Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • NEWS AND VIEWS

Hijack of CRISPR defences by selfish genes holds clinical promise

Parasitic genetic elements called transposons carry CRISPR machinery that is normally used against them by bacterial cells. This paradox has now been explained, with implications for gene-therapy research.
  1. Fyodor D. Urnov

    1. Fyodor D. Urnov is at the Innovative Genomics Institute, Berkeley, California 94704, USA.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

When Hamlet is mortally wounded by Laertes’ poisoned blade in a fencing match, he switches weapons and strikes back, so that Laertes is killed by his own sword. Writing in Nature, Klompe et al.1 describe an equally dramatic weapon switch in biological warfare. They report that a molecular machine called Cascade, which bacteria use to defend themselves against genetic invaders, can also be used against them by some of those invaders. To add to the drama, this tiny instrument of war might eventually find itself serving a peaceful purpose: the genetic engineering of human cells to treat disease.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 571, 180-181 (2019)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01824-0

References

  1. Klompe, S. E., Vo, P. L. H., Halpin-Healy, T. S. & Sternberg, S. H. Nature 571, 219–225 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Peters, J. E., Fricker, A. D., Kapili, B. J. & Petassi, M. T. Mol. Microbiol. 93, 1084–1092 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrangou, R. & Horvath, P. Nature Microbiol. 2, 17092 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jinek, M. et al. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jiang, F. & Doudna, J. A. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 46, 505–529 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Peters, J. E., Makarova, K. S., Shmakov, S. & Koonin, E. V. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E7358–E7366 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Anguela, X. M. & High, K. A. Annu. Rev. Med. 70, 273–288 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carroll, D. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 83, 409–439 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Urnov, F. D. CRISPR J. 1, 34–46 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Moehle, E. A. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 3055–3060 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Porteus, M. H. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, 947–959 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dunbar, C. E. et al. Science 359, eaan4672 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links