# CRISPR screens in the era of microbiomes

François Rousset, David Bikard

► To cite this version:

François Rousset, David Bikard. CRISPR screens in the era of microbiomes. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 2020, 57, pp.70-77. 10.1016/j.mib.2020.07.009. pasteur-02978339

HAL Id: pasteur-02978339

https://pasteur.hal.science/pasteur-02978339

Submitted on 26 Oct 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# CRISPR screens in the era of microbiomes
François Rousset<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> and David Bikard<fnref n="1" />

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

CrossMark

Recent advances in genomics have uncovered the tremendous diversity and richness of microbial ecosystems. New functional genomics methods are now needed to probe gene function in high-throughput and provide mechanistic insights. Here, we review how the CRISPR toolbox can be used to inactivate, repress or overexpress genes in a sequence-specific manner and how this offers diverse attractive solutions to identify gene function in high-throughput. Developed both in eukaryotes and prokaryotes, CRISPR screening technologies have already provided meaningful insights in microbiology and host-pathogen interactions. In the era of microbiomes, the versatility and the functional diversity of CRISPR-derived tools has the potential to significantly improve our understanding of microbial communities and their interaction with the host.

## Addresses

Corresponding author: Bikard, David (david.bikard@pasteur.fr)

**Current Opinion in Microbiology** 2020, 57:70–77

This review comes from a themed issue on **Microbial system biology**

Edited by **Nassos Typas** and **Gene-Wei Li**

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2020.07.009

1369-5274/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Introduction

The next-generation sequencing (NGS) revolution opened the genomics era and is now delivering massive amounts of DNA sequences into databases, enabling the characterization of microbial communities across Earth ecosystems. In particular, the human microbiome was estimated to comprise 500–1000 species per individual, representing a gene repertoire much more diverse than the human genome itself (reviewed in Ref. [1]). The investigation of gene function is now critical to make sense of this data. Because the vast majority of genes has no experimental characterization, unravelling new biological functions and identifying essential genes is key for our understanding of microbial ecosystems as well as for biotechnology and drug discovery. Despite significant advances in comparative genomics, novel experimental methods are still required to characterize gene function in a high-throughput manner.

The discovery of CRISPR systems as bacterial and archaeal adaptive immune systems [2] was a true paradigm shift in microbiology and genomics. CRISPR systems provide acquired resistance to invading genetic elements by cleaving their target (DNA or RNA) in a sequence-specific manner. CRISPR-Cas systems show a remarkable diversity in their mode of action and genetic components [3]. The type-II effector Cas9 was the first characterized single-component nuclease that can specifically cleave DNA upon base pairing between a guide RNA and the target sequence [2]. Thanks to its portability and specificity, the Cas9 nuclease from *Streptococcus pyogenes* was quickly repurposed into a variety of programmable tools to inactivate genes [4,5] or change their expression [6–8] (Figure 1). Taking advantage of the NGS revolution, powerful genetic screens have recently been developed both in eukaryotes and in prokaryotes. A range of insightful results have broadened our understanding of gene function and host-pathogen interactions while providing improved design rules for robust screening. In this review, we define the principles of CRISPR-based screening techniques and show how CRISPR screens can provide meaningful insights in the study of microbial communities.

## CRISPR-mediated mutational screening

Shortly after its discovery, the idea of using CRISPR-Cas as a gene-editing tool rapidly emerged, both in eukaryotes [9,10] and in prokaryotes [5]. Upon dsDNA cleavage, eukaryotic cells are able to repair breaks by the non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) pathway, a highly error-prone process that frequently introduces indels leading to frameshifts and gene knockout. Using computational models [11,12], optimized single-guide RNA (sgRNA) libraries can be designed to target tens of thousands of genomic locations in order to perform loss-of-function screens. While the number of available target positions in a genome would in principle enable the design of much larger libraries, experimental constraints such as the capacity of on-chip oligonucleotide synthesis, the number of cells and the sequencing depth required to maintain a good coverage have so far prevented the use of much larger libraries. Transfection of such libraries results in a population where each cell has a different mutation [13–15]. The sgRNA serves both as an editing tool and as a DNA barcode to monitor the abundance of each mutant by deep sequencing. The variation in sgRNA distribution over a selection step is used as a proxy for the fitness of each mutant in the tested condition. CRISPR/Cas9 screens were used to decipher how pathogenic bacteria interact with their host through the identification of host genes

<footnote n="1">¹Synthetic Biology Group, Microbiology Department, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Sorbonne Université, Collège Doctoral, F-75005 Paris, France</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1</figcaption></figure>

