Skip to main content
Journal of Bacteriology logoLink to Journal of Bacteriology
. 2019 Jun 21;201(14):e00089-19. doi: 10.1128/JB.00089-19

Expanding the Clostridioides difficile Genetics Toolbox

Aimee Shen a,
Editor: Victor J DiRitab
PMCID: PMC6597399  PMID: 30833354

Clostridioides difficile genetics has rapidly advanced in recent years thanks to the development of tools for allelic replacement and transposon mutagenesis. In this Journal of Bacteriology issue, Müh et al. extend the genetics toolbox by developing a CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) strategy for gene silencing in C. difficile (U.

KEYWORDS: CRISPRi, Clostridioides difficile, genetics

ABSTRACT

Clostridioides difficile genetics has rapidly advanced in recent years thanks to the development of tools for allelic replacement and transposon mutagenesis. In this Journal of Bacteriology issue, Müh et al. extend the genetics toolbox by developing a CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) strategy for gene silencing in C. difficile (U. Müh, A. G. Pannullo, D. S. Weiss, and C. D. Ellermeier, 2019, J Bacteriol 201:e00711-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00711-18). The authors demonstrate the tunability and robustness of their CRISPRi system, highlight its utility in studying essential gene function, and discuss exciting new possibilities for dissecting C. difficile physiology.

INTRODUCTION

Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile has long been considered a genetically intractable organism. Early methods for genetically manipulating C. difficile were relatively limited, with the first plasmids being conjugated into C. difficile in 2002 (1, 2) and the first gene disruption mutant being constructed in 2006 (3). The development of a TargeTron-based gene disruption system (ClosTron [4]) brought C. difficile genetics out of the Dark Ages, but the off-target effects of this system for some genes limited its utility, and ClosTron disruption was typically limited to a single gene. Around this time, C. difficile was emerging as a major nosocomial pathogen, stimulating a small group of dedicated researchers to usher in a Renaissance in C. difficile genetics. These efforts led to the development of methods for inducing gene expression (5, 6), silencing gene expression using antisense methods (5, 7), conducting genome-wide transposon screens (8), constructing multiple and precise gene deletions using allelic exchange (911), and, most recently, using CRISPR-based methods to repress gene expression (12, 13).

Development of a CRISPR-based gene silencing system in C. difficile.

While these methods have transformed the ability of researchers to study C. difficile, most of the methods for manipulating the chromosome have been limited to the most genetically tractable strain of C. difficile, 630Δerm (14), which derives from a clinical isolate (15) but is less pathogenic than the epidemic, so-called “hypervirulent,” strains (16, 17). A recent report by Müh et al. in this Journal of Bacteriology issue describes the development of a CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) method that promises to overcome some of these limitations and opens up exciting new possibilities for studying C. difficile biology (18).

Müh et al. (18) show that their optimized CRISPRi system can be used to study the function of multiple essential genes while also bypassing the lengthy and often difficult process of constructing mutants in the epidemic strain R20291 (19). They demonstrate that their CRISPRi system is inducible, titratable, highly effective at repressing gene expression (20- to 100-fold), and robust, achieving tight repression with all 8 guide RNAs tested and no off-target effects being observed.

They based their CRISPRi method off a system developed for Bacillus subtilis (20) that involves constitutively expressing a single guide RNA (sgRNA) to target a nuclease-deactivated mutant of Cas9 (dCas9) to bind a specific gene sequence and block transcription by RNA polymerase. The targeted dCas9 can be used to repress downstream as well as upstream gene transcription of operons in the B. subtilis system (20) and, thus, to study the function of operons as well as individual genes.

To tune the level of dCas9-mediated gene silencing, Müh et al. placed a codon-optimized dCas9 gene, derived from Streptococcus pyogenes, under the control of a xylose-inducible promoter (Pxyl), similar to the B. subtilis system (20). This xylose-inducible system uses the xylose repressor XylR to repress the transcription of the Pxyl promoter in the absence of xylose, while the addition of xylose alleviates repression and induces gene expression. Using mCherry as a reporter gene, the authors demonstrate that the xylose-inducible system induces titratable, uniform gene expression and is only mildly affected by catabolite repression.

