DNA

dna-based-bacterial-parasite-uses-completely-new-dna-editing-method

DNA-based bacterial parasite uses completely new DNA-editing method

Top row: individual steps in the reaction process. Bottom row: cartoon diagram of the top, showing the position of each DNA and RNA strand.

Enlarge / Top row: individual steps in the reaction process. Bottom row: cartoon diagram of the top, showing the position of each DNA and RNA strand.

Hiraizumi, et. al.

While CRISPR is probably the most prominent gene-editing technology, there are a variety of others, some developed before, others since. And people have been developing CRISPR variants to perform more specialized functions, like altering specific bases. In all of these cases, researchers are trying to balance a number of competing factors: convenience; flexibility; specificity and precision for the editing; low error rates; and so on.

So, having additional options for editing can be a good thing, enabling new ways of balancing those different needs. On Wednesday, a pair of papers in Nature describe a DNA-based parasite that moves itself around bacterial genomes through a mechanism that hasn’t been previously described. It’s nowhere near ready for use in humans, but it may have some distinctive features that make it worth further development.

Going mobile

Mobile genetic elements, commonly called transposons, are quite common in many species—they make up nearly half the sequences in the human genome, for example. They are indeed mobile, showing up in new locations throughout the genome, sometimes by cutting themselves out and hopping to new locations, other times by sending a copy out to a new place in the genome. For any of this to work, they need to have an enzyme that cuts DNA and specifically recognizes the right transposon sequence to insert into the cut.

The specificity of that interaction, needed to ensure the system only inserts new copies of itself, and the cutting of DNA, are features we’d like for gene editing, which places a value on better understanding these systems.

Bacterial genomes tend to have very few transposons—the extra DNA isn’t really in keeping with the bacterial reproduction approach of “copy all the DNA as quickly as possible when there’s food around.” Yet bacterial transposons do exist, and a team of scientists based in the US and Japan identified one with a rather unusual feature. As an intermediate step in moving to a new location, the two ends of the transposon (called IS110) are linked together to form a circular piece of DNA.

In its circular form, the DNA sequences at the junction act as a signal that tells the cell to make an RNA copy of nearby DNA (termed a “promoter”). When linear, each of the two bits of DNA on either side of the junction lacks the ability to act as a signal; it only works when the transposon is circular. And the researchers confirmed that there is in fact an RNA produced by the circular form, although the RNA does not encode for any proteins.

So, the research team looked at over 100 different relatives of IS110 and found that they could all produce similar non-protein-coding RNAs, all of which shared some key features. These included stretches where nearby sections of the RNA could base-pair with each other, leaving an unpaired loop of RNA in between. Two of these loops contained sequences that either base-paired with the transposon itself or at the sites in the E. coli genome where it inserted.

That suggests that the RNA produced by the circular form of the transposon helped to act as a guide, ensuring that the transposon’s DNA was specifically used and only inserted into precise locations in the genome.

Editing without precision

To confirm this was right, the researchers developed a system where the transposon would produce a fluorescent protein when it was properly inserted into the genome. They used this to show that mutations in the loop that recognized the transposon would stop it from being inserted into the genome—and that it was possible to direct it to new locations in the genome by changing the recognition sequences in the second loop.

To show this was potentially useful for gene editing, the researchers blocked the production of the transposon’s own RNA and fed it a replacement RNA that worked. So, you could potentially use this system to insert arbitrary DNA sequences into arbitrary locations in a genome. It could also be used with targeting RNAs that caused specific DNA sequences to be deleted. All of this is potentially very useful for gene editing.

Emphasis on “potentially.” The problem is that the targeting sequences in the loops are quite short, with the insertion site targeted by a recognition sequence that’s only four to seven bases long. At the short end of this range, you’d expect that a random string of bases would have an insertion site about once every 250 bases.

That relatively low specificity showed. At the high end, various experiments could see an insertion accuracy ranging from a close-to-being-useful 94 percent down to a positively threatening 50 percent. For deletion experiments, the low end of the range was a catastrophic 32 percent accuracy. So, while this has some features of an interesting gene-editing system, there’s a lot of work to do before it could fulfill that potential. It’s possible that these recognition loops could be made longer to add the sort of specificity that would be needed for editing vertebrate genomes, but we simply don’t know at this point.

DNA-based bacterial parasite uses completely new DNA-editing method Read More »

scientists-get-dung-beetles-to-collect-dna-samples-for-biodiversity-studies

Scientists get dung beetles to collect DNA samples for biodiversity studies

High tech/low tech solutions —

Researchers are sequencing the DNA of wildlife using dung beetle stomach contents.

Image of forest-covered hillsides and a river winding through the jungle.

Enlarge / The Manu area of Peru contains a number of ecological zones.

