Letter | Published:

CRISPR–Cas systems exploit viral DNA injection to establish and maintain adaptive immunity

Nature volume 544, pages 101104 (06 April 2017) | Download Citation


Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)–Cas systems provide protection against viral1 and plasmid2 infection by capturing short DNA sequences from these invaders and integrating them into the CRISPR locus of the prokaryotic host1. These sequences, known as spacers, are transcribed into short CRISPR RNA guides3,4,5 that specify the cleavage site of Cas nucleases in the genome of the invader6,7,8. It is not known when spacer sequences are acquired during viral infection. Here, to investigate this, we tracked spacer acquisition in Staphylococcus aureus cells harbouring a type II CRISPR–Cas9 system after infection with the staphylococcal bacteriophage ϕ12. We found that new spacers were acquired immediately after infection preferentially from the cos site, the viral free DNA end that is first injected into the cell. Analysis of spacer acquisition after infection with mutant phages demonstrated that most spacers are acquired during DNA injection, but not during other stages of the viral cycle that produce free DNA ends, such as DNA replication or packaging. Finally, we showed that spacers acquired from early-injected genomic regions, which direct Cas9 cleavage of the viral DNA immediately after infection, provide better immunity than spacers acquired from late-injected regions. Our results reveal that CRISPR–Cas systems exploit the phage life cycle to generate a pattern of spacer acquisition that ensures a successful CRISPR immune response.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315, 1709–1712 (2007)

  2. 2.

    & CRISPR interference limits horizontal gene transfer in staphylococci by targeting DNA. Science 322, 1843–1845 (2008)

  3. 3.

    et al. Small CRISPR RNAs guide antiviral defense in prokaryotes. Science 321, 960–964 (2008)

  4. 4.

    , , , & Cas6 is an endoribonuclease that generates guide RNAs for invader defense in prokaryotes. Genes Dev. 22, 3489–3496 (2008)

  5. 5.

    et al. CRISPR RNA maturation by trans-encoded small RNA and host factor RNase III. Nature 471, 602–607 (2011)

  6. 6.

    et al. The CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system cleaves bacteriophage and plasmid DNA. Nature 468, 67–71 (2010)

  7. 7.

    et al. Structural basis for CRISPR RNA-guided DNA recognition by Cascade. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 529–536 (2011)

  8. 8.

    et al. Co-transcriptional DNA and RNA cleavage during type III CRISPR–Cas immunity. Cell 161, 1164–1174 (2015)

  9. 9.

    et al. An updated evolutionary classification of CRISPR–Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 722–736 (2015)

  10. 10.

    et al. CRISPR adaptation biases explain preference for acquisition of foreign DNA. Nature 520, 505–510 (2015)

  11. 11.

    Bacterial DNA repair: recent insights into the mechanism of RecBCD, AddAB and AdnAB. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 11, 9–13 (2013)

  12. 12.

    et al. Cas9 specifies functional viral targets during CRISPR–Cas adaptation. Nature 519, 199–202 (2015)

  13. 13.

    et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012)

  14. 14.

    et al. The Streptococcus thermophilus CRISPR/Cas system provides immunity in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 9275–9282 (2011)

  15. 15.

    , , & Short motif sequences determine the targets of the prokaryotic CRISPR defence system. Microbiology 155, 733–740 (2009)

  16. 16.

    et al. Molecular memory of prior infections activates the CRISPR/Cas adaptive bacterial immunity system. Nat. Commun. 3, 945 (2012)

  17. 17.

    et al. Mutations in Cas9 enhance the rate of acquisition of viral spacer sequences during the CRISPR–Cas immune response. Mol. Cell 65, 168–175 (2017)

  18. 18.

    et al. Identification of DNA motifs implicated in maintenance of bacterial core genomes by predictive modeling. PLoS Genet. 3, 1614–1621 (2007)

  19. 19.

    et al. Universal code equivalent of a yeast mitochondrial intron reading frame is expressed into E. coli as a specific double strand endonuclease. Cell 44, 521–533 (1986)

  20. 20.

    , & Phage λ—new insights into regulatory circuits. Adv. Virus Res. 82, 155–178 (2012)

  21. 21.

    Properties of a cryptic high-frequency transducing phage in Staphylococcus aureus. Virology 33, 155–166 (1967)

  22. 22.

    , & Cohesion of DNA molecules isolated from phage lambda. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 49, 748–755 (1963)

  23. 23.

    et al. Staphylococcal pathogenicity island DNA packaging system involving cos-site packaging and phage-encoded HNH endonucleases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6016–6021 (2014)

  24. 24.

    Bacteriophage lysins as effective antibacterials. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 11, 393–400 (2008)

  25. 25.

    & CRISPR–Cas systems optimize their immune response by specifying the site of spacer integration. Mol. Cell 64, 616–623 (2016)

  26. 26.

    , & Manipulating or superseding host recombination functions: a dilemma that shapes phage evolvability. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003825 (2013)

  27. 27.

    et al. A single-molecule Hershey-Chase experiment. Curr. Biol. 22, 1339–1343 (2012)

  28. 28.

    & Substrate specificity of the DNA unwinding activity of the RecBC enzyme of Escherichia coli. J. Mol. Biol. 185, 431–443 (1985)

  29. 29.

    et al. The toxic shock syndrome exotoxin structural gene is not detectably transmitted by a prophage. Nature 305, 709–712 (1983)

  30. 30.

    & Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009)

  31. 31.

    & CRISPR–Cas: an efficient tool for genome engineering of virulent bacteriophages. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 9504–9513 (2014)

  32. 32.

    , , , & Transforming the untransformable: application of direct transformation to manipulate genetically Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. MBio 3, e00277–e01100 (2012)

  33. 33.

    , & New vector for efficient allelic replacement in naturally nontransformable, low-GC-content, Gram-positive bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70, 6887–6891 (2004)

  34. 34.

    et al. Specificity of staphylococcal phage and SaPI DNA packaging as revealed by integrase and terminase mutations. Mol. Microbiol. 72, 98–108 (2009)

  35. 35.

    , & Degradation of phage transcripts by CRISPR–associated RNases enables type III CRISPR–Cas immunity. Cell 164, 710–721 (2016)

  36. 36.

    , , & Conditional tolerance of temperate phages via transcription-dependent CRISPR–Cas targeting. Nature 514, 633–637 (2014)

  37. 37.

    et al. Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nat. Methods 6, 343–345 (2009)

  38. 38.

    et al. Exploiting CRISPR–Cas nucleases to produce sequence-specific antimicrobials. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 1146–1150 (2014)

  39. 39.

    & Allelic replacement in Staphylococcus aureus with inducible counter-selection. Plasmid 55, 58–63 (2006)

  40. 40.

    & Nucleotide sequence and functional map of pE194, a plasmid that specifies inducible resistance to macrolide, lincosamide, and streptogramin type B antibodies. J. Bacteriol. 150, 804–814 (1982)

  41. 41.

    , , & Prophages of Staphylococcus aureus Newman and their contribution to virulence. Mol. Microbiol. 62, 1035–1047 (2006)

  42. 42.

    et al. A novel link between Campylobacter jejuni bacteriophage defence, virulence and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 32, 207–226 (2013)

  43. 43.

    & Complete nucleotide sequence of pT181, a tetracycline-resistance plasmid from Staphylococcus aureus. Plasmid 10, 251–259 (1983)

Download references


We thank R. Heler for plasmid pRH163; J. McGinn for plasmid pJM62; J. Penades for providing ϕ12 as well as assistance in working with it; B. Dujon for permission to use the I-SceI endonuclease; and The Rockefeller University Genomics Resource Center core facility for performing next-generation sequencing. J.W.M. is a Fellow of The Jane Coffin Childs Memorial Fund for Medical Research. L.A.M. is supported by the Rita Allen Scholars Program, an Irma T. Hirschl Award, a Sinsheimer Foundation Award, a Burroughs Wellcome Fund PATH award, an NIH Director’s New Innovator Award (1DP2AI104556-01) and an HHMI-Simons Faculty Scholar Award.

Author information


  1. Laboratory of Bacteriology, The Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA

    • Joshua W. Modell
    • , Wenyan Jiang
    •  & Luciano A. Marraffini


  1. Search for Joshua W. Modell in:

  2. Search for Wenyan Jiang in:

  3. Search for Luciano A. Marraffini in:


J.W.M. and L.A.M. conceived the study and designed experiments. J.W.M. and W.J. designed the spacer library construction method. W.J. performed the CRISPR immunization simulation assay. All other work was executed by J.W.M. L.A.M. and J.W.M. wrote the paper with the help of W.J.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luciano A. Marraffini.

Reviewer Information Nature thanks R. Barrangou, J. Doudna and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Sequences.

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Data

    This file contains Supplementary Dataset 1.

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Data

    This file contains Supplementary Dataset 2.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.