. Cell Host Microbe 32, 557–572 (2024).

  • Lau, R. K. et al. Structure and mechanism of a cyclic trinucleotide-activated bacterial endonuclease mediating bacteriophage immunity. Mol. Cell 77, 723–733 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lopatina, A., Tal, N. & Sorek, R. Abortive infection: bacterial suicide as an antiviral immune strategy. Annu. Rev. Virol. 7, 371–384 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Makarova, K. S., Anantharaman, V., Grishin, N. V., Koonin, E. V. & Aravind, L. CARF and WYL domains: ligand-binding regulators of prokaryotic defense systems. Front. Genet. 5, 102 (2014).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bondy-Denomy, J. et al. Prophages mediate defense against phage infection through diverse mechanisms. ISME J. 10, 2854–2866 (2016).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Atanasiu, C., Su, T.-J., Sturrock, S. S. & Dryden, D. T. F. Interaction of the ocr gene 0.3 protein of bacteriophage T7 with EcoKI restriction/modification enzyme. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 3936–3944 (2002).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Walkinshaw, M. D. et al. Structure of Ocr from bacteriophage T7, a protein that mimics B-form DNA. Mol. Cell 9, 187–194 (2002).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Isaev, A. et al. Phage T7 DNA mimic protein Ocr is a potent inhibitor of BREX defence. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 7601–7602 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Song, S. & Wood, T. K. A primary physiological role of toxin/antitoxin systems is phage inhibition. Front. Microbiol. 11, 1895 (2020).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hopfner, K.-P. & Tainer, J. A. Rad50/SMC proteins and ABC transporters: unifying concepts from high-resolution structures. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 13, 249–255 (2003).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Deep, A. et al. The SMC-family Wadjet complex protects bacteria from plasmid transformation by recognition and cleavage of closed-circular DNA. Mol. Cell 82, 4145–4159.e7 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hopfner, K. P. et al. Structural biology of Rad50 ATPase: ATP-driven conformational control in DNA double-strand break repair and the ABC-ATPase superfamily. Cell 101, 789–800 (2000).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zawadzka, K. et al. MukB ATPases are regulated independently by the N- and C-terminal domains of MukF kleisin. eLife 7, e31522 (2018).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schiltz, C. J., Adams, M. C. & Chappie, J. S. The full-length structure of Thermus scotoductus OLD defines the ATP hydrolysis properties and catalytic mechanism of class 1 OLD family nucleases. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 2762–2776 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Oerum, S. et al. Structures of B. subtilis maturation RNases captured on 50S ribosome with pre-rRNAs. Mol. Cell 80, 227–236 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ho, C.-H., Wang, H.-C., Ko, T.-P., Chang, Y.-C. & Wang, A. H.-J. The T4 phage DNA mimic protein Arn inhibits the DNA binding activity of the bacterial histone-like protein H-NS. J. Biol. Chem. 289, 27046–27054 (2014).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Nonejuie, P., Burkart, M., Pogliano, K. & Pogliano, J. Bacterial cytological profiling rapidly identifies the cellular pathways targeted by antibacterial molecules. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 16169–16174 (2013).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Burman, N. et al. A virally-encoded tRNA neutralizes the PARIS antiviral defence system. Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07874-3 (2024).

  • Bregegere, F. Bacteriophage P2-lambda interference: inhibition of protein synthesis involves transfer RNA inactivation. J. Mol. Biol. 90, 459–467 (1974).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ernits, K. et al. The structural basis of hyperpromiscuity in a core combinatorial network of type II toxin-antitoxin and related phage defense systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2305393120 (2023).

  • Sironi, G. Mutants of Escherichia coli unable to be lysogenized by the temperate bacteriophage P2. Virology 37, 163–176 (1969).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Krishnan, A., Burroughs, A. M., Iyer, L. M. & Aravind, L. Comprehensive classification of ABC ATPases and their functional radiation in nucleoprotein dynamics and biological conflict systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 10045–10075 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Deng, Y. M., Liu, C. Q. & Dunn, N. W. Genetic organization and functional analysis of a novel phage abortive infection system, AbiL, from Lactococcus lactis. J. Biotechnol. 67, 135–149 (1999).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Miller, W. G. et al. Diversity within the Campylobacter jejuni type I restriction-modification loci. Microbiology 151, 337–351 (2005).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ogura, T. & Hiraga, S. Mini-F plasmid genes that couple host cell division to plasmid proliferation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 80, 4784–4788 (1983).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Harms, A., Brodersen, D. E., Mitarai, N. & Gerdes, K. Toxins, targets, and triggers: an overview of toxin-antitoxin biology. Mol. Cell 70, 768–784 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bobonis, J. et al. Bacterial retrons encode phage-defending tripartite toxin-antitoxin systems. Nature 609, 144–150 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhang, T. et al. Direct activation of a bacterial innate immune system by a viral capsid protein. Nature 612, 132–140 (2022).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Fineran, P. C. et al. The phage abortive infection system, ToxIN, functions as a protein-RNA toxin-antitoxin pair. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 894–899 (2009).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • LeRoux, M. et al. The DarTG toxin-antitoxin system provides phage defence by ADP-ribosylating viral DNA. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1028–1040 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Pecota, D. C. & Wood, T. K. Exclusion of T4 phage by the hok/sok killer locus from plasmid R1. J. Bacteriol. 178, 2044–2050 (1996).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ledvina, H. E. et al. An E1-E2 fusion protein primes antiviral immune signalling in bacteria. Nature 616, 319–325 (2023).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Punjani, A., Rubinstein, J. L., Fleet, D. J. & Brubaker, M. A. cryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination. Nat. Methods 14, 290–296 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Pettersen, E. F. et al. UCSF ChimeraX: structure visualization for researchers, educators, and developers. Protein Sci. 30, 70–82 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. G. & Cowtan, K. Features and development of Coot. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 486–501 (2010).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Afonine, P. V. et al. Real-space refinement in PHENIX for cryo-EM and crystallography. Acta Crystallogr. D 74, 531–544 (2018).

    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Deep, A. et al. Structural, functional and biological insights into the role of Mycobacterium tuberculosis VapBC11 toxin–antitoxin system: targeting a tRNase to tackle mycobacterial adaptation. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 11639–11655 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Mirdita, M. et al. ColabFold: making protein folding accessible to all. Nat. Methods 19, 679–682 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Steinegger, M. & Söding, J. MMseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1026–1028 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Eastman, P. et al. OpenMM 7: rapid development of high performance algorithms for molecular dynamics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005659 (2017).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Waterhouse, A. M., Procter, J. B., Martin, D. M. A., Clamp, M. & Barton, G. J. Jalview Version 2—a multiple sequence alignment editor and analysis workbench. Bioinformatics 25, 1189–1191 (2009).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Holm, L. Dali server: structural unification of protein families. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, W210–W215 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ashkenazy, H. et al. ConSurf 2016: an improved methodology to estimate and visualize evolutionary conservation in macromolecules. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, W344–W350 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schindelin, J. et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 676–682 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schiltz, C. J., Lee, A., Partlow, E. A., Hosford, C. J. & Chappie, J. S. Structural characterization of Class 2 OLD family nucleases supports a two-metal catalysis mechanism for cleavage. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, 9448–9463 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DNA glycosylases provide antiviral defence in prokaryotes

    [ad_1]

    Bacterial strains and growth conditions

    Cultivation of E. coli EC100 (Lucigen), E. coli K-12 MG165542, E. coli K-12 BW2511343 and all other E. coli strains used in this study were carried out in lysogeny broth (LB) at 37 °C with shaking. Overnight cultures were inoculated from single bacterial colonies. Wherever applicable, media were supplemented with chloramphenicol at 12.5 μg ml−1 (for cosmids) or 25 μg ml−1 (for plasmids), spectinomycin at 50 μg ml−1, kanamycin at 50 μg ml−1, ampicillin or carbenicillin at 100 μg ml−1, and/or tetracycline at 5 μg ml−1 to ensure cosmid or plasmid maintenance. E. coli Keio knockout strains were obtained from the Coli Genetic Stock Center at Yale University44. The type I-E CRISPR interference strain E. coli K-12 MG1655 ACT-01 was a gift from C. A. Voight45. Miniprepped plasmids (prepared by QIAprep Spin Miniprep Kit, QIAGEN, 27106) were cloned into chemically competent E. coli EC100 cells (Lucigen), electrocompetent E. coli EC100 cells (Lucigen) or rubidium chloride (RbCl2) chemically competent E. coli K-12 MG1655 cells. For E. coli K-12 BW25113 and Keio knockout strains, protein purification strains, and strains with two plasmid combinations, existing strains were first made electrocompetent and then transformed with plasmid through electroporation (1 mm Bio-Rad Gene Pulser cuvette at 1.8 kV). The list of strains used in this study are available in Supplementary Data File 2.

