Back

A comparative evaluation of CRISPR-Cas9 allele editing systems in Candida auris: challenging research in a challenging bug

Carolus, H.; Sofras, D.; Subotic, A.; Lobo Romero, C.; Ennis, C. L.; Hernday, A. D.; Nobile, C. J.; Ryback, J.; Van Dijck, P.

2025-01-10 microbiology
10.1101/2025.01.09.632232 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Candida auris is an emergent fungal pathogen of significant interest for molecular research because of its unique nosocomial persistence, high stress tolerance and common multidrug resistance. To investigate the molecular mechanisms of these or other phenotypes, a handful of CRISPR-Cas9 based allele editing tools have been optimized for C. auris. Nonetheless, allele editing in this species remains a significant challenge, and different systems have different advantages and disadvantages. In this work, we compare four systems to introduce the genetic elements necessary for the production of Cas9 and the guide RNA molecule in the genome of C. auris, replacing the ENO1, LEU2 and HIS1 loci respectively, while the fourth system makes use of an episomal plasmid. We observed that the editing efficiency of all four systems was significantly different and strain dependent. Alarmingly, we did not detect correct integration of linear CRISPR cassette constructs in integration-based systems, in over 4,900 screened transformants. Still, all transformants, whether correctly edited or not, grew on selective nourseothricin media, suggesting common random ectopic integration of the CRISPR cassette. Although the plasmid-based system showed a low transformation success compared to the other systems, it has the highest editing efficiency with 41.9% correct transformants on average. In an attempt to improve editing efficiencies of integration-based systems by silencing the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) DNA repair pathway, we deleted two main NHEJ factors, KU70 and LIG4. However, no improved editing or targeting efficiencies were detected in ku7011, lig411, or ku7011/lig411 backgrounds. Our research highlights important challenges in precise genome editing of C. auris and sheds light on the advantages and limitations of several methods with the aim to guide scientists in selecting the most appropriate tool for molecular work in this enigmatic fungal pathogen. Author summaryCandida auris is a rapidly emerging fungal pathogen that poses serious challenges to global healthcare. Understanding the genetic mechanisms that underlie its nosocomial persistence, virulence, multidrug resistance and other traits is essential for developing new treatments and preventing the spread and burden of C. auris infections. However, precise genetic manipulation in C. auris has proven difficult due to inefficient genome editing tools. This study compares four different CRISPR-based allele editing systems in C. auris, identifying their strengths and limitations. The findings provide crucial insights into selecting the best tools for genetic research in C. auris, guiding future efforts to combat this formidable pathogen.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Fungi
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
2
Fungal Genetics and Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
3
G3
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
4
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.8%
5
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
301 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.8%
6
Journal of Microbiological Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
7
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.9%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
10
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.7%
11
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
12
Phytopathology®
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.9%
14
Environmental Microbiology
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
15
Microbiological Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
16
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
17
Virulence
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
18
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
19
Insects
36 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
20
Microorganisms
101 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
21
BMC Microbiology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
22
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.9%
23
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
24
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
222 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
25
PLOS Pathogens
721 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
26
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
167 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
27
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
28
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
29
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
30
Microbial Genomics
204 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%