To maximize the expression of the sgRNA, the authors identified Pgdh as an optimal promoter for driving sgRNA-mediated transcriptional repression. The sgRNA and dCas9 genes were cloned into a C. difficile-Escherichia coli shuttle plasmid vector (5) and conjugated into R20291. By simply exchanging the sgRNA encoded, the authors knocked down the expression of three genes predicted to play an important role in the biogenesis and integrity of the cell envelope (8). They validated the ability of their system for studying gene essentiality by showing that knockdown of ftsZ, which encodes a key division protein conserved in almost all bacteria (21), and cdr20291_0712 (pbp-0712), a monocistronic gene encoding a previously uncharacterized bifunctional (class A) penicillin-binding protein (22), markedly decreased cell viability and induced distinct cell division defects. Their analyses also confirmed that repressing the expression of the gene encoding the major S-layer protein, slpA, renders cells susceptible to lysozyme, similar to the slpA mutant isolated from bacteriocin-based selection (23).

Impact of the research.

The utility of the CRISPRi system in C. difficile was also recently shown by Marreddy et al., who developed a similar xylose-inducible CRISPRi system to show that the fatty acid biosynthesis gene fabK is essential in C. difficile (24). The CRISPRi system developed by the Hurdle group was not necessarily optimized for C. difficile, which may explain why their antisense RNA approach for knocking down fabK expression was more effective at repressing gene expression than their CRISPRi system. Since antisense repression systems can have limited utility due to variable efficacy (25), and since Müh et al. observed a 100% success rate for gene repression with their CRISPRi system, the optimized CRISPRi system described in this special issue is likely to be more broadly applicable to studying gene function in C. difficile.

The xylose-inducible system developed by Müh et al. also represents an advance in C. difficile genetics, since the existing (anhydro)tetracycline (5)- and nisin (6)-based inducible systems can exhibit toxicity at high levels of the inducer. Furthermore, their system expands the options for studying gene function in C. difficile, since the different inducible systems can be combined to titrate the expression of multiple gene targets.

CRISPRi also enables multiple genes to be simultaneously targeted, which facilitates the study of genetic redundancy, particularly for essential pathways; obviates the need for complex strain construction (20, 26); and minimizes the chance that gene deletions cause compensatory changes in gene expression. Furthermore, the ease with which CRISPRi can generate targeted and genome-wide libraries of gene knockdowns has been exploited in phenotype screens for determining gene function (20, 2729) and identifying drug targets, since strains producing smaller amounts of the drug targets are sensitized to the inhibitor (20, 29). Remarkably, large-scale libraries of CRISPRi have recently been used to conduct genome-wide screens with even greater efficacy than transposon sequencing (TnSeq) libraries (28). While these larger-scale approaches will likely require additional advances in C. difficile genetics due to their low conjugation efficiencies (see below), the construction of targeted libraries is an exciting possibility.

One of the most important applications of the C. difficile CRISPRi system is its potential to be used for studying gene function in C. difficile strains that have largely been resistant to genetic manipulation. It is generally much easier to acquire transconjugants than to generate strains that require even single recombination events, and heat shock can increase plasmid uptake in the epidemic R20291 strain (30). Thus, it seems likely that their system will have broad utility in C. difficile.

Conclusions and future directions.

In demonstrating that their optimized xylose-inducible CRISPRi system is tunable and robust, Müh et al. have markedly expanded the tools available for genetically manipulating C. difficile. Their plasmid system should permit the study of less genetically tractable C. difficile clinical isolates, since CRISPRi was recently applied to difficult-to-manipulate Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolate strains (31).

Nevertheless, modifying the C. difficile CRISPRi plasmid-based system to permit integration onto the chromosome would allow gene function to be studied during infection, since antibiotic maintenance of the plasmid can be challenging. A recent study described the development of a “mobile CRISPRi” system that allows for the ready integration of the gene silencing system onto the chromosomes of diverse bacteria (32, 33). While it remains to be seen whether this type of system could be adapted for use in C. difficile, there are clearly many applications possible for their CRISPRi system in studying C. difficile physiology and drug susceptibility. Improving the methods for reliably introducing DNA into C. difficile would further advance the utility of this system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Research in the manuscript was funded by award numbers R01AI22232 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and R01GM108684 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) to A.S. A.S. is a Burroughs Wellcome investigator in the pathogenesis of infectious disease supported by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund. The content of the paper is solely the responsibility of the author(s) and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the NIAID, the NIGMS, or the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or of ASM.