    Plasmid construction

    For plasmid construction, refer to Supplementary Data File 2.

    Gibson assembly

    For Gibson assemblies46, 25–100 ng of the largest dsDNA fragment was combined with equimolar volumes of the smaller fragment(s) in a total volume of 5 μl in nuclease-free water. Reaction mixtures were prepared on ice and mixed with 15 μl of Gibson assembly master mix, pipette mixed and incubated at 50 °C for 1 h in a thermal cycler. Gibson reactions were transformed into chemically competent E. coli EC100 cells (Lucigen) or RbCl2 chemically competent E. coli K-12 MG1655 cells by mixing 5 μl of Gibson reaction with 50 μl cells and following a standard transformation protocol for chemically competent cells.

    Oligonucleotide cloning

    Oligonucleotide cloning was used to create a repeat-spacer-repeat CRISPR array with a desired spacer following a previously described protocol47. In brief, we used a BsaI restriction digest cloning approach. Parent type II-A CRISPR array-containing plasmids with a repeat-spacer-repeat carried a 30 bp spacer sequence with two BsaI cut sites at either end (pCas9)47. To set up the BsaI plasmid digest, we mixed 42 μl of the parent CRISPR plasmid (40–60 ng μl−1) with 6 μl BsaI-HF (NEB, R3535L), 6 μl NEB CutSmart buffer and 6 μl nuclease-free water. The restriction digest reaction was incubated at 37 °C for approximately 6 h. Two IDT oligonucleotides comprised the type II-A CRISPR spacer to be inserted into the BsaI cut plasmid CRISPR array: a ‘top’ strand oligonucleotide with sequence 5′-AAAC-(30 bp spacer)-G-3′ and a ‘bottom’ strand oligonucleotide with sequence 5′-AAAAC-(30 bp spacer reverse complement)−3′. For oligonucleotide cloning of type I-E spacers into pACYC184-TypeIEspcNT, the top strand oligonucleotide had sequence 5′-ACCG-(32 bp spacer)−3′ and the bottom strand oligonucleotide had sequence 5′-ACTC-(32 bp spacer reverse complement)−3′. The two oligonucleotides were phosphorylated with T4 polynucleotide kinase (NEB, M0201S) in a 50 μl reaction: 1.5 μl 100 μM top oligonucleotide, 1.5 μl 100 μM bottom oligonucleotide, 41 μl nuclease-free water, 5 μl T4 DNA ligase reaction buffer (NEB, B0202S), 1 μl T4 polynucleotide kinase (NEB, M0201S). The reaction was incubated at 37 °C for 1 h in a thermal cycler. After phosphorylation, oligonucleotides were annealed by adding 2.5 μl of 1 M sodium chloride (Fisher Scientific, S271-3) solution to the 50 μl reaction and incubating for 5 min at 98 °C and then allowing the reaction to gradually cool to room temperature (approximately 2 h). The annealed oligonucleotides were diluted 1:10 in nuclease-free water and ligated into the BsaI-digested plasmid in a 20 μl reaction: 10 μl BsaI-digested plasmid, 6 μl nuclease-free water, 1 μl 1:10 diluted annealed oligonucleotides, 5 μl T4 DNA ligase reaction buffer (NEB, B0202S), 1 μl T4 DNA ligase (NEB, M0202M). The ligation reaction was performed at room temperature overnight. The next day, 5 μl of the ligation reaction was transformed into 50 μl of chemically competent E. coli EC100 cells (Lucigen) or electrocompetent ACT-01 cells following dialysis, and colonies were confirmed by PCR the next day. The list of CRISPR spacers generated by BsaI cloning and used in this study are available in Supplementary Data File 2.

    Strain construction

    λ Red recombineering was used to generate the E. coli K-12 BW25113 ΔxthA Δnfo strain. An overnight culture of the E. coli K-12 BW25113 Δnfo Keio strain carrying the pAM38(red) plasmid with chloramphenicol resistance was diluted and grown to OD600 ~ 0.3 and then induced with 0.2% l-arabinose until OD600 ~ 1–1.2. Cells were made electrocompetent by washing twice with cold water and electroporated (1 mm Bio-Rad Gene Pulser cuvette at 1.8 kV) with a PCR product carrying a xthA:tetR gene replacement matching the xthA:kanR gene replacement found in the E. coli K-12 BW25113 ΔxthA Keio strain, with ~50 bp homology upstream and downstream of the xthA locus in the PCR product. After ~2 h of recovery, cells were plated on LB agar plates with kanamycin at 50 μg ml−1 and tetracycline at 5 μg ml−1 to select for double mutants. Double knockouts were confirmed by PCR. After confirmation, strains were grown overnight in LB with kanamycin at 50 μg ml−1 and tetracycline at 5 μg ml−1 (but no chloramphenicol which selects for the plasmid) and with 0.2% l-arabinose induction. Without antibiotic selection, induced plasmid was rapidly lost due to toxicity from λ Red overexpression. Strains were frozen at −80 °C (900 μl culture + 100 μl DMSO) and struck out on appropriate antibiotic plates to confirm both double knockouts and loss of the recombineering plasmid.

    Preparation of phage stocks

    λvir, T4 and T7 were gifts from B. Levin. T2, T3, T5 and T6 phages were purchased from ATCC. Phages were first grown up in 10 ml cultures of exponentially growing E. coli K-12 MG1655 or EC100 cells at OD600 ~ 0.3. The phage-added cultures were incubated at 37 °C with shaking overnight. Tubes were then spun down at 15,000g for 10 min at 4 °C. Phage-containing supernatants were filtered using Acrodisc 13 mm SUPOR 0.45 μm syringe filters (Pall, 4604) into 15 ml conical tubes and supernatants frozen down as phage stocks at −80 °C (900 μl filtered supernatant + 100 μl DMSO). To grow up a phage stock for plaquing assays and other experiments, a pipette tip was used to scrape off a tiny portion of a frozen phage stock, which was then resuspended in 20 μl LB medium. Serial dilutions were prepared from the resuspended phage and spotted on a fresh LB top agar (LB broth Lennox base, 0.5% agar) lawn of E. coli EC100 in LB agar. The plate was incubated at 37 °C overnight after drying at room temperature for 25 min. The next day a single phage plaque was picked from the top agar lawn using a P20 pipette set to 15 μl and resuspended in a 10 ml culture of exponentially growing E. coli EC100 at OD600 ~ 0.3. The phage-added culture was incubated at 37 °C with shaking overnight. The tube was spun down the next day at 15,000g for 10 min at 4 °C. The phage-containing supernatant was filtered using an Acrodisc 13 mm SUPOR 0.45 μm syringe filter (Pall, 4604) into a 15 ml conical tube. All final phage stocks were titred on top agar lawns of E. coli EC100 and stored at 4 °C.

    To grow phage stocks of Brig1 escaper phages, single plaques formed by T4 or T6 phages on lawns of pBrig1-carrying EC100 cells were picked using a P20 pipette and resuspended in 20 μl LB medium. Serial dilutions were prepared from the resuspended phage and spotted on a fresh LB top agar lawn of E. coli EC100 carrying pBrig1 to maintain selection of the escaper phage. The plate was incubated at 37 °C overnight after drying at room temperature for 25 min. The next day a single phage plaque was picked from the top agar lawn using a P20 pipette set to 15 μl and resuspended in a 10 ml culture of exponentially growing OD600 ~ 0.3 E. coli EC100 carrying pBrig1 for continued selection. The phage-added culture was incubated at 37 °C with shaking overnight and filtered the next day as described earlier to generate the escaper phage stock. Final phage stocks were titred on top agar lawns of E. coli EC100 and stored at 4 °C. The list of phages used in this study are available in Supplementary Data File 2.

    Generation of mutant phage stocks

    T4 and T6 phage stocks were used to construct T4 Δa-gt, T4 Δb-gt, T4 Δalc ΔdenB Δgp56, T4(C) and T6 Δba-gt mutant phage stocks. In each case, a culture of E. coli EC100 cells carrying a recombinant pUT18C-based plasmid was grown overnight at 37 °C with shaking in 10 ml LB supplemented with 100 μg ml−1 carbenicillin. The pUT18C plasmid contained a cloned segment of phage T4 or T6 DNA with the desired gene deleted and ~750–1000 bp homology arms flanking the deleted genic region on either side. The overnight culture was diluted 1:50 in 10 ml LB medium supplemented with 100 μg ml−1 carbenicillin. After approximately 1 h of culture growth, OD600 was measured for the culture and confirmed to be between 0.2 and 0.4. The 10 ml culture was then infected with 2 μl of T4 or T6 phage stock and grown overnight at 37 °C with shaking to allow wild-type phages to recombine with the plasmid. The next day, the tube was spun down at 15,000g for 10 min at 4 °C. The phage-containing supernatant was filtered using an Acrodisc 13 mm SUPOR 0.45 μm syringe filter (Pall, 4604) into a 15 ml conical tube.

