Letter | Published:

CRISPR–Cas encoding of a digital movie into the genomes of a population of living bacteria

Nature volume 547, pages 345349 (20 July 2017) | Download Citation


DNA is an excellent medium for archiving data. Recent efforts have illustrated the potential for information storage in DNA using synthesized oligonucleotides assembled in vitro1,2,3,4,5,6. A relatively unexplored avenue of information storage in DNA is the ability to write information into the genome of a living cell by the addition of nucleotides over time. Using the Cas1–Cas2 integrase, the CRISPR–Cas microbial immune system stores the nucleotide content of invading viruses to confer adaptive immunity7. When harnessed, this system has the potential to write arbitrary information into the genome8. Here we use the CRISPR–Cas system to encode the pixel values of black and white images and a short movie into the genomes of a population of living bacteria. In doing so, we push the technical limits of this information storage system and optimize strategies to minimize those limitations. We also uncover underlying principles of the CRISPR–Cas adaptation system, including sequence determinants of spacer acquisition that are relevant for understanding both the basic biology of bacterial adaptation and its technological applications. This work demonstrates that this system can capture and stably store practical amounts of real data within the genomes of populations of living cells.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    , & Next-generation digital information storage in DNA. Science 337, 1628 (2012)

  2. 2.

    et al. Towards practical, high-capacity, low-maintenance information storage in synthesized DNA. Nature 494, 77–80 (2013)

  3. 3.

    et al. Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329, 52–56 (2010)

  4. 4.

    , & Hiding messages in DNA microdots. Nature 399, 533–534 (1999)

  5. 5.

    Molecular computation of solutions to combinatorial problems. Science 266, 1021–1024 (1994)

  6. 6.

    Microvenus. Art J. 55, 70–74 (1996)

  7. 7.

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

  8. 8.

    ., ., & Molecular recordings by directed CRISPR spacer acquisition. Science 353, aaf1175 (2016)

  9. 9.

    & CRISPR–Cas adaptation: insights into the mechanism of action. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 14, 67–76 (2016)

  10. 10.

    , , & Adaptation in CRISPR–Cas Systems. Mol. Cell 61, 797–808 (2016)

  11. 11.

    , , , & CRISPR-based adaptive and heritable immunity in prokaryotes. Trends Biochem. Sci. 34, 401–407 (2009)

  12. 12.

    et al. Phage response to CRISPR-encoded resistance in Streptococcus thermophilus. J. Bacteriol. 190, 1390–1400 (2008)

  13. 13.

    et al. Strong bias in the bacterial CRISPR elements that confer immunity to phage. Nat. Commun. 4, 1430 (2013)

  14. 14.

    et al. Type I-E CRISPR–Cas systems discriminate target from non-target DNA through base pairing-independent PAM recognition. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003742 (2013)

  15. 15.

    et al. Pervasive generation of oppositely oriented spacers during CRISPR adaptation. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 5907–5916 (2014)

  16. 16.

    , , , & Foreign DNA capture during CRISPR–Cas adaptive immunity. Nature 527, 535–538 (2015)

  17. 17.

    et al. Structural and mechanistic basis of PAM-dependent spacer acquisition in CRISPR–Cas systems. Cell 163, 840–853 (2015)

  18. 18.

    , & Proteins and DNA elements essential for the CRISPR adaptation process in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 5569–5576 (2012)

  19. 19.

    , , & Diversity of CRISPR loci in Escherichia coli. Microbiology 156, 1351–1361 (2010)

  20. 20.

    et al. Persisting viral sequences shape microbial CRISPR-based immunity. PLOS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002475 (2012)

  21. 21.

    , , & CRISPR associated diversity within a population of Sulfolobus islandicus. PLoS One 5, e12988 (2010)

  22. 22.

    et al. DNA motifs determining the efficiency of adaptation into the Escherichia coli CRISPR array. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14396–14401 (2013)

  23. 23.

    et al. CRISPR immunity relies on the consecutive binding and degradation of negatively supercoiled invader DNA by cascade and Cas3. Mol. Cell 46, 595–605 (2012)

  24. 24.

    et al. Interference by clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) RNA is governed by a seed sequence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10098–10103 (2011)

  25. 25.

    , , , & Nucleic acid memory. Nat. Mater. 15, 366–370 (2016)

  26. 26.

    , , & A population-based temporal logic gate for timing and recording chemical events. Mol. Syst. Biol. 12, 869 (2016)

  27. 27.

    . et al. Whole-organism lineage tracing by combinatorial and cumulative genome editing. Science 353, aaf7907 (2016)

  28. 28.

    et al. Synthetic recording and in situ readout of lineage information in single cells. Nature 541, 107–111 (2017)

  29. 29.

    & DNA Fountain enables a robust and efficient storage architecture. Science 355, 950–954 (2017)

  30. 30.

    et al. pLogo: a probabilistic approach to visualizing sequence motifs. Nat. Methods 10, 1211–1212 (2013)

Download references


S.L.S. is a Shurl and Kay Curci Foundation Fellow of the Life Sciences Research Foundation. The project was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (5R01MH103910), National Human Genome Research Institute (5RM1HG008525), and Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative (368485) to G.M.C., the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (5R01NS045523) to J.D.M and an Allen Distinguished Investigator Award from the Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group to J.D.M. We thank G. Kuznetsov for comments on the manuscript.

Author information


  1. Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA

    • Seth L. Shipman
    • , Jeff Nivala
    •  & George M. Church
  2. Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Center for Brain Science, and Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Harvard University, Bauer Laboratory 103, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA

    • Seth L. Shipman
    •  & Jeffrey D. Macklis
  3. Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA

    • Seth L. Shipman
    • , Jeff Nivala
    •  & George M. Church


  1. Search for Seth L. Shipman in:

  2. Search for Jeff Nivala in:

  3. Search for Jeffrey D. Macklis in:

  4. Search for George M. Church in:


S.L.S. and J.N. conceived the study. S.L.S. designed the work, performed experiments, analysed data, wrote custom Python analysis software, and wrote the manuscript with input from J.N., J.D.M. and G.M.C. S.L.S. J.N., J.D.M. and G.M.C. discussed results and commented on the manuscript.

Competing interests

S.L.S. J.N, J.D.M., and G.M.C. are inventors on a provisional patent (62/296,812) filed by the President and Fellows of Harvard College that covers the work in this manuscript. A complete accounting of the financial interests of G.M.C. is listed at: http://arep.med.harvard.edu/gmc/tech.html.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George M. Church.

Reviewer Information Nature thanks R. Barrangou 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 Notes and Supplementary Tables 1-2.

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Data

    This file contains Supplementary Table 3.

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.