While there is extreme interest in CRISPR‐Cas gene editing technology, nature did not invent CRISPR‐Cas for this purpose. Rather, CRISPR‐Cas naturally serves as an adaptive immune system in single celled prokaryotic organisms, where it is found in more than 40% of Bacteria and 85% of Archaea. These systems are incredibly diverse, and classified by cas gene content into 2 major classes, six types and more than 20 different subtypes. In each case, however, they operate in the same three stage process; i) spacer acquisition, ii) crRNA expression and maturation and iii) target interference(Annu Rev Biochem, 82:237).
The well‐known CRISPR‐Cas9 systems are class 2, type II systems and represent less than 10% of identified CRISPR‐Cas systems. Much more common are the Class 1 systems, especially type I and type III. Like class II systems, type I systems also target dsDNA in a PAM dependent process. Type III systems, however, do not require a PAM, and instead recognize nascent mRNAs emanating from transcriptionally active DNA. And upon recognition, they degrade both the RNA and DNA. Further, while complexed with the target RNA, the cyclase domain of the Cas10 subunit synthesizes cyclic oligo‐adenylate (cAn) signals (Science 357:605, Nature 548:543), which are in turn degraded by ring nucleases (Nature, 562:277).
Sulfolobus solfataricus is a model archaeon utilizing both Type‐IA and Type‐IIIB CRISPR‐Cas systems. Structural studies suggest Csa3 is a transcription factor under the allosteric control of a 4‐base cyclic RNA signal that regulates expression of CRISPR‐Cas (J Mol Biol, 405:939, RNA Biol, 13:254). Here we show that Csa3 specifically recognizes a palindromic sequence present in the promoters for stage I acquisition genes (Cas1, Cas2, Csa1) and three CRISPR loci, that promoter recognition is enhanced by cyclic tetra‐adenylate (cA4), that over‐expression of Csa3 in S. solfataricus activates spacer acquisition, and that Csa3 lacks ring nuclease activity, suggesting long‐term potentiation of the cA4 signal. Further, we present the structure of Csa3 in complex with cA4, describe recognition of cA4 by Csa3 in atomic detail, and cA4 induced conformational changes that enhance promoter recognition. In all, this provides a molecular understanding for feedback activation of spacer acquisition and crRNA expression in cells struggling to clear viral infections. This feedback system is dependent on both type I Csa3 and type III Cas10, and thus represents a coordinated response by two different arms of CRISPR‐Cas. In this light, type I and type III CRISPR‐Cas in S. solfataricus are not independent systems, but instead represent two complementary arms of a coordinated anti‐viral response.
Support or Funding Information
Supported by National Science Foundation grant MCB‐1413534.