    Serial dilutions of recombinant phage were prepared and spotted on a fresh top agar lawn of E. coli EC100 containing a pCas9 plasmid in LB agar supplemented with 25 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol. The pCas9 plasmid carried a type II-A CRISPR spacer targeting the phage gene that was deleted to select specifically for recombinant phage with the desired deletion. Top agar plates were incubated at 37 °C overnight after drying at room temperature for 25 min. The next day multiple phage plaques were picked from the top agar lawn using a P20 pipette set to 15 μl and resuspended in 20 μl LB medium. Five microlitres of the resuspend phage plaques were boiled in 15 μl colony lysis buffer48 at 98 °C for 15 min and then PCR checked to confirm that the desired gene was deleted, either with the deletion carried on the pUT18C recombinant plasmid or a de novo CRISPR-generated deletion that eliminated the appropriate gene. Serial dilutions were prepared for 1–2 correct phage plaques, which were then replaqued onto top agar lawns of pCas9 selection strains and incubated overnight at 37 °C for stringent selection. The next day, a single phage plaque was picked from the top agar lawn using a P20 pipette set to 15 μl and pipetted directly into an OD600 ~ 0.2–0.4 exponentially growing culture that maintained the same selection for the mutant phage. The phage-infected culture was grown overnight at 37 °C with shaking. The next day, the tube was spun down at 15,000g for 10 min at 4 °C. The phage-containing supernatant was filtered using an Acrodisc 13 mm SUPOR 0.45 μm syringe filter (Pall, 4604) into a 15 ml conical tube. In some cases, an arabinose-inducible type I-E CRISPR–Cas expressing E. coli MG1655 strain, ACT-01, with a pACYC184-based plasmid expressing an arabinose-inducible type I-E CRISPR spacer was used to select for the recombinant phage. In these instances, 0.2% l-arabinose was included in all media for proper phage selection through type I-E CRISPR–Cas targeting. To make the T4 Δa-gt phage, instead of CRISPR selection, E. coli EC100/pBrig1 was used to select for the pUT18C-recombined phage. PCR and Sanger sequencing confirmed the desired in-frame deletion of a-gt in the mutant phage, matching the exact deletion carried on the pUT18C-da-gt recombination plasmid.

    To make the T4(+β-GT) phage, which is T4 phage carrying a higher-than-normal fraction of β-glucosyl-hmC nucleobases, wild-type T4 was passaged through E. coli EC100 carrying the plasmid p(b-gt), which overexpresses T4 β-GT under 1 mM isopropyl-β-d-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG) induction. An overnight culture of E. coli EC100/p(b-gt) was diluted 1:50 in 10 ml LB medium supplemented with 50 μg ml−1 spectinomycin and 1 mM IPTG. After approximately 1 h 15 min of culture growth, OD600 was measured for the culture and confirmed to be between 0.2-0.4. The 10 ml culture was then infected with 2 μl of wild-type T4 phage stock and grown overnight at 37 °C with shaking. The next day, the tube was spun down at 15,000g for 10 min at 4 °C. The phage-containing supernatant was filtered using an Acrodisc 13 mm SUPOR 0.45 μm syringe filter (Pall, 4604) into a 15 ml conical tube.

    Please refer to Supplementary Data File 2 for the plasmids used to generate each mutant phage. All final phage stocks were titred on top agar lawns of E. coli EC100 and stored at 4 °C. The list of phages used in this study are also available in Supplementary Data File 2.

    Plaque assays and efficiency of plaquing analysis

    Overnight cultures were launched from single colonies in 3 ml of LB medium supplemented with appropriate antibiotic(s). Top agar lawns of E. coli were prepared by mixing 100 μl of overnight culture with 6 ml of LB top agar (LB broth Lennox base, 0.5% agar) supplemented with appropriate antibiotic(s). Top agar mixtures were poured over LB agar in 10 cm plates supplemented with appropriate antibiotic(s). Where necessary, 0.2% l-arabinose was included in the overnight media as well as in the LB top agar and the LB agar plate. Plates were dried at room temperature, partially open by a sterilizing flame, for 25 min for the top agar to solidify. Serial dilutions of phage stock were prepared and spotted on the top agar after drying. For imaging of plaque assays, 2.5 μl of each phage dilution was spotted on top agar using a multichannel pipette. For quantification of phage titres, efficiency of plaquing, and isolation of single phage plaques for phage DNA sequencing, 3–3.5 μl of each phage dilution was spotted on top agar using a multichannel pipette and the plate was tilted to allow phage spots to drip down the plate for easier quantification and isolation of single plaques. In all cases, plates were incubated at 37 °C overnight after drying at room temperature for 25 min or until the plates were completely dry. Overnight plaque assays were imaged the next day (~16–24 h after infection) using the FluorChem HD2 system (ProteinSimple). Plaque assay images were all auto-contrasted using Adobe Photoshop to give clearer images. In some cases, image brightness was enhanced further using Adobe Photoshop for better visualization of phage spots. Plaque assays with BASEL phages reported in Extended Data Fig. 9e were performed in larger 15 cm plates of LB agar supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol, to allow for plaquing of up to ten different phages on a single lawn. Here, the protocol was performed exactly as above, except with scaled up volumes: 300 μl of overnight culture was mixed with 15 ml of LB top agar supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol. As before, 2.5 μl of each phage dilution was spotted on top agar using a multichannel pipette.

    In Extended Data Fig. 2i, efficiency of plaquing was quantified as the number of plaques formed by the phage on an E. coli EC100/pBrig1 (targeting) lawn divided by the number of plaques formed by the same phage on an E. coli EC100/pWEB-TNC (control) lawn. In Extended Data Fig. 9c, to quantify phage plaques of T6 and T6 Δba-gt formed on E. coli EC100/pBrig1 (targeting) lawns, infections were spread out across the entire top agar lawns to accurately count individual plaque-forming units (PFUs). To this end, 100 μl of phage stock normalized to ~1 × 106 PFU μl−1 (so ~108 PFUs total) was mixed with 100 μl of overnight culture and then mixed with 6 ml LB top agar (with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol) and subsequently poured over an LB agar plate, supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol. Top agar plates were incubated at 37 °C overnight after drying at room temperature for 25 min. The next day, single plaques were counted across the entire top agar lawn. To accurately determine the total PFUs added of each phage, plaquing of serial dilutions of the ~1 × 106 PFU μl−1 normalized phage stocks was performed following the standard procedure of a plaque assay outlined above, using 3.5 μl drips of each phage dilution to facilitate more precise quantification of phage titres. Efficiency of plaquing was quantified as the total number of plaques formed by the phage across an entire E. coli EC100/pBrig1 (targeting) lawn divided by the experimentally estimated total number of PFUs added.

    Functional selection of a T4-resistant clone in the AZ52 soil DNA library in E. coli

    The DNA library we used was generated in an earlier study using DNA extracted from an arid soil sample collected in Arizona11. The library, AZ52, is comprised of large ~40 kb DNA fragments from soil microorganisms cloned into a pWEB-TNC cosmid. The insert-carrying cosmids were transformed into E. coli EC100 cells (Lucigen), generating a soil DNA library with approximately 20 million clones, divided into megapools carrying roughly 1.25 million clones each.

    Each clone within the library houses a cosmid with a soil DNA insert, which carries genes from soil-derived microorganisms. Soil-derived genes can therefore be expressed heterologously in our library system. We performed our functional screen using the coliphage T4. To grow up libraries, we scraped frozen library stocks of E. coli EC100 carrying megapools 3–16 of the AZ52 DNA library into separate tubes with 10 ml LB supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol and grew cultures overnight at 37 °C with shaking. The next day, we infected E. coli EC100 overnight cultures with T4 at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 10, high enough to kill almost all clones without bona fide immunity. Infections were performed in 6 ml LB top agar with 500 μl of overnight stationary culture mixed with phage at MOI 10 on LB agar plates, supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol. We incubated plates at 37 °C for 36–48 h and then inspected surviving colonies within top agar infections. We found that only megapool 4 showed an increased number of surviving colonies upon T4 infection compared to an infection of E. coli EC100 cells carrying an empty pWEB-TNC cosmid (control).

    As cells may survive T4 infection due to mutations within the E. coli host that prevent phage infection and not due to immunity genes carried within the soil DNA cosmids, we wanted to enrich for true immunity genes carried on cosmids. To eliminate false positive clones, we extracted pooled cosmid DNA from the surviving colonies on the enriched plate. To do this, we scraped top agar with surviving colonies into a 50 ml conical tube, melted the top agar in a 98 °C heating block for 10–15 min until the top agar was completely melted, and then centrifuged the tube at ~4,000g for 5 min at room temperature to collect a cell pellet from which surviving cosmids were isolated using the QIAprep Spin Miniprep Kit (QIAGEN, 27106). The miniprepped cosmid pool was then transformed into 50 μl of electrocompetent E. coli EC100 cells (Lucigen) through electroporation (1 mm Bio-Rad Gene Pulser cuvette at 1.8 kV) and recovered in 1 ml SOC medium. After 1.5 h of recovery, cells were assayed for transformation efficiency by pipetting tenfold serial dilutions of the transformation culture on to an LB agar plate supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol. While the plate was grown overnight at 37 °C, the remaining transformation culture was stored overnight at 4 °C. The next day, based on the calculated transformation efficiency, the transformation culture was spread onto ten 15 cm LB agar plates supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol, plating for ~30,000 colonies on each plate, for a total of ~300,000 colonies. Plates were incubated overnight at 37 °C and the next day colonies from all ten plates were scraped into 20 ml LB, vortexed and inverted to mix, and then diluted to OD600 = 10. The OD600 = 10 colony mixture was then mixed 1:1 with 50% glycerol to make a −80 °C freezer stock of a 1× phage-enriched DNA library for AZ52 megapool 4. This library was then grown up for re-infection with T4 and the steps described above were repeated two more times to generate a freezer stock of a 3× phage-enriched DNA library for AZ52 megapool 4.

    We sampled colonies from the 3×-enriched library for anti-phage immunity by streaking the library to single colonies on an LB agar plate supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol. Sixteen single colonies were grown overnight in LB supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol at 37 °C with shaking. Colonies were assayed for anti-phage immunity using plaque assays (described above) with phages λvir and T4. Of the sixteen colonies, twelve were found to carry immunity against T4 and none against λvir. Cosmids were isolated from the twelve T4-resistant clones using the QIAprep Spin Miniprep Kit (QIAGEN, 27106) and sent for Sanger sequencing by Genewiz/Azenta using the universal primers T7 and M13F40, which flank the metagenomic DNA insert within the pWEB-TNC cosmid. Sequencing the T4-resistant cosmids revealed they all contained the same metagenomic DNA insert, suggesting that they all originated from the same T4-resistant library clone. One of the twelve T4-resistant clones was frozen at −80 °C (900 μl culture + 100 μl DMSO) for use in future experiments.

    Cosmid sequencing, assembly and gene annotation

    Cosmid DNA was extracted using the QIAprep Spin Miniprep Kit (QIAGEN, 27106). DNA was sequenced using the Nextera XT DNA Library Preparation Kit (Illumina, FC-131-1024). Paired-end 2 × 75 bp sequencing was conducted using the 150-cycle MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 (Illumina, MS-102-3001) on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Geneious Prime was used to assemble the cosmid genome, using the Geneious assembler (medium sensitivity/fast) on 100,000 paired-end DNA sequencing reads. The sequence of the cosmid harbouring Brig1 was deposited on GenBank, accession number OR880862. SnapGene was used to predict ORFs with ATG or GTG start codons (minimum length: 50 amino acids) within the metagenomic DNA insert of the assembled cosmid genome. Predicted ORFs were then run through NCBI PSI-BLAST (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PAGE=Proteins) and HHpred49,50 (https://toolkit.tuebingen.mpg.de/tools/hhpred) to ascertain protein function where possible. Side-by-side genome annotation was also performed using the Bacterial and Viral Bioinformatics Resource Center (BV-BRC) Genome Annotation Service (https://www.bv-brc.org/app/Annotation), with the annotation recipe for Bacteria/Archaea and the taxonomy name set to Nocardiodes, taxonomy ID 1839. Defence genes and systems were identified using DefenseFinder51,52 (https://defense-finder.mdmparis-lab.com/) and the Prokaryotic Antiviral Defence LOCator (PADLOC)53,54 (https://padloc.otago.ac.nz/padloc/).

    Subcloning of the T4-resistant cosmid to identify the T4 anti-phage system

    To identify the immunity gene(s) in our cosmid, we subcloned four DNA fragments (A–D) that span the entire length of the metagenomic insert sequence. DNA fragments were amplified using 10 ng of cosmid DNA as template for PCR amplification using Phusion High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase (Thermo Scientific, F530L) with 1 M betaine (Sigma-Aldrich, B0300) and 1 μl DMSO in a 50 μl PCR reaction. Fragments were cloned into PCR-amplified pWEB-TNC cosmid backbones using NEBuilder HiFi DNA Assembly Master Mix (NEB, E2621L). NEBuilder HiFi DNA assembly was carried out at 50 °C in a thermal cycler for 4 h, and then 5 μl of the assembly reaction was transformed into 50 μl of chemically competent E. coli EC100 cells (Lucigen). Cells were incubated on ice for 30 min, heat shocked in a 42 °C water bath for 30 s, placed back on ice for 2 min and then recovered in 250 μl SOC for 2 h. Cells were then plated on LB agar supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol and incubated overnight at 37 °C. The next day, 8 colonies were picked, grown overnight in LB supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol and their cosmids miniprepped the next day using the QIAprep Spin Miniprep Kit (QIAGEN, 27106). Miniprepped cosmids were sent for Sanger sequencing by Genewiz/Azenta using the universal primers T7 and M13F40, which flank the subcloned DNA fragment inserted into the pWEB-TNC cosmid backbone. Colonies that harboured cosmids with correct insert fragments were then assayed for immunity against phage T4 using plaque assays (see above). Plaque assays identified Fragment D as the fragment harbouring anti-T4 immunity. Fragment D was further subdivided into Fragments D1, D2 and D3, cloned and tested for immunity as described above. Fragment D3, containing a three-gene operon, was identified as the minimal DNA fragment carrying anti-T4 immunity. To determine the gene or genes responsible within the Fragment D3 operon, we generated six cosmid constructs (D3-1 to D3-6) containing different numbers and combinations of the three genes within the operon, each time being driven by the same promoter upstream of the first gene within the operon. These constructs were then tested using plaque assays to identify the gene within the operon that conveyed anti-T4 immunity.

    NCBI blastn of the T4-resistant metagenomic DNA sequence

    To identify possible organisms that our metagenomic DNA comes from, we performed a nucleotide BLAST on NCBI using the algorithm for somewhat similar sequences (blastn) (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PROGRAM=blastn&BLAST_SPEC=GeoBlast&PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch). We performed blastn on the DNA sequences of Fragments C and D (see above and Extended Data Fig. 1c).

    T4 phage adsorption assay

    Overnight cultures of E. coli EC100 cells carrying pWEB-TNC or pBrig1 were diluted 1:50 in 10 ml LB medium supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol. After 1 h 15 min of culture growth, OD600 was measured for each culture and normalized to OD600 = 0.3. Cultures were then infected with T4 at MOI 0.01 and incubated at 37 °C with shaking for 50 min. A 10 ml bacteria-free, media-only control (LB + 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol) was mixed with the same volume of T4 and incubated alongside the cultures at 37 °C with shaking for 50 min. Phage-infected cultures were sampled at the following time points: 0-, 10-, 20-, 30-, 40- and 50-min post-infection. At each time point, 400 μl was collected from each phage-infected culture and spun down in 1.5 ml Eppendorf tubes at 15,000 rpm for 2 min in a tabletop microcentrifuge at 4 °C. Phage-containing supernatants were filtered using Acrodisc 13 mm SUPOR 0.45 μM syringe filters (Pall, 4604) into fresh 1.5 ml Eppendorf tubes. Filtered phage supernatants were used to prepare two sets of serial dilutions to estimate phage titres on fresh top agar lawns of E. coli K-12 MG1655. Top agar plates were incubated at 37 °C. The next day, phage plaques were counted to determine phage titres at each time point. The experiment was repeated another two times in this manner for three independent biological replicates.

    qPCR of phage DNA replication

    To quantify phage DNA replication within an infected E. coli cell, overnight cultures of E. coli EC100 cells carrying pWEB-TNC or pBrig1 were diluted 1:50 in 50 ml of LB medium supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol. After 1 h 15 min of growth, OD600 was measured, and the culture was normalized to OD600 = 0.3. 700 μl of culture was dispensed between multiple 1.5 ml Eppendorf tubes, corresponding to three replicates and multiple time points for each infection being monitored. These 700 μl cultures were infected with phage T4 at MOI 1 and incubated at 37 °C with shaking for specified time points. At each time point, samples were removed from the incubator and tubes spun down at 15,000 rpm for 1 min in a tabletop microcentrifuge at 4 °C. Supernatants were removed and cell pellets immediately frozen down at −80 °C for DNA extraction later. Additionally, 1–3 uninfected tubes for cells carrying pWEB-TNC or pBrig1 were also prepared for DNA extraction as no-phage controls for qPCR.

    Total DNA was extracted from frozen E. coli cell pellets using the Promega Wizard Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Promega, A1125) following the protocol for Gram-negative bacteria. Extracted DNA was quantified using the Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kit and each sample was normalized to 4 ng μl−1. A total of 32 ng DNA was used as input for qPCR, performed using Fast SYBR Green Master Mix (Applied Biosystems, 4385612) and the QuantStudio 3 Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems) with primer pairs AA870/AA871 (T4 gp43 target), AA872/AA873 (T4 gp34 target) and AA387/AA388 (E. coli K-12 MG1655 dxs control). For qPCR data analysis, ΔΔCt values were calculated for the two T4 qPCR targets for each replicate at each time point. Fold-change values were then calculated for each replicate relative to the mean ΔΔCt value for cells carrying pWEB-TNC infected with T4 phage at the earliest time point post-infection for a given experiment. The mean fold change of three biological replicates was plotted for each time point post-infection.

    Next-generation sequencing of phage DNA in T4-infected E. coli cells

    Overnight cultures of E. coli EC100 cells carrying pWEB-TNC or pBrig1 were diluted 1:50 in 10 ml of LB medium supplemented with 12.5 μg ml−1 chloramphenicol. After 1 h 15 min of growth, OD600 was measured, and cultures were normalized to OD600 = 0.3. Cultures were then infected at MOI 5 with T4 or T4 escaper1 for 8 min at 37 °C with shaking, prior to centrifugation at 15,000g for 5 min at 4 °C and subsequent freezing of cell pellets at −80 °C. All cell pellets were stored at −80 °C at least overnight, until ready for genomic DNA purification using the Promega Wizard Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Promega, A1125) following the protocol for Gram-negative bacteria. Purified genomic DNA was sheared using a pre-split snap-cap 6×16 mm Covaris microTUBE (Covaris, 520045) in a Covaris S220 focused-ultrasonicator and prepared for next-generation sequencing using the Illumina TruSeq Nano DNA LT kit (Illumina, 20015964). Paired-end 2 × 75 bp sequencing was conducted using the 150-cycle MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 (Illumina, MS-102-3001) on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Illumina paired-end sequencing reads were aligned to phage genomes using a custom Python script, where the recorded number of phage-derived sequencing reads at a specific base pair position within the phage genome was normalized to the total sequencing reads for each sample.

    Phage DNA extraction

    Phage genomic DNA was extracted from capsids using a previously described protocol55. In brief, three tubes of 450 μl of a phage stock were first treated with DNase I (Invitrogen, 18068015) and RNase A (Promega, A7973) in DNase I buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8, 2 mM MgCl2), the reaction stopped with EDTA (Invitrogen, AM9260G), then capsids digested with Proteinase K (NEB, P8107S), and finally phage genomic DNA extracted using the DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit (QIAGEN, 69504). DNA was quantified using the Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kit and assessed for quality using a nanodrop spectrophotometer.

    T4 and T4 escaper1 genome sequencing and assembly

    Phage genomic DNA was sequenced using the Nextera XT DNA Library Preparation Kit (Illumina, FC-131-1024). Paired-end 2 × 75 bp sequencing was conducted using the 150-cycle MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 (Illumina, MS-102-3001) on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Reads were quality-trimmed using Sickle (https://github.com/najoshi/sickle) and assembled into contigs using ABySS (https://github.com/bcgsc/abyss). Finally, contigs were mapped to a reference phage T4 genome (GenBank: AF158101.6) using Medusa (http://combo.dbe.unifi.it/medusa). Automated genome annotation was performed using SnapGene and a reference phage T4 genome from NCBI (GenBank: AF158101.6). Alignment of the T4 and T4 escaper1 genomes to the reference T4 genome revealed differential mutations between the two assembled phage genomes.

    Sanger sequencing of bacteriophage escapers

    T4 or T6 phage plaques on lawns of E. coli EC100 cells carrying pBrig1 were isolated and resuspended in 20 μl of LB medium. Serial dilutions were prepared from the resuspended phage and spotted on a fresh LB top agar lawn of E. coli EC100 carrying pBrig1 to maintain selection of the escaper phage. The plate was incubated at 37 °C overnight. The next day a single phage plaque was picked from the top agar lawn using a P20 pipette set to 15 μl and resuspended in 20 μl of colony lysis buffer48. Resuspended phage mixtures were boiled at 98 °C for 15 min in a thermal cycler, and 1 μl of the boiled phage mixture was then used as template for PCR amplification using Phusion High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase (Thermo Scientific, F530L) with primers AA681/AA682 to amplify T4 a-gt and primers AA1115/AA1116 to amplify T6 a-gt. PCR products were submitted to Sanger sequencing by Genewiz/Azenta to identify mutations in a-gt. Wild-type T4 and T6 phage stocks were also PCR-amplified at a-gt loci and sent for Sanger sequencing to provide reference sequences for comparison. Snapgene was used to align Sanger sequencing products of the escaper phages to wild-type a-gt sequences to identify escape mutations.

    Brig1 structural predictions using AlphaFold2

    The structure of the intact (261 amino acid) Brig1 protein was predicted using the colab implementation of AlphaFold217,18 (https://colab.research.google.com/github/sokrypton/ColabFold/blob/main/AlphaFold2.ipynb) using default settings (except that the amber option was turned on to improve side chain rotamers). The highest ranked PDB structure produced by ColabFold (ptm = 0.86) was then visualized using PyMOL (The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 2.5.5, Schrödinger, LLC; www.pymol.org/pymol.html). Protein structure predictions of the Brig1 homologues from Nocardioides zhouii and Nocardiodes anomalus were performed in the same way. Cavities and pockets were visualized in PyMOL using default settings for surface calculation and the ‘cavities and pockets only’ option for display.

    Purification of Brig1

    The brig1 gene was recloned into the Nde1 and XhoI sites of pET21a using PCR primers that destroyed the XhoI site and added a His6 tag immediately after the native C-terminal glycine of Brig1. The insert was verified by DNA sequencing. E. coli strain Rosetta(DE3)pLysS was used for protein expression. Cells were grown in LB medium with 100 μg ml−1 ampicillin at 37 °C. 0.5 mM IPTG was added to induce protein expression when OD600 ~ 0.7, followed by further growth at 37 °C for 2 h. Cell pellets were resuspended in Ni column buffer A (50 mM phosphate, 1 M NaCl, 5% glycerol, 1 mM DTT, pH 7.5) with complete mini protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche), one tablet per litre culture. After adding lysozyme to a final concentration of 200 mg ml−1, the mixture was sonicated 3 times for 1 min each, then centrifuged at 20,000 rpm in an SS-34 rotor for 1 h. The supernatant was filtered and loaded onto a Ni column (Cytiva, HisTrap HP, 17-5248-02), and eluted with a 30-minute gradient of 0 to 100% buffer B (Ni buffer A plus 500 mM imidazole, pH 7.5). Brig1-containing fractions were pooled and diluted with heparin column buffer A (25 mM MES, 0.5 mM EDTA, 5% glycerol, 1 mM DTT, pH 6), loaded on a heparin column (Cytiva, HiTrap Heparin HP, 17-0406-01) and eluted with a gradient from 10% to 70% heparin buffer B (heparin column buffer A + 2 M NaCl, pH 6) over 90 min. The purest fractions were pooled and concentrated, then dialysed into storage buffer (20 mM Tris, 0.5 mM EDTA, 200 mM NaCl, 20% glycerol, 2 mM DTT, pH 8) and flash-frozen in small aliquots.

    Purification of T4 α-glucosyltransferase

    A pET15b derivative encoding N-terminally His6 tagged phage T4 α-GT was used for protein expression. Rosetta(DE3)pLysS cells harbouring this plasmid were grown and induced as for Brig1, but after induction grown at 20 °C overnight rather than for 2 h at 37 °C. The same purification protocol as for Brig1 was followed except for a change in the pH of the heparin column buffers (A = 25 mM HEPES, 0.5 mM EDTA, 5% glycerol, 1 mM DTT, pH 7 and B = A + 2 M NaCl, pH 7). The purest fractions were pooled and concentrated, then dialysed into storage buffer (20 mM Tris, 0.5 mM EDTA, 200 mM NaCl, 20% glycerol, 2 mM DTT, pH 8) and flash-frozen in small aliquots.

    Purification of Brig1(Y121A/E147A) mutant

    The Brig1(Y121A/E147A) mutant protein was purified according to a modified protocol. For consistency, wild-type Brig1 was purified according to this same protocol, side-by-side, and this batch of purified Brig1 protein was used only in experiments where Brig1(Y121A/E147A) was used. Both Brig1 and Brig1(Y121A/E147A) were cloned into a pET21a vector, with a His6 tag immediately after the native C-terminal glycine of Brig1. E. coli strain BL21(DE3) was used for protein expression. Cells were grown in LB medium with 100 μg ml−1 ampicillin at 37 °C overnight. The next day, a 1:100 dilution of the overnight was grown in 1 l of LB medium with 100 μg ml−1 ampicillin at 37 °C for 3-4 h. 0.5 mM IPTG was added to induce protein expression when OD600 ~ 0.7, followed by overnight growth (~16 h) at 18 °C. Cells were pelleted at 4500 rpm at 4 °C (Eppendorf Centrifuge 5810 R) for 15 min. Cell pellets were resuspended in 20 ml of lysis buffer (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.7, 150 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 1 mM TCEP, 30 mM imidazole, 2 Roche mini protease inhibitor tabs EDTA free, 0.5 mg ml−1 lysozyme) and incubated on ice for 1 h with shaking. The resuspended pellets were then sonicated using a Qsonica Q500 sonicator (70% amplitude with 10 s on, 30 s off for 2.5 min). The sonicated samples were spun down at 12,000 rpm at 4 °C (Eppendorf Centrifuge 5810 R) for 30 min and the supernatant run through a gravity column loaded with 3 ml of HisPur Ni-NTA Resin (Thermo Scientific, 88222). Before passing supernatant, the column was equilibrated with equilibration buffer (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.7, 150 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 1 mM TCEP, 30 mM imidazole). Then, the ~20 ml of sonicated cell pellet supernatant was passed through the column. The column was washed twice with 25 ml wash buffer (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.7, 500 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 1 mM TCEP, 30 mM imidazole) and then eluted with 20 ml elution buffer (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.7, 150 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 1 mM TCEP, 300 mM imidazole). The eluted protein was concentrated to <500 μl using an Amicon Ultra-4 Centrifugal Filter, 10 kDa MWCO (Millipore, UFC801024), with multiple rounds of centrifugation at 4,300g for 10 min at 4 °C (Eppendorf Centrifuge 5810 R), carefully resuspending the mixture between rounds of centrifugation via pipette mixing. The concentrated eluant was run on an ÄKTA pure chromatography system (Cytiva) fitted with a Superdex 75 Increase 10/300 GL column (Cytiva, 29148721) using storage buffer (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.7, 150 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 1 mM TCEP). Two peaks, corresponding to fractions 17–20 and 22–27, were collected and separately pooled. Pooled fractions were concentrated to <500 μl using an Amicon Ultra-0.5 Centrifugal Filter, 10 kDa MWCO (Millipore, UFC501096), with multiple rounds of centrifugation at 13,000g for 5 min in a tabletop microcentrifuge at 4 °C, carefully resuspending the mixture between rounds of centrifugation via pipette mixing. For both Brig1 and Brig1(Y121A/E147A), the second peak (fractions 22–26 for Brig1 and fractions 23–27 for the mutant) was determined to be free of nucleic acid contamination via nanodrop and found to contain pure protein (~29 kDa) by a Coomassie gel. Concentrated protein was flash-frozen in small aliquots and stored at −80 °C for future use.

    Annealing of ssDNA oligonucleotides

    To generate dsDNA substrates for MfeI digestion and for DNA glycosylase assays, complementary ssDNA oligonucleotides were annealed. In brief, 1:1 molar ratios of top and bottom strand complementary ssDNA oligonucleotides (25–50 μM each) were mixed in a 60 μl reaction containing NaCl to a final concentration of 100 mM. The reaction was heated at 80 °C for 20 min in a water bath or thermal cycler and then allowed to cool very slowly to room temperature. Annealed oligonucleotides were purified using an oligonucleotide cleanup kit (Zymo Research, Oligo Clean & Concentrator Kit, D4061) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

    Generation of glucosylated ssDNA and dsDNA oligonucleotides

    We tested the activity of α-GT on both single- and double-stranded DNA as previous studies only tested dsDNA substrates56. The ssDNA substrates were hmdC_18, hmdC_60_MfeI and hmdC_60_MfeI_Bot, which are 18mer and 60mer oligonucleotides, each containing a single hmC residue (Supplementary Data File 2). The dsDNA substrate was hmdC_60_MfeI annealed to Bot_MfeI_60 (Supplementary Data File 2). Substrate DNAs (100 μM for ssDNA and 50 μM for dsDNA) were mixed at a 1:1 molar ratio with α-GT in 1× NEBuffer 4 (50 mM potassium acetate, 20 mM Tris-acetate, 10 mM magnesium acetate, 1 mM DTT, pH 7.9) supplemented with 2 mM UDP-glucose (NEB, supplied with NEB T4 β-GT). All samples were incubated at 37 °C overnight, then purified with an oligonucleotide cleanup kit (Zymo Research, Oligo Clean & Concentrator Kit, D4061) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. A subset of the ss- and dsDNA substrates were also treated with β-GT (NEB, M0357S) following the supplier’s instructions and purified as described above.

    Modification by α-GT (or β-GT) was monitored by digestion with MfeI-HF (NEB, R3589S), which is blocked by the presence of glucosylated hmC but not by hmC (the modified C in hmdC_60_MfeI and in hmdC_60_MfeI_Bot is within an MfeI site, Supplementary Data File 2). Before digestion, single-stranded α-GT- or β-GT-treated hmdC_60_MfeI oligonucleotides were annealed to Bot_MfeI_60 or to untreated or α-GT-treated hmdC_60_MfeI_Bot. Approximately 1.5 μg (Extended Data Fig. 3e) or 500 ng (Extended Data Fig. 5c) of each sample was digested with MfeI-HF (NEB, R3589S) for 1 h, then electrophoresed on a 10% TBE gel (Invitrogen, EC6275BOX, 10-well or EC62755BOX, 15-well) at 140 V for 35 min. Gels were stained with 2 μg ml−1 ethidium bromide for 20 min, extensively rinsed with distilled water (3× for 10 min each), and then scanned using a ChemiDoc MP imager (Bio-Rad) set to UV trans illumination and the machine’s 605/50 filter to detect ethidium bromide (Extended Data Fig. 3e) or using the Amersham ImageQuant 800 set to UV fluorescence (Extended Data Fig. 5c).

    DNA glycosylase assays with ssDNA oligonucleotides

    Detection of the abasic site with an aldehyde-reactive probe

    We used an aldehyde-reactive fluorescent probe, AZDye 488 Hydroxylamine, (fluoroprobes.com) to detect removal of a base from the phosphodiester backbone in the absence of DNA cleavage. The dye was dissolved in distilled water to form a 10 μg μl−1 stock solution.

    DNA glycosylase reactions were carried out in a reaction buffer containing 45 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 0.4 mM EDTA, 2% glycerol, 1 mM DTT and 50 mM KCl, in a total reaction volume of 50 μl. The final DNA concentrations were 2 μM. Brig1 was added to single-stranded α-GT- and β-GT-treated hmdC_60_MfeI to a final concentration of 35 μM, while 2 μl (10 units; 5 units per μl) of SMUG1 (NEB, M0336S) was added to dU_60 as a positive control. Reactions were incubated overnight at 37 °C, after which 2 μl AZDye 488 dye was added, followed by incubation at 37 °C for 30 min. 1/10 volume of 10% SDS was then added and incubated for another 30 min and purified by phenol/chloroform extraction. Samples were then treated with an oligonucleotide cleanup kit (Zymo Research, Oligo Clean & Concentrator Kit, D4061) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, eluted with 15 μl nuclease-free water, mixed with loading dye and electrophoresed for 45 min at 180 V on a 10% TBE gel (Invitrogen, EC62755BOX). The gel was stained with 2 μg ml−1 ethidium bromide for 20 min, extensively rinsed with distilled water (3× for 10 min each), then scanned using a ChemiDoc MP imager (Bio-Rad) set to UV trans illumination and the machine’s 605/50 filter to detect ethidium bromide and then using blue epi illumination with the 530/28 filter for the AZDye 488 fluorescent probe.

    Detection by NaOH- or endonuclease IV-mediated cleavage of the abasic site

    DNA glycosylase reactions were carried out in a reaction buffer containing 45 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 0.4 mM EDTA, 2% glycerol, 1 mM DTT and 50 mM KCl, in a total reaction volume of 50 μl. The final ssDNA or dsDNA concentrations were 1 μM. Brig1 or Brig1(Y121A/E147A) was added to a final concentration of 1 μM (unless stated otherwise—for example, range of 50–1,600 nM in Extended Data Fig. 7b), while 1 μl (5 units) of SMUG1 (NEB, M0336S) was added as a positive control. Reactions were incubated at 37 °C overnight, unless stated otherwise (for example, 30 min in Extended Data Fig. 7b). Following enzymatic incubation, one set of samples was directly processed with an oligonucleotide cleanup kit (Zymo Research, Oligo Clean & Concentrator Kit, D4061) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. A second matched set of samples was treated with NaOH before cleanup: 25 μl of 0.5 M NaOH was added to each 50 μl sample and then heated at 90 °C for 30 min before purification with the oligonucleotide cleanup kit (Zymo Research, Oligo Clean & Concentrator Kit, D4061) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All samples were eluted from the cleanup columns in 15 μl nuclease-free water. Five microlitres of each was mixed with loading dye and loaded onto a 10% TBE gel (Invitrogen, EC62755BOX) and electrophoresed at 140 V for 35 min. Gels were stained with 2 μg ml−1 ethidium bromide for 20 min, extensively rinsed with distilled water (3× for 10 min each), and then scanned using a ChemiDoc MP imager (Bio-Rad) set to UV trans illumination and the machine’s 605/50 filter to detect ethidium bromide (Extended Data Fig. 3h) or using the Amersham ImageQuant 800 set to UV fluorescence (all other relevant figures). For Urea-PAGE gels, eluted samples were first denatured by mixing 5 μl of purified sample with 5 μl of 2× TBE-Urea Sample Buffer (Invitrogen, LC6876) and then heated at 70 °C for 3 min. Denatured samples were loaded onto a 6% TBE-Urea gel (Invitrogen, EC68655BOX) and electrophoresed at 140 V for 35 min. Gels were soaked in ethidium bromide and rinsed with distilled water as described above, before imaging with the Amersham ImageQuant 800 set to UV fluorescence. For all gels, DNA ladders were made by mixing 20-, 40- and 60-bp ssDNA or dsDNA oligonucleotides (Supplementary Data File 2) and loading them onto their corresponding gels at ~100 ng each oligonucleotide per load.

    For abasic site detection by NEB endonuclease IV (Endo IV), DNA glycosylase reactions were set up as described above and incubated with Brig1 overnight. Three matched sets of reactions were set up. After overnight incubation, one matched set of samples was treated with NaOH as described above and purified using the Zymo Research Oligo Clean & Concentrator Kit (D4061) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The remaining two matched sets of samples were processed directly using the oligonucleotide cleanup kit. The purified samples were then incubated at 37 °C for 4 h in a 50 μl reaction with 1× NEBuffer 3 (100 mM NaCl, 50 mM Tris-HCl, 10 mM MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, pH 7.9), with or without 50 units of NEB Endo IV (5 μl; 10 units per μl; M0304S). After 4 h, reactions were purified using the Zymo Research Oligo Clean & Concentrator Kit according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All the purified samples were then loaded onto a 10% TBE gel (Invitrogen, EC62755BOX), electrophoresed at 140 V for 35 min, stained with ethidium bromide as described above and imaged with the Amersham ImageQuant 800 set to UV fluorescence.

    High-resolution mass spectrometry of SMUG1- and Brig1-treated ssDNA oligonucleotides

    DNA glycosylase reactions were carried out in a reaction buffer containing 45 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 0.4 mM EDTA, 2% glycerol, 1 mM DTT and 50 mM KCl, in a total reaction volume of 50 μl. Reactions were performed with 18mer ssDNA oligonucleotides: dU_18, hmdC_18 and α-GT-treated hmdC_18 (Supplementary Data File 2). The final ssDNA concentration in each reaction was 2 μM. Brig1 was added to a final concentration of 2 μM, while 2 μl (10 units) of SMUG1 (NEB, M0336S) was added as a positive control. A no-enzyme reaction was used as a negative control. 2 ×50 μl reactions were set up for each reaction condition with the dU_18 oligonucleotide, while 8 ×50 μl reactions were set up for each reaction condition with hmdC_18 and α-GT-treated hmdC_18. Reactions were incubated overnight at 37 °C. After overnight incubation, all matched samples were pooled and processed with an oligonucleotide cleanup kit (Zymo Research, Oligo Clean & Concentrator Kit, D4061) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

    For mass spectrometry, purified oligonucleotide samples were dried using vacuum centrifugation and dissolved in 50/50 water/acetonitrile with 0.001% triethylammonium bicarbonate. The pH of the solution was found to be comparable to that of deionized water. The samples were introduced to the mass spectrometer by manual injection using a Hamilton syringe applying pressure by hand at approximately 10 μl min−1. Samples were analysed using an orbitrap Ascend tribrid mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific) operating in negative mode. Spectra were recorded in the mass range 600–1,300 m/z at 120,000 resolution. A blank injection was introduced after each sample to eliminate carryover.

    Raw data was inspected using the Xcalibur Quality Browser (Thermo Scientific) and spectra were summed as necessary to provide representative spectra with a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). Spectra were further processed using UniDec deconvolution software57 with the following parameters: sampling resolution and peak FWHM were both set to 0.1, adduct mass was defined as −1.007276 Da, and charge states were defined 4–12 based on observations from the raw data. The m/z range was adjusted to fit the data and to exclude singly charged noise. Apart from the mass of the oligonucleotides, additional masses from metal adducts were also observed.

    DNA glycosylase assays with phage and cosmid DNA

    All reactions were performed in 50 μl reaction volumes in a reaction buffer containing 45 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 0.4 mM EDTA, 2% glycerol, 1 mM DTT and 50 mM KCl. Assays were performed by incubating 50–500 ng of extracted phage genomic DNA from capsids or miniprepped pWEB-TNC cosmid DNA with varying concentrations (2–800 nM) of purified Brig1 or Brig1(Y121A/E147A) or with 10 units of NEB SMUG1 (NEB, M0336S) as a negative control. Reactions were incubated in a thermal cycler at 37 °C for 30 min (or at 37 °C for 30 min plus an additional 20 min at 65 °C in Extended Data Fig. 6c, to cleave DNA at abasic sites and denature the glycosylase prior to gel electrophoresis). Reactions were then mixed with 10 μl of purple 6× loading dye with no SDS (NEB, B7025S) and the entire reaction volume was loaded onto a 1% agarose gel containing ethidium bromide. Unless stated otherwise, the gel was run for 70 min at 85 V at room temperature and then imaged using a UV gel imager (Amersham ImageQuant 800 set to UV fluorescence). Where SDS was used for protein denaturation (Extended Data Fig. 6d), all steps were carried out as described above except, before gel loading, a purple 6× gel loading dye containing a final 1× concentration of 0.08% SDS (NEB, B7024S) was used instead of loading dye without SDS.

    For the gel in Extended Data Fig. 6a,b, samples were loaded onto the 1% agarose gel in a cold room at 4 °C and run at 40 V for 3 h and then imaged using a UV gel imager (Amersham ImageQuant 800 set to UV fluorescence). The same gel was then allowed to equilibrate to room temperature for 30 min and then run longer by electrophoresis, this time under high voltage and at room temperature (in a room temperature gel box), first at 85 V for 25 min, then at 150 V for 8 min and finally at 200 V for another 8 min before final imaging using the Amersham ImageQuant 800 set to UV fluorescence.

    Brig1 multiple sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree construction

    Brig1 homologues were obtained using the NCBI PSI-BLAST protein homology search. Homologues were then subjected to a multiple sequence alignment using MUSCLE v5 with 16 maximum iterations via the Geneious Prime software. A tree was built with the alignment output file via IQ-TREE 1.6.1258 using the LG4M model with 1,000 bootstrap alignments. The online tool ITOL59 was used for visualization of the resulting tree.

    Brig1 gene neighbourhood analysis

    Gene neighbourhoods of the brig1 homologues from above (10 genes upstream and 10 genes downstream of each homologue) were constructed using a custom Python script. In brief, the script parses a blastp result XML file for accession numbers of each of the hits. For each hit accession, the script obtains the corresponding nucleotide accession from which the protein accession is derived. Finally, all annotated features within the nucleotide accession that are labelled as ‘CDS’ or ‘tRNA’ are built into a list, including their position within the nucleotide entry and their feature name. From this list, neighbours of the initial protein hit (10 genes upstream and 10 genes downstream) are extracted and built into a TSV file for subsequent analysis.

    Statistical analysis

    Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 10.1.0. Error bars and number of replicates for each phage experiment are defined in the figure legends. Statistical significance in Extended Data Fig. 2i was determined using a two-tailed Student’s t-test (an unpaired parametric test assuming Gaussian distribution and that both populations have the same standard deviation).

    Reporting summary

    Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Structure and assembly of a bacterial gasdermin pore

    [ad_1]

  • Broz, P., Pelegrín, P. & Shao, F. The gasdermins, a protein family executing cell death and inflammation. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20, 143–157 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lieberman, J., Wu, H. & Kagan, J. C. Gasdermin D activity in inflammation and host defense. Sci. Immunol. 4, eaav1447 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Shi, J., Gao, W. & Shao, F. Pyroptosis: gasdermin-mediated programmed necrotic cell death. Trends Biochem. Sci 42, 245–254 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Liu, X. et al. Inflammasome-activated gasdermin D causes pyroptosis by forming membrane pores. Nature 535, 153–158 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ding, J. et al. Pore-forming activity and structural autoinhibition of the gasdermin family. Nature 535, 111–116 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ruan, J., Xia, S., Liu, X., Lieberman, J. & Wu, H. Cryo-EM structure of the gasdermin A3 membrane pore. Nature 557, 62–67 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Xia, S. et al. Gasdermin D pore structure reveals preferential release of mature interleukin-1. Nature 593, 607–611 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wang, C. et al. Structural basis for GSDMB pore formation and its targeting by IpaH7.8. Nature 616, 590–597 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhong, X. et al. Structural mechanisms for regulation of GSDMB pore-forming activity. Nature 616, 598–605 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rogers, C. et al. Gasdermin pores permeabilize mitochondria to augment caspase-3 activation during apoptosis and inflammasome activation. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–17 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hansen, J. M. et al. Pathogenic ubiquitination of GSDMB inhibits NK cell bactericidal functions. Cell 184, 3178–3191.e18 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jiang, S., Zhou, Z., Sun, Y., Zhang, T. & Sun, L. Coral gasdermin triggers pyroptosis. Sci. Immunol. 5, eabd2591 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Daskalov, A., Mitchell, P. S., Sandstrom, A., Vance, R. E. & Glass, N. L. Molecular characterization of a fungal gasdermin-like protein. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 18600–18607 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Clavé, C. et al. Fungal gasdermin-like proteins are controlled by proteolytic cleavage. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2109418119 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Johnson, A. G. et al. Bacterial gasdermins reveal an ancient mechanism of cell death. Science 375, 221–225 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Pang, S. S. et al. The cryo-EM structure of the acid activatable pore-forming immune effector macrophage-expressed gene 1. Nat. Commun. 10, 4288 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dudkina, N. V. et al. Structure of the poly-C9 component of the complement membrane attack complex. Nat. Commun. 7, 10588 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tilley, S. J., Orlova, E. V., Gilbert, R. J. C., Andrew, P. W. & Saibil, H. R. Structural basis of pore formation by the bacterial toxin pneumolysin. Cell 121, 247–256 (2005).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • van Pee, K. et al. CryoEM structures of membrane pore and prepore complex reveal cytolytic mechanism of Pneumolysin. eLife 6, e23644 (2017).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sborgi, L. et al. GSDMD membrane pore formation constitutes the mechanism of pyroptotic cell death. EMBO J. 35, 1766–1778 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schaefer, S. L. & Hummer, G. Sublytic gasdermin-D pores captured in atomistic molecular simulations. eLife 11, e81432 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gilbert, R. J. C. et al. Two structural transitions in membrane pore formation by pneumolysin, the pore-forming toxin of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Cell 97, 647–655 (1999).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Holm, L. Dali server: structural unification of protein families. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, W210–W215 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • van Kempen, M. et al. Fast and accurate protein structure search with Foldseek. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 243–246 (2023).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Mari, S. A. et al. Gasdermin-A3 pore formation propagates along variable pathways. Nat. Commun. 13, 2609 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Johnson, A. G. & Kranzusch, P. J. What bacterial cell death teaches us about life. PLoS Pathog. 18, e1010879 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Peraro, M. D. & Van Der Goot, F. G. Pore-forming toxins: ancient, but never really out of fashion. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 14, 77–92 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Strahl, H. & Errington, J. Bacterial membranes: structure, domains, and function. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 71, 519–538 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Du, G. et al. ROS-dependent palmitoylation is an obligate licensing modification for GSDMD pore formation. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.07.531538 (2023).

  • Balasubramanian, A. et al. Palmitoylation of gasdermin D directs its membrane translocation and pore formation in pyroptosis. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.21.529402 (2023).

  • Tan, B. K. et al. Discovery of a cardiolipin synthase utilizing phosphatidylethanolamine and phosphatidylglycerol as substrates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 16504–16509 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Punjani, A., Rubinstein, J. L., Fleet, D. J. & Brubaker, M. A. CryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination. Nat. Methods 14, 290–296 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Scheres, S. H. W. RELION: implementation of a Bayesian approach to cryo-EM structure determination. J. Struct. Biol. 180, 519–530 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zheng, S. Q. et al. MotionCor2: anisotropic correction of beam-induced motion for improved cryo-electron microscopy. Nat. Methods 14, 331–332 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sanchez-Garcia, R. et al. DeepEMhancer: a deep learning solution for cryo-EM volume post-processing. Commun. Biol. 4, 874 (2021).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bepler, T. et al. Positive-unlabeled convolutional neural networks for particle picking in cryo-electron micrographs. Nat. Methods 16, 1153–1160 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Emsley, P. & Cowtan, K. Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallogr. D 60, 2126–2132 (2004).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Adams, P. D. et al. PHENIX: a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 213–221 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Chen, V. B. et al. MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr. D 66, 12–21 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Pettersen, E. F. et al. UCSF ChimeraX: structure visualization for researchers, educators, and developers. Protein Sci. 30, 70–82 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jo, S., Kim, T., Iyer, V. G. & Im, W. CHARMM-GUI: a web-based graphical user interface for CHARMM. J. Comput. Chem. 29, 1859–1865 (2008).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jorgensen, W. L., Chandrasekhar, J., Madura, J. D., Impey, R. W. & Klein, M. L. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J. Chem. Phys. 79, 926–935 (1983).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Abraham, M. J. et al. Gromacs: high performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 1–2, 19–25 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Huang, J. et al. CHARMM36m: an improved force field for folded and intrinsically disordered proteins. Nat. Methods 14, 71–73 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Essmann, U. et al. A smooth particle mesh Ewald method. J. Chem. Phys. 103, 8577–8593 (1995).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hess, B., Bekker, H., Berendsen, H. J. C. & Fraaije, J. G. E. M. LINCS: A linear constraint solver for molecular simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 18, 1463–1472 (1997).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bussi, G., Donadio, D. & Parrinello, M. Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling. J. Chem. Phys. 126, 014101 (2007).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Berendsen, H. J. C., Postma, J. P. M., van Gunsteren, W. F., DiNola, A. & Haak, J. R. Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath. J. Chem. Phys. 81, 3684–3690 (1984).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Parrinello, M. & Rahman, A. Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: a new molecular dynamics method. J. Appl. Phys. 52, 7182–7190 (1981).

  • Humphrey, W., Dalke, A. & Schulten, K. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J. Mol. Graph. 14, 33–38 (1996). 27–8.

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gowers, R. et al. in Proc. 15th Python in Science Conference (eds Benthall, S. & Rostrup, S.) 98–105 (2016).

  • Michaud‐Agrawal, N., Denning, E. J., Woolf, T. B. & Beckstein, O. MDAnalysis: a toolkit for the analysis of molecular dynamics simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 32, 2319–2327 (2011).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schaefer, S. L. & Hummer, G. Raw data for: Structure and assembly of a bacterial gasdermin pore. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7828403 (2023).

  • Schaefer, S. L. & Hummer, G. Additional raw data for: Structure and assembly of a bacterial gasdermin pore. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8272143 (2023).

  • [ad_2]

    Source link