Footnotes

For the article discussed, see https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00711-18.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Mani N, Lyras D, Barroso L, Howarth P, Wilkins T, Rood JI, Sonenshein AL, Dupuy B. 2002. Environmental response and autoregulation of Clostridium difficile TxeR, a sigma factor for toxin gene expression. J Bacteriol 184:5971–5978. doi: 10.1128/JB.184.21.5971-5978.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Purdy D, O’Keeffe TA, Elmore M, Herbert M, McLeod A, Bokori-Brown M, Ostrowski A, Minton NP. 2002. Conjugative transfer of clostridial shuttle vectors from Escherichia coli to Clostridium difficile through circumvention of the restriction barrier. Mol Microbiol 46:439–452. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.03134.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.O’Connor JR, Lyras D, Farrow KA, Adams V, Powell DR, Hinds J, Cheung JK, Rood JI. 2006. Construction and analysis of chromosomal Clostridium difficile mutants. Mol Microbiol 61:1335–1351. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05315.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Heap JT, Pennington OJ, Cartman ST, Carter GP, Minton NP. 2007. The ClosTron: a universal gene knock-out system for the genus Clostridium. J Microbiol Methods 70:452–464. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2007.05.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Fagan RP, Fairweather NF. 2011. Clostridium difficile has two parallel and essential Sec secretion systems. J Biol Chem 286:27483–27493. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.263889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Purcell EB, McKee RW, McBride SM, Waters CM, Tamayo R. 2012. Cyclic diguanylate inversely regulates motility and aggregation in Clostridium difficile. J Bacteriol 194:3307–3316. doi: 10.1128/JB.00100-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chu M, Mallozzi MJ, Roxas BP, Bertolo L, Monteiro MA, Agellon A, Viswanathan VK, Vedantam G. 2016. A Clostridium difficile cell wall glycopolymer locus influences bacterial shape, polysaccharide production and virulence. PLoS Pathog 12:e1005946. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dembek M, Barquist L, Boinett CJ, Cain AK, Mayho M, Lawley TD, Fairweather NF, Fagan RP. 2015. High-throughput analysis of gene essentiality and sporulation in Clostridium difficile. mBio 6:e02383-14. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02383-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cartman ST, Kelly ML, Heeg D, Heap JT, Minton NP. 2012. Precise manipulation of the Clostridium difficile chromosome reveals a lack of association between the tcdC genotype and toxin production. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:4683–4690. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00249-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ng YK, Ehsaan M, Philip S, Collery MM, Janoir C, Collignon A, Cartman ST, Minton NP. 2013. Expanding the repertoire of gene tools for precise manipulation of the Clostridium difficile genome: allelic exchange using pyrE alleles. PLoS One 8:e56051. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Faulds-Pain A, Wren BW. 2013. Improved bacterial mutagenesis by high-frequency allele exchange, demonstrated in Clostridium difficile and Streptococcus suis. Appl Environ Microbiol 79:4768–4771. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01195-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.McAllister KN, Bouillaut L, Kahn JN, Self WT, Sorg JA. 2017. Using CRISPR-Cas9-mediated genome editing to generate C. difficile mutants defective in selenoproteins synthesis. Sci Rep 7:14672. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-15236-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wang S, Hong W, Dong S, Zhang ZT, Zhang J, Wang L, Wang Y. 2018. Genome engineering of Clostridium difficile using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Clin Microbiol Infect 24:1095–1099. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.03.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hussain HA, Roberts AP, Mullany P. 2005. Generation of an erythromycin-sensitive derivative of Clostridium difficile strain 630 (630Δerm) and demonstration that the conjugative transposon Tn916ΔE enters the genome of this strain at multiple sites. J Med Microbiol 54:137–141. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.45790-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sebaihia M, Wren B, Mullany P, Fairweather N, Minton N, Stabler R, Thomson N, Roberts A, Cerdeño-Târraga A, Wang H, Holden M, Wright A, Churcher C, Quail M, Baker S, Bason N, Brooks K, Chillingworth T, Cronin A, Davis P, Dowd L, Fraser A, Feltwell T, Hance Z, Holroyd S, Jagels K, Moule S, Mungall K, Price C, Rabbinowitsch E, Sharp S, Simmonds M, Stevens K, Unwin L, Whithead S, Dupuy B, Dougan G, Barrell B, Parkhill J. 2006. The multidrug-resistant human pathogen Clostridium difficile has a highly mobile, mosaic genome. Nat Genet 38:779–786. doi: 10.1038/ng1830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Smits WK. 2013. Hype or hypervirulence: a reflection on problematic C. difficile strains. Virulence 4:592–596. doi: 10.4161/viru.26297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Theriot CM, Koumpouras CC, Carlson PE, Bergin II, Aronoff DM, Young VB. 