CRISPR-based tools amenable to high-throughput screening. The Cas9 nuclease can be used to introduce mutations in a target sequence through error-prone DNA repair by the NHEJ pathway or through homologous recombination with a custom DNA template. The dCas9 protein can be used to inhibit gene expression by binding DNA and blocking the RNA polymerase. Transcription can be activated by fusing dCas9 with a transcription activator domain. New base-editing technologies modify nucleotides without introducing DNA breaks by exploiting the fusion of dCas9 or Cas9 nickase (nCas9) to an adenine or cytosine deaminase. Another method uses a retron system to produce multi-copy single-stranded DNA (msDNA) used as an editing template. Finally, prime editing uses an engineered guide RNA and a fusion between nCas9 and a reverse transcriptase to introduce mutations encoded in the guide sequence.

required for bacterial invasion [16*,17] and susceptibility to toxins and secretion systems from various pathogens [15,18–22,23*]. As an example, a pool of CRISPR-edited epithelial cells was infected with enterohemorrhagic *Escherichia coli* (EHEC), a shiga-toxin-producing strain expressing a type-III secretion system [16*]. While most wild-type epithelial cells are killed, resistant mutants are enriched after several rounds of infection. Mutations in genes involved in the synthesis of the shiga-toxin receptor globotriaosylceramide (Gab3) provided strong resistance. This screen also identified two proteins of unknown function that were demonstrated to be required for Gab3 biosynthesis.

In contrast with eukaryotic cells, cell death is the main outcome of DNA cleavage in prokaryotes rather than gene knockout mediated by NHEJ [5,24]. Editing by homologous recombination requires the use of a template DNA harboring the desired mutation which limits the ease-of-use of this approach in high-throughput. This was nevertheless achieved in *E. coli* in a method called CRISPR-enabled trackable genome engineering (CREATE) based on the parallel automated design of tens of thousands of recombination cassettes [25]. This method was used to generate saturated mutant libraries of genes of interest in order to identify mutations that confer an increased resistance to antibiotics or chemicals.
## CRISPRi screening in bacteria

Beyond its potential for genome editing, the CRISPR-Cas9 system was repurposed as a DNA-binding nucleoprotein complex by abrogating the nuclease catalytic functions of Cas9, yielding dead-Cas9 (dCas9) [6–8]. As a result, dCas9 can bind its target and block either the initiation of transcription or the passage of the RNA polymerase, resulting in a sequence-specific gene silencing tool called CRISPR-interference (CRISPRi) [26]. Note that the protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) of CRISPR effectors varies in terms of GC content and complexity. Since the PAM dictates the target frequency in a given genome, different Cas effectors may be used to increase the possible target space in organisms with various GC content. As a consequence of the polycistronic structure of bacterial mRNAs, dCas9-mediated repression of a gene in an operon is polar towards downstream genes. While this can be seen as a limitation of CRISPRi in bacteria, genes from an operon often belong to the same metabolic pathway or protein complex, making CRISPRi a valuable tool for the study of multi-gene pathways. Note that the degradation of prematurely terminated transcripts can in some cases lead to a reverse polar effect where the repression of a target gene also reduces the expression level of upstream genes. The strength of this effect seems to depend on the organism but appears to be typically small to non-detectable [26].

Libraries of sgRNAs can be custom-designed to target an entire genome or a subset of genes of interest (Figure 2a). The analysis of the first genome-wide screens enabled the investigation of the properties of CRISPRi and provided design rules to optimize CRISPRi screens in bacteria. In particular, a surprising sequence-specific toxicity of *S. pyogenes* dCas9 termed ‘bad-seed’ effect was identified in *E. coli* [27**]. Guides sharing specific 5-nucleotide motifs in their seed sequence are toxic regardless of the rest of the guide for a reason that remains to be elucidated. Another study observed that a high level of dCas9 expression induces morphological defects [28]. This toxicity is however alleviated by tuning down dCas9 concentration [27**,29] while maintaining a strong on-target activity. Genome-wide screens also showed that some sgRNAs can direct dCas9 to bind other genomic positions sharing partial homology to the sgRNA sequence in a mechanism called off-target activity. While off-targets are a major caveat in mammalian cells, the probability of such events is much lower in bacteria due to a ~1000-fold difference in genome size. This makes it easy in bacteria to design sgRNAs that lack any extensive complementarity to an off-target position. However, while extensive complementarity is required for Cas9 cleavage, dCas9 is able to block the expression of an off-target gene with as little as 9 nucleotides of identity to its promoter [27**]. Care should thus still be taken when designing sgRNAs for dCas9 in bacteria, and it is preferable to rely on multiple guides per gene. Apart from dCas9,

a CRISPRi screen was also recently performed to identify the determinants of dCas12a binding at off-target positions [30].

CRISPRi screens have also revealed an important variability in the repression efficiency mediated by different guides and can be used to identify determinants of sgRNA activity [31*]. These design rules enable a reduction in the library size that is required to obtain robust screening results by ensuring the selection of guides with high activity and specificity. Using libraries of 10⁴ to 10⁵ sgRNAs, CRISPRi screens can perform comparably to transposon sequencing-based approaches (Tn-seq), a gold standard in high-throughput functional genomics, which typically require libraries larger by an order of magnitude to obtain a good genome coverage [32**,33**]. Smaller libraries make it easier to run multiple experiments in parallel and to avoid population bottlenecks, while decreasing sequencing costs.

An interesting feature of CRISPRi is that the level of repression can be modulated through the introduction of mismatches between the guide and the target in order to explore the entire range of protein expression [7,34,35*]. In a recent study in *E. coli* and *Bacillus subtilis*, a model was built to predict how specific mismatches affect the repression efficiency of a guide [35*]. A library of mismatched sgRNAs targeting essential genes was then used to investigate the relationship between their expression level and bacterial fitness.

CRISPRi screens have now provided insightful results in microbiology and have been performed in a few bacterial species. The first CRISPRi screens in bacteria [36,37] were performed in array, that is, by measuring the phenotype of each knockdown individually (Figure 2b). In this case, a large set of readouts are accessible such as growth characteristics or morphology, and knockdowns of interest can easily be retrieved for further study. CRISPRi components are typically expressed in an inducible manner so that the library can be maintained in a non-induced state, enabling the study of essential genes. Reports in *B. subtilis* [36], in *Streptococcus pneumoniae* [37] and more recently in *Mycobacterium smegmatis* [38] combined growth measurements with high-throughput microscopy to study the morphological defects associated with the depletion of essential proteins. In addition, the target of a compound inducing cell wall damage in *B. subtilis* could be identified [36]. Another study in *Vibrio cholerae* analyzed the phenotypes associated with lipoprotein transport depletion [39]. Finally, an arrayed CRISPRi screen was also used in *E. coli* to identify phosphatases which repression increases terpenoid production [40].

The individual cloning and phenotyping of each library member naturally limits the scale of arrayed CRISPRi screens. In contrast, pooled screens are typically
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2</figcaption></figure>

Overview of CRISPRi screening methods in bacteria. An sgRNA library is computationally designed to target a whole genome or a subset of genes of interest (a). A number of design rules can be taken into account such as the predicted repression efficiency and off-target activity. Each sgRNA can be synthesized and cloned individually, resulting in an arrayed library of CRISPRi knockdowns. Alternatively, large libraries are synthesized on-chip and cloned at once, yielding a pooled library of CRISPRi knockdowns. In the case of arrayed libraries, each knockdown is assayed individually (b). Growth capacity can be measured with growth curves or colony size measurement in various conditions and the cell morphology can be obtained by high-throughput microscopy. In the case of pooled screens, cells compete in various conditions and next-generation sequencing of the sgRNA library is used as a readout (c). The bacterial population can be grown in various media or selected with different stresses. The fitness of each sgRNA is obtained by comparing the read counts before and after the experiment or with and without dCas9 induction. Cells can also be sorted by the expression level of a fluorescent reporter. The impact of sgRNAs on reporter expression can be estimated from their distribution in each bin. Finally, cells can be imaged inside a microfluidic chamber before *in situ* genotyping by FISH.
conducted on a larger scale since the use of NGS as a
readout enables a significant increase in throughput. All
cells compete against each other in a defined growth
condition or stress. Alternatively, one can screen pheno-
types linked to the expression of a fluorescent reporter
through cell sorting followed by sequencing (Figure 2c).
In the most straightforward assay, a pooled library can be
grown in rich medium to identify essential genes. This
approach was recently used in *E. coli*, both in the lab strain
K-12 [31*,32***,33***,41] and in a collection of natural
isolates [42*], as well as in *Synechocystis* [43**], in myco-
bacteria [44] and in *Vibrio natriegens* [45*] where Tn-seq
was not applicable because of a low transposon insertion
rate. In pooled genetic screening approaches, the identi-
fication of enriched genotypes (positive selection) is
typically easier than that of depleted genotypes (negative
selection). Indeed, under negative selection, the effect
size is limited by the initial coverage which can be quite
low when using large libraries, while under positive
selection there is no limitation to the effect size which
can become very large when a strong selection is applied.
To improve the sensitivity of negative selection screens, a
method using a TIMER fluorescent protein was
developed to enrich and isolate slow-growing bacteria
through cell sorting [46].

Other phenotypes can also be investigated. Screens
performed in *E. coli* identified host factors facilitating
infection by bacteriophages, that is, host genes providing
phage resistance once inactivated [33**]. Pooled CRIS-
PRi screens were also used in the identification of genes
influencing the tolerance or production of chemicals of
biotechnological interest [32***,43**], or decoupling bacte-
rial growth from protein production [47]. Current limita-
tions of pooled approaches include the difficulty to
retrieve individual knockdowns and to study cooperative
phenotypes. This caveat has recently been tackled using
droplet microfluidics to identify knockdowns that
increase L-lactate production yield in cyanobacteria
[43**]. Another study combined microfluidics with *in situ*
genotyping to assess complex phenotypes of individual
knockdowns in high-throughput [48**]. The authors
performed time-lapse microscopy on a pooled library of
235 knockdowns to determine their division size and
track the replication fork in each cell. After phenotyping,
the genotype of each cell can be determined by sequen-
tial FISH to a RNA barcode.

All pooled screening approaches rely on on-chip oligo
synthesis, a process that limits the available library size for
technical and economic reasons. A new method was
recently developed to generate crRNA libraries directly
inside cells by repurposing the CRISPR adaptation
machinery from *S. pyogenes* [49**]. Comprehensive
and extremely large libraries can easily be produced at
a low cost and were employed to explore aminoglycoside
resistance in *Staphylococcus aureus*.

A significant challenge now lies in making CRISPRi
screens available to most bacterial species. An important
challenge will be to ensure the transfer of large libraries to
bacteria of the microbiome without introducing bottle-
necks. Significant progress was made with the develop-
ment of Mobile-CRISPRi [50**], a toolbox of modular
CRISPRi components that can be transferred by conju-
gation with a broad host range and integrated at conserved
genomic sites in the chromosome of diverse bacteria. This
system paves the way for the study of non-model gut
bacteria and was recently used *in vivo* [51]. A strategy
currently used to link genes to colonization/virulence
phenotype in high-throughput relies on the gavage of
transposon mutant libraries in mice, followed by the
analysis of depleted insertions from bacteria recovered
in feces. This systematic investigation of bacterial gene
function *in vivo* has already yielded important insights
(recently reviewed in Ref. [52]), showing that many genes
dispensable for growth *in vitro* are necessary in the animal
gut, and that the genes necessary for fitness *in vivo*
strongly depend on the other bacteria present in the
environment. However, the engraftment and mainte-
nance of a dense transposon library with a sufficient
coverage remains challenging. CRISPRi screens should
provide an interesting alternative thanks to the decrease
in library size. In this context, a recent study reports
the first *in vivo* CRISPRi screen in *S. pneumoniae* to
investigate bottlenecks occurring during infection in mice
and identified genes whose essentiality differs between *in
vivo* and *in vitro* conditions [53*].

**Conclusions and perspectives**

CRISPR-based screening tools are currently gaining pop-
ularity in bacterial genomics. In particular, CRISPRi
screens are becoming widely used for loss-of-function
screening owing to several key advantages over previous
techniques: CRISPRi is inducible, tunable to intermedi-
ate levels and can be multiplexed to repress multiple
loci simultaneously [7,34,36,54]. In addition, libraries are
custom-designed and smaller than with previous techni-
ques, resulting in a substantial decrease in sequencing
cost. A diversity of phenotypes are becoming available for
screening, and recent progress in microfluidics-based
phenotyping and *in situ* genotyping should address the
current caveats of arrayed approaches.

In eukaryotes, the CRISPR-Cas system has also been
used to perform gain-of-function screens through the
activation of transcription by a dCas9 variant fused with
an activator domain, in a method known as CRISPRa
(CRISPR-activation) [6,18,55]. CRISPRa was also devel-
oped in bacteria [7] but this system has been limited by its
average performance and by the very narrow sequence
window in which dCas9 needs to bind to activate a
downstream promoter. Recent improvements [56–59]
could soon make CRISPRa available for genome-wide
gain-of-function screening of bacterial operons.
While Cas9-mediated DNA breaks are toxic in bacteria, new CRISPR-derived tools introduce mutations without DNA cleavage and have great potential for high-throughput screening. In particular, base-editing can introduce C·T or A·G mutations through the fusion of dCas9 or a Cas9 nickase (nCas9) to a cytosine or adenine deaminase respectively [60,61] (Figure 1). The system has already been adapted to several bacterial species [62–68]. Another approach was recently proposed using a retron system [69,70] to generate single-stranded DNA templates that can recombine and modify the target. More recently, prime editing exploits the fusion of nCas9 to a reverse transcriptase to directly introduce a mutation programmed in the guide sequence [71]. Finally, two studies recently described the natural association of CRISPR systems with a transposition machinery. These systems catalyze the RNA-guided transposition of DNA in the target region [72,73]. We envision that this system will soon be repurposed to specifically insert DNA in high-throughput, not only enabling the generation of targeted gene knockouts but also the insertion of functional elements such as promoters or reporters.

The development of high-throughput genomics for non-model bacteria is just starting to explore the biodiversity of the microbial world and its incredible potential for biotechnological and medical applications. The ease-of-use and cost-efficiency of CRISPR screens in bacteria should encourage microbiologists to take part in this exciting exploration.

## Conflict of interest statement

Nothing declared

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the Europe Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No [677823]), and the French Government's Investissement d'Avenir program and by Laboratoire d'Excellence 'Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases' (ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID). F.R. is supported by a doctoral scholarship from Ecole Normale Supérieure.

## References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

* of special interest

* of outstanding interest

1. Gilbert JA, Blaser MJ, Caporaso JG, Jansson JK, Lynch SV, Knight R: Current understanding of the human microbiome. *Nat Med* 2018, 24:392-400.

2. Barrangou R, Fremaux C, Deveau H, Richards M, Boyaval P, Moineau S, Romero DA, Horvath P: CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. *Science* (80-) 2007, 315:1709-1712.

3. Makarova KS, Wolf YI, Iranzo J, Shmakov SA, Alkhnbashi OS, Brouns SJJ, Charpentier E, Cheng D, Haft DH, Horvath P et al.: Evolutionary classification of CRISPR-Cas systems: a burst of class 2 and derived variants. *Nat Rev Microbiol* 2019, 18:67-83.

4. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E: A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA

endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. *Science* 2012, 337:816-821.

5. Jiang W, Bikard D, Cox D, Zhang F, Marraffini LA: RNA-guided editing of bacterial genomes using CRISPR-Cas systems. *Nat Biotechnol* 2013, 31:233-239.

6. Gilbert LA, Larson MH, Morsut L, Liu Z, Brar GA, Torres SE, Stern-Ginossar N, Brandman O, Whitehead EH, Doudna JA et al.: CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. *Cell* 2013, 154:442-451.

7. Bikard D, Jiang W, Samai P, Hochschild A, Zhang F, Marraffini LA: Programmable repression and activation of bacterial gene expression using an engineered CRISPR-Cas system. *Nucleic Acids Res* 2013, 41:7429-7437.

8. Qi LS, Larson MH, Gilbert LA, Doudna JA, Weissman JS, Arkin AP, Lim WA: Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. *Cell* 2013, 152:1173-1183.

9. Cong L, Ran FA, Cox D, Lin S, Barretto R, Habib N, Hsu PD, Wu X, Jiang W, Marraffini LA et al.: Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. *Science* (80-) 2013, 339.

10. Mali P, Yang L, Esvelt KM, Aach J, Guell M, DiCarlo JE, Norville JE, Church GM: RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. *Science* (80-) 2013, 339:823-826.

11. Bradford J, Perrin D: A benchmark of computational CRISPR-Cas9 guide design methods. *PLoS Comput Biol* 2019, 15: e1007274.

12. Bradford J, Perrin D: Improving CRISPR guide design with consensus approaches. *BMC Genomics* 2019, 20:931.

13. Shalem O, Sanjana NE, Hartenian E, Shi X, Scott DA, Mikkelson T, Heckl D, Ebert BL, Root DE, Doench JG et al.: Genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout screening in human cells. *Science* 2014, 343:84-87.

14. Wang T, Wei JJ, Sabatini DM, Lander ES: Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. *Science* 2014, 343:80-84.

15. Koike-Yusa H, Li Y, Tan E-P, Velasco-Herrera MDC, Yusa K: Genome-wide recessive genetic screening in mammalian cells with a lentiviral CRISPR-guide RNA library. *Nat Biotechnol* 2014, 32:267-273.

16. Pacheco AR, Lazarus JE, Sit B, Schmieder S, Lencer WI,

* Blondel CJ, Doench JG, Davis BM, Waldor MK: CRISPR screen reveals that EHEC's T3SS and Shiga toxin rely on shared host factors for infection. *mBio* 2018, 9 e01003-18

In this paper, the authors identify human genes required for the toxicity of enterohemorrhagic *E. coli* in intestinal epithelial cells. Interestingly, a common route for the toxicity of the shiga-toxin and the type-3 secretion system is unveiled.

17. Park JS, Helble JD, Lazarus JE, Yang G, Blondel CJ, Doench JG, Starnbach MN, Waldor MK: A FACS-based genome-wide CRISPR screen reveals a requirement for COPI in *Chlamydia trachomatis* invasion. *iScience* 2019, 11:71-84.

18. Gilbert LA, Horlbeck MA, Adamson B, Villalta JE, Chen Y, Whitehead EH, Guimaraes C, Panning B, Ploegh HL, Bassik MC et al.: Genome-scale CRISPR-mediated control of gene repression and activation. *Cell* 2014, 159:647-661.

19. Zhou Y, Zhu S, Cai C, Yuan P, Li C, Huang Y, Wei W: High-throughput screening of a CRISPR/Cas9 library for functional genomics in human cells. *Nature* 2014, 509:487-491.

20. Tao L, Zhang J, Meraner P, Tovaglieri A, Wu X, Gerhard R, Zhang X, Stallcup WB, Miao J, He X et al.: Frizzled proteins are colonic epithelial receptors for *C. difficile* toxin *B*. *Nature* 2016, 538:350-355.

21. Blondel CJ, Park JS, Hubbard TP, Pacheco AR, Kuehl CJ, Walsh MJ, Davis BM, Gewurz BE, Doench JG, Waldor MK: CRISPR/Cas9 screens reveal requirements for host cell sulfation and fucosylation in bacterial Type III secretion system-mediated cytotoxicity. *Cell Host Microbe* 2016, 20:226-237.
22. Virreira Winter S, Zychlinsky A, Bardoel BW: Genome-wide CRISPR screen reveals novel host factors required for *Staphylococcus aureus* α-hemolysin-mediated toxicity. *Sci Rep* 2016, **6**:24242.

23. Chang S-J, Jin SC, Jiao X, Galán JE: Unique features in the intracellular transport of typhoid toxin revealed by a genome-wide screen. *PLoS Pathog* 2019, **15** e1007704

An interesting insight in host-pathogen interactions with the identification of human genes required for the toxicity of typhoid toxin from *Salmonella* in HEK293T cells.

24. Cui L, Bikard D: Consequences of *Cas9* cleavage in the chromosome of *Escherichia coli*. *Nucleic Acids Res* 2016, **44**:4243-4251.

25. Garst AD, Bassalo MC, Pines G, Lynch SA, Halweg-Edwards AL, Liu R, Liang L, Wang Z, Zeitoun R, Alexander WG et al.: Genome-wide mapping of mutations at single-nucleotide resolution for protein, metabolic and genome engineering. *Nat Biotechnol* 2016, **35**:48-55.

26. Vigouroux A, Bikard D: CRISPR tools to control gene expression in bacteria. *Microbiol Mol Biol Rev* 2020, **84**.

27. Cui L, Vigouroux A, Rousset F, Varet H, Khanna V, Bikard D: A *CRISPRi* screen in *E. coli* reveals sequence-specific toxicity of *dCas9*. *Nat Commun* 2018, **9**:1912

Using a pooled CRISPRi library targeting randomly chosen positions, this study explores the properties of dCas9 in an unbiased way and provides design rules for robust CRISPRi screening in bacteria.

28. Cho S, Choe D, Lee E, Kim SC, Palsson B, Cho B-K: High-level *dCas9* expression induces abnormal cell morphology in *Escherichia coli*. *ACS Synth Biol* 2018, **7**:1085-1094.

29. Depardieu F, Bikard D: Gene silencing with CRISPRi in bacteria and optimization of dCas9 expression levels. *Methods* 2019, **172**:61-75 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.YMETH.2019.07.024.

30. Specht DA, Xu Y, Lambert G: Massively parallel CRISPRi assays reveal concealed thermodynamic determinants of dCas12a binding. *Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A* 2020, **117**:11274-11282.

31. Calvo-Villamañán A, Wong Ng J, Planel R, Ménager H, Chen A, Cui L, Bikard D: On-target activity predictions enable improved CRISPR-dCas9 screens in bacteria. *Nucleic Acids Res* 2020, **48**:e64 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa294

A recent study using CRISPRi screening data to predict on-target sgRNA activity and describing a new compact library for *E. coli* K-12.

32. Wang T, Guan C, Guo J, Liu B, Wu Y, Xie Z, Zhang C, Xing X-H: *Pooled CRISPR interference screening enables genome-scale functional genomics study in bacteria with superior performance*. *Nat Commun* 2018, **9**:2475

This work is one of the first examples of genome-wide CRISPRi screening to identify essential genes in rich and minimal media. The authors also exploit the biotechnological potential of CRISPRi to identify genes involved in the tolerance to isobutanol and furfural.

33. Rousset F, Cui L, Siouve E, Becavin C, Depardieu F, Bikard D: *Genome-wide CRISPR-dCas9 screens in E. coli* identify essential genes and phage host factors. *PLoS Genet* 2018, **14**:e1007749

Together with [32], this study shows how CRISPRi screens can be exploited to identify essential genes. The method is further employed to identify host factors for phage infection.

34. Vigouroux A, Oldewurtel E, Cui L, Bikard D, van Teeffelen S: Tuning dCas9's ability to block transcription enables robust, noiseless knockdown of bacterial genes. *Mol Syst Biol* 2018, **14** e7899–e7899.

35. Hawkins JS, Silvis MR, Koo B-M, Peters JM, Jost M, Hearne CC, Weissman J, Todor H, Gross CA: Modulated efficacy CRISPRi reveals evolutionary conservation of essential gene expression-fitness relationships in bacteria. *bioRxiv* 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/805333

In this preprint, the authors build a computational model to predict the effect of mismatches on the repression efficiency by dCas9. They further exploit it to show that the relationship between cellular fitness and the expression level of essential genes is conserved between *E. coli* and *B. subtilis*, two bacterial species separeted by two billion years of evolution.

36. Peters JM, Colavin A, Shi H, Czarny TL, Larson MH, Wong S, Hawkins JS, Lu CHS, Koo B-M, Marta E et al.: A comprehensive,

CRISPR-based functional analysis of essential genes in bacteria. *Cell* 2016, **165**:1493-1506.

37. Liu X, Gallay C, Kjos M, Domenech A, Slager J, van Kessel SP, Knoops K, Sorg RA, Zhang J-R, Veening J-W: *High-throughput CRISPRi phenotyping identifies new essential genes in Streptococcus pneumoniae*. *Mol Syst Biol* 2017, **13**:931.

38. de Wet TJ, Winkler KR, Mhlanga MM, Mizrahi V, Warner DF: *Arrayed CRISPRi and quantitative imaging describe the morphotypic landscape of essential mycobacterial genes*. *bioRxiv* 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.20.000372.

39. Caro F, Place NM, Mekalanos JJ: Analysis of lipoprotein transport depletion in *Vibrio cholerae* using CRISPRi. *Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A* 2019, **116**:17013-17022.

40. Wang T, Guo J, Liu Y, Xue Z, Zhang C, Xing X-H: Genome-wide screening identifies promiscuous phosphatases impairing terpenoid biosynthesis in *Escherichia coli*. *Appl Microbiol Biotechnol* 2018, **102**:9771-9780.

41. Rishi HS, Toro E, Liu H, Wang X, Qi LS, Arkin AP: Systematic genome-wide querying of coding and non-coding functional elements in *E. coli* using CRISPRi. *bioRxiv* 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.04.975888.

42. Rousset F, Caballero JC, Piastra-Facon F, Fernández-Rodríguez J, Clermont O, Denamur E, Rocha EPC, Bikard D: The impact of genetic diversity on gene essentiality within the *E. coli* species. *bioRxiv* 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.25.114553

A recent study describing 100 CRISPRi screens to compare gene essentiality of various *E. coli* strains.

43. Yao L, Shabestary K, Björk SM, Asplund-Samuelsson J, Joensson HN, Jahn M, Hudson EP: *Pooled CRISPRi screening of the cyanobacterium Synechocystis* sp. PCC 6803 for enhanced industrial phenotypes. *Nat Commun* 2020, **11**:1666

A nice application of CRISPRi screens in a biotechnological context. In particular, the authors combine droplet-based cell sorting with a chemical assay to identify knockdowns that produce higher titers of L-lactate.

44. de Wet TJ, Gobe I, Mhlanga MM, Warner DF: CRISPRi-Seq for the identification and characterisation of essential mycobacterial genes and transcriptional units. *bioRxiv* 2018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/358275.

45. Lee HH, Ostrov N, Wong BG, Gold MA, Khalil AS, Church GM: *Functional genomics of the rapidly replicating bacterium Vibrio natriegens* by CRISPRi. *Nat Microbiol* 2019, **4**:1105-1113

46. Beuter D, Gomes-Filho JV, Randau L, Díaz-Pascual F, Drescher K, Link H: *Selective enrichment of slow-growing bacteria in a metabolism-wide CRISPRi library with a TIMER protein*. *ACS Synth Biol* 2018, **7**:2775-2782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.8b00379.

47. Li S, Jendresen CB, Landberg J, Pedersen LE, Sonnenschein N, Jensen SI, Nielsen AT: Genome-wide CRISPRi-based identification of targets for decoupling growth from production. *ACS Synth Biol* 2020, **9**:1030-1040.

48. Camsund D, Lawson MJ, Larsson J, Jones D, Zikrin S, Fange D, Elf J: *Time-resolved imaging-based CRISPRi screening*. *Nat Methods* 2019, **17**:86-92 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0629-y

While accessing certain phenotypes is challenging with pooled CRISPRi screens, the authors provide an ingenious solution by combining time-lapse microscopy of a pooled library with *in situ* genotyping by sequential FISH.

49. Jiang W, Oikonomou P, Tavazoie S: Comprehensive genome-wide perturbations via CRISPR adaptation reveal complex genetics of antibiotic sensitivity. *Cell* 2020, **1**

A nice study presenting a method to generate comprehensive crRNA libraries in a bacterial chassis.

50. Peters JM, Koo B-M, Patino R, Heussler GE, Hearne CC, Qu J, Inclan YF, Hawkins JS, Lu CHS, Silvis MR et al.: Enabling genetic analysis of diverse bacteria with Mobile-CRISPRi. *Nat Microbiol* 2019, **4**:244-250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41564-018-0327-z
This study describes a universal CRISPRi system transferable by conjugation into a broad range of bacterial species. This valuable toolbox expands the use of CRISPRi to members of the microbiota.

51. Qu J, Prasad NK, Yu MA, Chen S, Lyden A, Herrera N, Silvis MR, Crawford E, Looney MR, Peters JM et al.: Modulating pathogenesis with mobile-CRISPRi. *J Bacteriol* 2019, **201**.

52. Cain AK, Barquist L, Goodman AL, Paulsen IT, Parkhill J, van Opijnen T: A decade of advances in transposon-insertion sequencing. *Nat Rev Genet* 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-0244-x.

53. Liu X, Kimmey JM, Bakker V, de, Nizet V, Veening J-W:
* Exploration of bacterial bottlenecks and *Streptococcus pneumoniae* pathogenesis by CRISPRi-seq. *bioRxiv* 2020
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.22.055319

This preprint describes the first CRISPRi screen employed *in vivo* in bacteria, investigating the population bottlenecks during pneumococcal infection in mice and identifying pneumococcal genes required for pathogenicity.

54. Cress BF, Toparlak ÖD, Guleria S, Lebovich M, Stieglitz JT, Englaender JA, Jones JA, Linhardt RJ, Koffas MAG: CRISPathBrick: modular combinatorial assembly of Type II-A CRISPR arrays for dCas9-mediated multiplex transcriptional repression in *E. coli*. *ACS Synth Biol* 2015, **4**:987-1000.

55. Maeder ML, Linder SJ, Cascio VM, Fu Y, Ho QH, Joung JK: CRISPR RNA-guided activation of endogenous human genes. *Nat Methods* 2013, **10**:977-979.

56. Dong C, Fontana J, Patel A, Carothers JM, Zalatan JG: Synthetic CRISPR-Cas gene activators for transcriptional reprogramming in bacteria. *Nat Commun* 2018, **9**:2489.

57. Liu Y, Wan X, Wang B: Engineered CRISPRa enables programmable eukaryote-like gene activation in bacteria. *Nat Commun* 2019, **10**:3693.

58. Fontana J, Dong C, Kiattisewee C, Chavali VP, Tickman BI, Carothers JM, Zalatan JG: Effective CRISPRa-mediated control of gene expression in bacteria must overcome strict target site requirements. *Nat Commun* 2020, **11**:1-11.

59. Ho H-I, Fang J, Cheung J, Wang HH: Programmable and portable CRISPR-Cas transcriptional activation in bacteria. *bioRxiv* 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.03.882431.

60. Komor AC, Kim YB, Packer MS, Zuris JA, Liu DR: Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. *Nature* 2016, **533**:420-424.

61. Gaudelli NM, Komor AC, Rees HA, Packer MS, Badran AH, Bryson DI, Liu DR: Programmable base editing of T to G C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. *Nature* 2017, **551**:464-471.

62. Gu T, Zhao S, Pi Y, Chen W, Chen C, Liu Q, Li M, Han D, Ji Q: Highly efficient base editing in: *Staphylococcus aureus* using an engineered CRISPR RNA-guided cytidine deaminase. *Chem Sci* 2018, **9**:3248-3253.

63. Zhang Y, Zhang H, Wang Z, Wu Z, Wang Y, Tang N, Xu X, Zhao S, Chen W, Ji Q: Programmable adenine deamination in bacteria using a Cas9-adenine-deaminase fusion. *Chem Sci* 2020, **11**:1657-1664 http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C9SC03784E.

64. Wang Y, Wang S, Chen W, Song L, Zhang Y, Shen Z, Yu F, Li M, Ji Q: CRISPRCas9 and CRISPR-assisted cytidine deaminase enable precise and efficient genome editing in Klebsiella pneumoniae. *Appl Environ Microbiol* 2018, **84**.

65. Wang Y, Wang Z, Chen Y, Hua X, Yu Y, Ji Q: A highly efficient CRISPR-Cas9-based genome engineering platform in Acinetobacter baumannii to understand the H2O2-sensing mechanism of OxyR. *Cell Chem Biol* 2019, **26**:1732-1742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chembiol.2019.09.003.

66. Chen W, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Pi Y, Gu T, Song L, Wang Y, Ji Q: CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing in *Pseudomonas aeruginosa* and cytidine deaminase-mediated base editing in *Pseudomonas* species. *iScience* 2018, **6**:222-231.

67. Tong Y, Whitford CM, Robertsen HL, Blin K, Jorgensen TS, Klitgaard AK, Gren T, Jiang X, Weber T, Lee SY: Highly efficient DSB-free base editing for streptomycetes with CRISPR-BEST. *Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A* 2019, **116**:20366-20375.

68. Banno S, Nishida K, Arazoe T, Mitsunobu H, Kondo A: Deaminase-mediated multiplex genome editing in *Escherichia coli*. *Nat Microbiol* 2018, **3**:423-429 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41564-017-0102-6.

69. Sharon E, Chen SAA, Khosla NM, Smith JD, Pritchard JK, Fraser HB: Functional genetic variants revealed by massively parallel precise genome editing. *Cell* 2018, **175**:544-557.e16.

70. Lim H, Jun S, Park M, Lim J, Jeong J, Lee JH, Bang D: Multiplex generation, tracking, and functional screening of substitution mutants using a crispr/retron system. *ACS Synth Biol* 2020, **9**:1003-1009.

71. Anzalone AV, Randolph PB, Davis JR, Sousa AA, Koblan LW, Levy JM, Chen PJ, Wilson C, Newby GA, Raguram A et al.: Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. *Nature* 2019, **576**:149-157.

72. Strecker J, Ladha A, Gardner Z, Schmid-Burgk JL, Makarova KS, Koonin EV, Zhang F: RNA-guided DNA insertion with CRISPR-associated transposases. *Science* (80-) 2019, **364**:48-53.

73. Klompe SE, Vo PLH, Halpin-Healy TS, Sternberg SH: Transposon-encoded CRISPR-Cas systems direct RNA-guided DNA integration. *Nature* 2019, **571**:219-225 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1323-z.