Peru’s Manu Biosphere Reserve is the largest rainforest reserve in the world and one of the most biodiverse spots on the planet. Manu is a UNESCO-protected area the size of Connecticut and Delaware combined, covering an area where the Amazon River Basin meets the Andes Mountain Range. This combination forms a series of unique ecosystems, where species unknown to science are discovered every year. The remoteness of the region has helped preserve its biodiversity but adds to the challenges faced by the scientists who are drawn to study it.

Trapping wildlife for research in the dense jungle is impractical, especially considering the great distances researchers have to travel within Manu, either through the forest or on the waterways. It’s an expensive proposition that inevitably exposes the trapped animals to some amount of risk. Trapping rare and endangered animals is even more difficult and comes with significant risks to the animal.

Trapping beetles, however, does not pose the same challenges. They’re easy to catch, easy to transport, and, most importantly, carry the DNA of many animals in and on them. Any animal a biologist could hope to study leaves tracks and droppings in the forest, and the beetles make a living by cleaning that stuff up.

Beetles as DNA collectors

Beetles are plentiful in the rainforest, and the species that Alejandro Lopera-Toro’s team studies are not endangered. The study does mean that the beetles are killed, but overall, the effect on the ecosystem is minimal.

According to Peruvian biologist and team member Patricia Reyes, “The impact depends on the abundance and reproductive cycle of each species. Reducing the beetle population could have an effect on their predators, such as birds, reptiles, and other insects. The health of the forest depends on the beetles’ function to break down organic matter and disperse seeds. Despite not having found any effect on the ecosystem so far, we still limit how many individual beetles we collect and identify sensitive areas where collecting is prohibited. We promote sustainable methods of collection to mitigate possible impacts in the future.”

Getting beetles to do the work of collecting DNA for researchers took some adjustments. The traps normally used to study beetles cause the beetles to fall into a chemical solution, which kills and preserves them until they are collected. However, those traps contaminate the beetle’s stomach contents, making the DNA unusable. Lopera-Toro’s traps keep them alive, protecting the delicate strands of DNA that the beetles have worked so hard to collect. He and his team also go out into the forest to collect live beetles by hand, carefully recording the time and place each one was collected. Starting in July 2022, the team has been collecting dung beetles across Manu’s diverse ecosystems up and down the altitude gradient, from 500 to 3,500 meters above sea level.

In addition to obtaining DNA from the beetles, researchers also use them as test subjects for metabolic studies.

Enlarge / In addition to obtaining DNA from the beetles, researchers also use them as test subjects for metabolic studies.

Elena Chaboteaux

The Manu Biological Station team is using Nanopore technology to sequence the DNA found in the beetles’ stomachs, with the goal of finding out what animals are represented there. They specifically targeted dung beetles because their feeding habits depend on the feces left by larger animals. The main advantage to the Nanopore minION device is that it can separate long lengths of DNA on-site. “Long nanopore sequencing reads provide enhanced species identification, while real-time data analysis delivers immediate access to results, whether in the field or in the lab,” according to the Nanopore website.

Biologist Juliana Morales acknowledges that Nanopore still has a high rate of error, though as this new technology is refined, that issue is continually decreasing. For the purposes of the Manu Biological Station team, the margin of error is a price they’re willing to pay to have devices they can use in the rainforest. Since they’re not studying one specific species, but rather building a database of the species present in the region, they don’t need to get every nucleotide correct to be able to identify the species. They do, however, need a strand long enough to differentiate between a common woolly monkey and a yellow-tailed woolly monkey.

Though the researchers prefer to sequence DNA on-site with Nanopore minION devices, when they have more than a dozen samples to analyze, they send them to the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. It’s a logistical nightmare to send samples from the Peruvian jungle to Canada, but Lopera-Toro says it’s worth it. “The University of Guelph can process hundreds of DNA samples per day. I’m lucky if we can process 10 samples a day at the [Manu] lab.”

In the most recent batch of 76 samples, they analyzed the stomach contents of 27 species from 11 genera of beetles. From those 76 samples, they identified DNA of howler monkeys, spider monkeys, red brocket deer, night monkeys, peccaries, mouse opossum, Rufous-breasted wood quail, and two species of armadillos. Oddly, the beetles had also eaten about a dozen species of fruit, and one had consumed pollen from a tropical plant called syngonium.

The implications could be vast. “The dung beetle that ate the jaguar’s excrement will tell us not only the DNA of the jaguar but also what the jaguar is eating,” said Lopera-Toro. “If the jaguar kills a peccary and eats 80 percent of the peccary, beetles will eat some of the other 20 percent. If a beetle walks over a jaguar print or saliva, there could be traces of jaguar DNA on the beetle. We analyze the stomach contents and the outside of the beetle. We have an endless number of options, opportunities, and questions we can answer from studying these small insects. We can see the bigger picture of what is happening in the jungle.”

Scientists get dung beetles to collect DNA samples for biodiversity studies Read More »