2011. Cefoperazone-treated mice as an experimental platform to assess differential virulence of Clostridium difficile strains. Gut Microbes 2:326–334. doi: 10.4161/gmic.19142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Müh U, Pannullo AG, Weiss DS, Ellermeier CD. 2019. A xylose-inducible expression system and a CRISPR interference plasmid for targeted knockdown of gene expression in Clostridioides difficile. J Bacteriol 201:e00711-18. doi: 10.1128/JB.00711-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Stabler RA, He M, Dawson L, Martin M, Valiente E, Corton C, Lawley TD, Sebaihia M, Quail MA, Rose G, Gerding DN, Gibert M, Popoff MR, Parkhill J, Dougan G, Wren BW. 2009. Comparative genome and phenotypic analysis of Clostridium difficile 027 strains provides insight into the evolution of a hypervirulent bacterium. Genome Biol 10:R102. doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-9-r102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Peters JM, Colavin A, Shi H, Czarny TL, Larson MH, Wong S, Hawkins JS, Lu CHS, Koo BM, Marta E, Shiver AL, Whitehead EH, Weissman JS, Brown ED, Qi LS, Huang KC, Gross CA. 2016. A comprehensive, CRISPR-based functional analysis of essential genes in bacteria. Cell 165:1493–1506. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.05.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Xiao J, Goley ED. 2016. Redefining the roles of the FtsZ-ring in bacterial cytokinesis. Curr Opin Microbiol 34:90–96. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2016.08.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Turner RD, Vollmer W, Foster SJ. 2014. Different walls for rods and balls: the diversity of peptidoglycan. Mol Microbiol 91:862–874. doi: 10.1111/mmi.12513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kirk JA, Gebhart D, Buckley AM, Lok S, Scholl D, Douce GR, Govoni GR, Fagan RP. 2017. New class of precision antimicrobials redefines role of Clostridium difficile S-layer in virulence and viability. Sci Transl Med 9:eaah6813. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aah6813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Marreddy R, Wu X, Madhab S, Prior AM, Jones J, Sun D, Hevener KE, Hurdle JG. 2019. The fatty acid synthesis protein enoyl-ACP reductase II (FabK) is a target for narrow-spectrum antibacterials for Clostridium difficile infection. ACS Infect Dis 5:208–217. doi: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.8b00205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Forsyth RA, Haselbeck RJ, Ohlsen KL, Yamamoto RT, Xu H, Trawick JD, Wall D, Wang L, Brown-Driver V, Froelich JM, Kedar GC, King P, McCarthy M, Malone C, Misiner B, Robbins D, Tan Z, Zhu Z, Carr G, Mosca DA, Zamudio C, Foulkes JG, Zyskind JW. 2002. A genome-wide strategy for the identification of essential genes in Staphylococcus aureus. Mol Microbiol 43:1387–1400. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.02832.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zhao H, Sun Y, Peters JM, Gross CA, Garner EC, Helmann JD. 2016. Depletion of undecaprenyl pyrophosphate phosphatases disrupts cell envelope biogenesis in Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol 198:2925–2935. doi: 10.1128/JB.00507-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Liu X, Gallay C, Kjos M, Domenech A, Slager J, van Kessel SP, Knoops K, Sorg RA, Zhang JR, Veening JW. 2017. High-throughput CRISPRi phenotyping identifies new essential genes in Streptococcus pneumoniae. Mol Syst Biol 13:931. doi: 10.15252/msb.20167449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wang T, Guan C, Guo J, Liu B, Wu Y, Xie Z, Zhang C, Xing XH. 2018. Pooled CRISPR interference screening enables genome-scale functional genomics study in bacteria with superior performance. Nat Commun 9:2475. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04899-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rousset F, Cui L, Siouve E, Becavin C, Depardieu F, Bikard D. 2018. Genome-wide CRISPR-dCas9 screens in E. coli identify essential genes and phage host factors. PLoS Genet 14:e1007749. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kirk JA, Fagan RP. 2016. Heat shock increases conjugation efficiency in Clostridium difficile. Anaerobe 42:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2016.06.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sato’o Y, Hisatsune J, Yu L, Sakuma T, Yamamoto T, Sugai M. 2018. Tailor-made gene silencing of Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates by CRISPR interference. PLoS One 13:e0185987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Peters JM, Koo BM, Patino R, Heussler GE, Hearne CC, Qu J, Inclan YF, Hawkins JS, Lu CHS, Silvis MR, Harden MM, Osadnik H, Peters JE, Engel JN, Dutton RJ, Grossman AD, Gross CA, Rosenberg OS. 2019. Enabling genetic analysis of diverse bacteria with mobile-CRISPRi. Nat Microbiol 4:244–250. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0327-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Brophy JAN, Triassi AJ, Adams BL, Renberg RL, Stratis-Cullum DN, Grossman AD, Voigt CA. 2018. Engineered integrative and conjugative elements for efficient and inducible DNA transfer to undomesticated bacteria. Nat Microbiol 3:1043–1053. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0216-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Bacteriology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES