
==== Front
iScience
iScience
iScience
2589-0042
Elsevier

S2589-0042(24)02016-9
10.1016/j.isci.2024.110791
110791
Review
Advancements in gene editing technologies for probiotic-enabled disease therapy
Wang Lixuan 123
Hu Jing 123
Li Kun 12
Zhao Yuliang 12
Zhu Motao zhumt@nanoctr.cn
12∗
1 CAS Key Laboratory for Biomedical Effects of Nanomaterials & Nanosafety, CAS Center for Excellence in Nanoscience, National Center for Nanoscience and Technology, China, Beijing 100190, China
2 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
∗ Corresponding author zhumt@nanoctr.cn
3 These authors contributed equally

22 8 2024
20 9 2024
22 8 2024
27 9 110791© 2024 The Author(s)
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Summary

Probiotics typically refer to microorganisms that have been identified for their health benefits, and they are added to foods or supplements to promote the health of the host. A growing number of probiotic strains have been identified lately and developed into valuable regulatory pharmaceuticals for nutritional and medical applications. Gene editing technologies play a crucial role in addressing the need for safe and therapeutic probiotics in disease treatment. These technologies offer valuable assistance in comprehending the underlying mechanisms of probiotic bioactivity and in the development of advanced probiotics. This review aims to offer a comprehensive overview of gene editing technologies applied in the engineering of both traditional and next-generation probiotics. It further explores the potential for on-demand production of customized products derived from enhanced probiotics, with a particular emphasis on the future of gene editing in the development of live biotherapeutics.

Graphical abstract

Molecular biology; Microbiome

Subject areas

Molecular biology
Microbiome
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Probiotics are defined as “live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host”.1 The human body is naturally colonized with a number of microorganisms in the oral, digestive, and reproductive tracts. Of these, many strains present probiotic traits and are responsible for maintaining the body’s health.2,3,4 In addition, certain strains of probiotics are not inherently found within the human body. However, they can be introduced and supplemented into the body in a variety of ways, including through food, pharmaceutical products, and non-orally consumed products, to confer greater health benefits.5,6 Probiotics have been demonstrated to possess beneficial effects in the treatment of a diverse array of medical conditions. For example, supplementation with Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1 can alleviate symptoms such as bloating and diarrhea that are linked to lactose intolerance.7 The application of Bifidobacterium lactis has been found to exhibit significant preventive and therapeutic effect on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).8 Furthermore, several studies have indicated that Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium bifidum can also enhance the immunological response of the host and enhance the functionality of immune cells.9,10

Despite the potential clinical applications of probiotics, the precise mechanism by which they exert their effects remains uncertain, hence impeding their integration into pharmaceutical formulations. Functional modification of probiotics allows them to perform their physiological activities while releasing active metabolites in a targeted, sustained, and controlled manner.11 Functional genes for disease treatment can be integrated into the genomes of probiotics, enabling the treatment of a variety of diseases such as infectious diseases,12 gastrointestinal disorders,13 and tumors.14 With the advent of diverse gene editing technologies, a number of probiotics have been engineered with additional functionalities. In the following sections, we will provide a concise introduction of the theoretical basis of gene editing technologies, including suicide plasmids, Cre/loxP system, λ-Red and RecE/T systems, transposons, group II introns, and CRISPR-Cas systems. Furthermore, we will illustrate the application of these methodologies in the genetic modification of probiotics. We will discuss the gene editing methods for both traditional and next-generation probiotics, each serving distinct objectives in the therapy of diseases. In contrast to traditional probiotics, research on next-generation probiotics is relatively limited and shallow. However, the next-generation probiotics hold potential for personalized medicine due to the ability to ameliorate specific diseases through modulating the gut microbiota. The forthcoming iteration of probiotics is considered as a rational endeavor to transition from traditional bacteria, which have a track record of safety, to novel microorganisms. This paper aims to shed information on the present state and challenges associated with gene editing in the context of probiotics, especially next-generation probiotics. The establishment of these principles will serve as the basis for the later utilization of genetically modified probiotics in the prevention and management of various diseases.

Gene editing technologies

Gene editing technologies include a range of methodologies, such as suicide plasmids, Cre/loxP system, λ-Red and RecE/T systems, transposons, group II introns, and CRISPR-Cas systems. Table 1 displays the application scenarios and the advantages and disadvantages of certain gene editing technologies.Table 1 Comparison of different gene editing technologies

Technologies	Application scenarios	Advantages	Defects	
Suicide plasmids15,16,17	Deletion, insertion, and replacement of genes	Scarless editing and accessible to a broad range of hosts	Instable, high false positive rates, and complex operation	
Cre/loxP system18,19,20	Deletion, inversion, and translocation of genes	Efficient, spatial and temporal specificity, no need for cofactors, and available to gene editing of large fragments and multiple recombination	Leaving scars and limited by site selection	
λ-Red and RecE/T systems21,22,23	Deletion and insertion of genes, point mutations, and repairing DNA breaks	Scarless editing, high efficiency, and strong programmability	Dependent on homologous fragments, and not suitable for large gene fragment manipulation	
Transposons24,25,26	Inactivation and insertion of genes, and creating mutant libraries	Efficient and flexible	Restricted insertion sites and potential interference with the functionality of the adjacent genome	
Group II introns27,28,29	Deletion and insertion of genes	Efficient	Possible off-target integration, complex operation, and difficult in deletion or insertion of large gene fragments	
CRISPR-Cas systems30,31,32	Deletion, insertion, and point mutations of genes	Simple, convenient, and available for large fragment editing and multiplex gene editing	Off-target effects	
Abbreviations: Cre: cyclization recombination enzyme.

Suicide plasmids

Suicide plasmids can be transferred between bacteria through conjugation, a process where two bacteria form a physical connection and exchange genetic material.33 They are often used to create knockout mutants in Gram-negative bacteria.34 Suicide plasmids are designed to have limited or no ability to replicate in the recipient bacteria, ensuring that they do not persist after facilitating genetic modification, thus preventing unwanted effects.35

A two-stage homologous recombination process is involved in the application of suicide plasmids for gene editing. The initial step involves integrating suicide plasmids into the bacterial genome, which is typically screened by antibiotic resistance. The subsequent step is to remove the backbone of suicide plasmids from the bacterial genome, and the screening of genetically engineered bacterial mutants is mainly achieved by counterselection markers.15 The sacB gene encodes a levansucrase that can inhibit most Gram-negative bacteria in sucrose medium, so integration of the sacB gene into suicide plasmids allows screening of gene-edited bacteria.36 However, the implementation of counter-selection methods using the sacB gene results in a high false positive rate.37,38 The false positive rate of the upp gene counterselection system is approximately 10 times lower than that of the sacB counterselection system,37 so it is commonly used for a variety of probiotics.39 The upp gene encodes for uracil phosphoribosyl transferase (UPRTase), an enzyme that converts 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) to 5-fluoro-UMP that inhibits thymidylate synthase activity, ultimately leading to cell death.40,41 Only cells lacking the upp gene can survive in the presence of 5-FU. The process of gene editing in Clostridium by suicide plasmid vectors combined with upp counterselection marker is shown in Figure 1.42Figure 1 Scarless gene deletion in Clostridium by suicide plasmids combined with the counterselection system

The use of restrictionless Δupp strains and suicide vectors containing an antibiotic resistance gene and upp allowed for the achievement of scarless gene editing in Clostridium.

(A) The suicide plasmid can be integrated into the host bacterial genome in either the 5′ or 3′ direction through homologous recombination, utilizing antibiotic resistance for the selection of the first crossing-over.

(B) The double crossing-over and the excision of the plasmid can be achieved by employing the 5-FU/upp system. X and z genes represent the homologous regions in the suicide plasmid, and y gene is to be deleted. Reprinted with permission from [Foulquier et al.42]. Copyright (2019) Springer Nature. Abbreviations: upp: gene that encodes uracil phosphoribosyl-transferase (UPRTase), 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil.

The application of suicide plasmids-mediated gene editing technology can achieve scarless editing of target genes and edit gene fragments at most locations in the bacterial genome.43 However, this technology requires suicide plasmids to be transferred into the host bacteria and bound to the chromosome, which may introduce instability to the gene editing process.44

Cre/loxP system

Sternberg and Hamilton first described a recombinase from P1 phage and named it cyclization recombination enzyme (Cre).45 Cre is a recombinase that recognizes specific loxP sites that are 34 bp in length and consists of an asymmetric 8 bp spacer flanked by 13 bp of inverted repeats.46 Recombination of two loxP sites in the same orientation results in the deletion of the flanked DNA segment. Conversely, recombination of two loxP sites in the opposite orientation results in the inversion of the loxP-flanked DNA segment. Cre recombinase also catalyzes translocation when loxP sites are present on two different chromosomes.47

The advantage of Cre recombinase is that they do not require any cofactors to function, so that Cre/loxP recombination system is broad-spectrum and highly active, and theoretically, can effectively work on any type of DNA in any cellular environment. Compared to CRISPR-Cas systems, it neither produces DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), nor relies on the natural homology-directed repair pathway of bacteria. Cre/loxP recombination system can achieve large DNA segment deletions of more than 25 kb and allow multiple recombination at the same time.48 In bacterial gene editing, Cre/loxP recombination system can be used to delete selective genes for identifying the function of dextranase on sugar metabolism of Leuconostoc mesenteroides DRP105.49 Notably, site-specific recombination strategies with high efficiency and precise spatiotemporal resolution are continuously being developed. In addition to the common chemical induction, Cre/loxP recombination system based on optical induction are also constantly being investigated for more precise gene editing.50,51

Repeated use of natural loxP sites for gene replacement and selectable marker removal can result in the accumulation of multiple loxP sites capable of being recognized by Cre recombinase in the genome, which cause genetic instability.52 To address this issue, scientists have altered the loxP site to produce a mutant left element (lox66) and a mutant right element (lox71), which can still be targeted by Cre recombinase. When lox66 and lox71 combine, they create a novel lox72 site, which will not receive recognition and action from Cre recombinase like the original loxP site. Therefore, its binding affinity is significantly reduced, allowing for multiplex gene deletion operations without introducing additional genetic instability.53 The modified Cre/lox system has been successfully used for large fragment gene deletion in Lactobacillus54 and Bacillus subtilis55 and EcN. The insertion efficiency in EcN for multiple phage attachment site integration was significantly improved to about 37–61%56 (as shown in Figure 2).Figure 2 Diagram of the insertion of the additional ϕ80 attB site on the EcN chromosome using Cre/lox72 system

The additional ϕ80 attB site was inserted in orfA on the EcN chromosome by double homologous recombination assisted by the helper plasmid pKD46. After insertion, the selection marker Kmr flanking the lox66 and lox71 sites was removed by the helper plasmid pTH19-Cre, and lox72, the recombination site for lox66 and lox71, was formed. Modified and reprinted with permission from [Cheng et al.56]. Copyright (2022) American Chemical Society. Abbreviations: ϕ80 attB site: ϕ80 bacterial attachment site, Kmr: kanamycin resistance gene, lox66: mutant loxP sites, lox71: mutant loxP sites, lox72: recombination site of lox66 and lox71.

λ-Red and RecE/T systems

The recombination system using λ-Red and RecE/T requires only short homologous DNA fragments (50 bp) for efficient homologous recombination to enable knockout, insertions and point mutations in the bacterial genome.57

λ-Red recombination system is derived from three proteins, λ-Gam, λ-Exo and λ-Beta, expressed in the λ-phage red motif, which are involved in homologous recombination of the genome with exogenous genes.58 λ-Gam can inhibit intracellular nucleic acid exonucleases and endonucleases to prevent degradation of exogenous genes. λ-Exo, as a nucleic acid exonuclease, is able to degrade exogenous genes along the 5′-3′ direction, resulting in single-stranded gaps at both ends of exogenous double-stranded DNA (dsDNA). λ-Beta promotes annealing pairing of exogenous genes with homologous sequences in the genome.59 λ-Red homologous recombination process involves two mechanisms: invasion and annealing60 (as shown in Figure 3). The invasion process typically occurs when only one partner is broken. λ-Exo cleaves dsDNA to produce 3′ ends, and RecA allows the single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) to enter the homologous double strand. Subsequently, the homologous recombination process is completed through branch migration and Holliday junctions. If two partners are broken, the annealing process is triggered. After λ-Exo cleavage of dsDNA, λ-Beta facilitates the annealing process and recombinants are formed by ligating.61,62 Antibiotic resistance genes are commonly utilized as selectable markers and later removed through plasmids expressing flippase recombination enzyme or Cre recombinase (for loxP), or by a second recombination with unlabeled linear DNA.63 λ-Red recombination process had a recombination efficiency of 0.2% with dsDNA and up to 25% with ssDNA.64 λ-Red recombination system is capable of accomplishing efficient integration of 2000 bp DNA fragments, but for large DNA fragments (>2000 bp), the recombination efficiency decreases dramatically.65Figure 3 Homologous recombination process mediated by λ-Red system

The DSB repair process mediated by λ-Red system is primarily divided into two different mechanisms. λ-Exo cleaves dsDNA to produce a 3′ overhang in both pathways.

(A) Invasion: When the recombination partner with the dsDNA end is an unbroken circular homologous duplex, the recombination process will proceed through strand invasion dependent on RecA protein.

(B) Annealing: When the recombination partner is replicating ssDNA, the recombination process will be facilitated through annealing mediated by λ-Beta. Modified and reprinted with permission from [Poteete et al.60]. Copyright (2001) Federation of European Microbiological Societies. Abbreviations: DSBs: double-strand breaks, dsDNA: double-stranded DNA, ssDNA: single-stranded DNA.

RecE/T recombination system, derived from the E. coli Rec phage, is similar to λ-Red recombination system. RecE acts as a nucleic acid exonuclease, excising linear DNA to expose ssDNA tails, while RecT binds to ssDNA and facilitates the annealing pairing of ssDNA to the genome.66 This recombination system is often coupled with CRISPR-Cas systems to recombinantly repair the cleavage site after DSBs.67 The RecE/T recombination-assisted CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology increases the frequency of double-exchange events at the chromosomal DSBs and between repair templates in Corynebacterium glutamicum.68

Transposons

Transposons are mobile genetic elements that can move independently from one location to another in the genome.69 Transposon random mutagenesis is an established technology for building libraries of mutant bacterial strains. Mutants can be obtained by inserting transposons into genes and directly disrupting the reading frame, which is a rapid and simple process.69 Several types of transposons have been used to construct single gene mutant libraries in bacteria, such as Tn3,70 Tn5,71 Tn7,72 and mariner family transposable elements.73 Himar1 is the most commonly used transposable element of the mariner family in bacterial mutagenesis. It catalyzes the insertion of TA dinucleotide sites with high randomness and coverage, allowing for the construction of a library of bacterial transposon random insertion mutants.74 Himar1 transposable element has been successfully constructed as a high-throughput mutagenesis system in Bacteroides.75 Recently, it has been shown that CRISPR-Cas systems encoded in transposons can mediate RNA-directed site-specific transposition, enabling efficient and specific insertion of exogenous genes into the genome. This technology is known as CRISPR-associated transposase from cyanobacteria Scytonema hofmanni (ShCAST) and has been successfully used for precise insertion into the E. coli genome.76,77

Group II introns

Group II introns, known as retrotransposons, are site-specific reverse transcription factors with nuclease activity.78 The secondary structure of group II introns consists mainly of six stem-loop structural domains distributed in a radial pattern, and this structure enables them to catalyze their own splicing reactions.79 During target site recognition, the exon binding sequence (EBS) of group II introns recognizes the intronic binding sequence (IBS) of the target site by base complementary pairing. After recognition, group II introns cleave the target site DNA sense strand by reverse splicing, and the host DNA repair mechanism is utilized to form a complete DNA double strand. This process is called “Retrohoming”.80,81

Based on the RNA structure of introns, group II introns are mainly classified into three categories (IIA, IIB, and IIC).82 Among them, the group IIA intron Ll. ltrB from Lactococcus lactis is one of the most studied and widely used group II introns. Based on the target site recognition properties of Ll. ltrB introns and their migration patterns on chromosomes, it has been developed as an efficient gene targeting tool, Targetron.83 Similarly, the general gene targeting tool specifically used for Clostridium is called ClosTron84 (as shown in Figure 4).Figure 4 Intron-anchored gene deletion approach in Clostridium

(A) Vector structure containing Ll. ltrB introns.

(B) The EBS of Ll. ltrB introns matched the IBS on the target gene and underwent reverse transcription catalyzed by LtrA. The Ll. ltrB introns were inserted into the target gene.

(C) Deletion of the target gene by homologous recombination, and no antibiotic resistance markers were left in the genome during the gene deletion process, which facilitated subsequent gene manipulation. Reprinted with permission from [Jia et al.84]. Copyright (2011) PLOS ONE. Abbreviations: EBS: exon binding sequence, IBS: intronic binding sequence, LtrA: protein that recognizes the intron target gene and reverse transcribes the intron RNA sequence.

Some group II introns without intron-encoded protein (IEP) domains were also found to have significant cleavage activity, named as hydrolytic endonucleolytic ribozymes (HYERs). Recent studies have shown that HYERs can exhibit DNA-cutting efficiency in vitro comparable to CRISPR-Cas12 system. Compared to CRISPR-Cas systems, HYERs (0.6 kb) are much more compact than the CRISPR nuclease (3–4 kb).85 More importantly, group II introns also work for bacteria lacking homologous recombination and can be modified to integrate into any locus of interest, expanding the means of gene editing for microorganisms that are inefficient at transforming exogenous DNA.86 However, group II introns-mediated gene editing is to realize the inactivation of target genes through the insertion of introns at the target site, and thus cannot realize functions such as point mutation and scarless knockout of genes. Besides, due to the limited size of the genes it carries, the insertion of large fragments and multiple genes cannot be realized.27,84

CRISPR-Cas systems

CRISPR-Cas systems, as the 3rd generation genome editing technology, have multiple advantages including simple design, outstanding editing efficiency, and high specificity compared with traditional Zinc-finger nucleases (ZFN) and Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN) technologies.87 ZFN recognizes specific nucleic acid sequences through zinc finger structure and cuts DNA through Fok Ⅰ nucleic acid endonuclease activity.88 TALEN recognizes specific nucleic acid sequences through transcriptional activation-like effector and cuts DNA through Fok Ⅰ nucleic acid endonuclease activity.89 Comparatively, CRISPR-Cas systems recognize specific nucleic acid sequences through small guide RNA (sgRNA) and cut DNA through Cas protein.90 Several common CRISPR-Cas mediated-gene editing processes are shown in Figure 5. ZFN and TALEN are more widely used for gene editing in eukaryotic cells. By contrast, CRISPR is discovered from prokaryotic organisms and therefore facilitates its application in bacteria gene editing.91Figure 5 Diagram of several CRISPR-Cas-mediated gene editing processes

(A) CRISPR-Cas tools capable of generating DSBs. Cas9 cleaves DNA to create blunt ends under the direction of sgRNA while Cas12a (Cpf1) cleaves DNA with the assistance of crRNA to produce sticky ends. After the formation of DSBs, recombination repair process is accomplished through NHEJ or HDR, resulting in gene insertion or deletion.

(B) CRISPR-Cas tools that do not generate DSBs. CRISPR-dCas9 system coupled with the base editor enable single-base mutations without DSBs. Bacterial CASTs facilitate the insertion of targeted DNA sequences without the generation of DSBs. Created with BioRender.com. Abbreviations: sgRNA: small guide RNA, crRNA: CRISPR RNA, PAM: protospacer adjacent motif, dCas9: a mutant form of the Cas9 protein, Tns: transposons, DSBs: double-strand breaks, NHEJ: non-homologous end-joining, HDR: homology directed repair, CBE: cytosine base editor, C: cytosine, T: thymine, ABE: adenine base editor, A: adenine, G: guanine, LE: left end, RE: right end, CASTs: CRISPR-associated transposases.

CRISPR-Cas systems can be classified into two categories of six types: the first category uses effector complexes composed of multiunit Cas protein and mature CRISPR RNA (crRNA) to recognize and cleave target nucleic acids, including type I, III and IV; the second category functions through effector complexes composed of individual Cas protein and crRNA, including types II, V, and VI.92 Type I systems account for the largest number of CRISPR-Cas systems, and the Cas3 protein can be used as the characteristic protein. Type III systems not only have the ability to resist invading DNA, but also show resistance to invading RNA, and the Cas7-11 proteins are the signature proteins. Many of type IV systems lack nuclease proteins, but nucleic acids from different plasmids can be detected in their spacer region sequences, so type IV systems may be related to resistance to foreign plasmids. The representative of type II systems is CRISPR-Cas9 system, and the Cas9 proteins currently used are mainly derived from Streptococcus pyogenes (SpCas9) and Staphylococcus aureus (SaCas9). Due to its relatively common protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) sequence and simple and rapid editing process, it has become the most widely used technology in CRISPR-Cas systems. The most widely used type V system is CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system, among which Acidaminococcus sp. BV3L6 (AsCas12a), Francisella novicida U112 (FnCas12a) are often developed as genome editing tools for prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. The Cas9 protein leaves flat DNA ends after cutting dsDNA, while the Cas12a (Cpf1) protein leaves sticky ends, a structure that facilitates non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) during gene repair process, allowing for more precise gene insertion.93,94 The Cas13 protein of type VI system is an RNA-guided RNA endonuclease.95

Many studies have shown that CRISPR systems tend to achieve editing of bacterial genomes in two ways: either by using bacterial endogenous CRISPR for editing, or by introducing exogenous CRISPR-Cas systems. There have been various examples of bacteria utilizing endogenous CRISPR-Cas mechanisms to achieve gene editing. For example, multiplex gene editing was achieved using the type I-B system on the genome of Clostridium tyrobutyricum to improve the production of butanol,96 and the type II-A system can be applied to gene deletion, gene insertion, and point mutation in Pediococcus acidilactici.97 However, since homology directed repair (HDR) activity in bacteria is typically low and the NHEJ system is present in only a few bacterial species, such as Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria,98,99 they need to be provided with homologous recombination templates for repairing DSBs after cleavage by Cas proteins.

The complexity of bacterial genomes and the fact that different bacteria may exhibit disparate adaptations to distinct gene editing methodologies render the application of a single gene editing technology an inefficient approach. The integration of CRISPR-Cas systems with other technologies can significantly expand the scope of applications and enhance the efficacy of editing.35,100,101 For example, CRISPR-Cas9 system can increase the accessibility and flexibility of gene editing when coupled with Cre-lox system. After the integration of the vector carrying expression cassettes into the host chromosome, Cre recombinase removes the inserted replicon and selection markers flanking lox66 and lox71. CRISPR-Cas9 system then cleaves the expression cassettes to restore the original function when they are no longer required.102 CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system can be employed in combination with RecE/T system. The crRNA is capable of inducing the Cas12a (Cpf1) nuclease to cleave the bacterial genome, thereby generating DSBs. RecE/T system can assist the recombination repair process of ssDNA and dsDNA by the RecE and RecT proteins, which ultimately leads to the efficient gene editing.67 Additionally, Type V-K CRISPR-Cas system has been demonstrated to function effectively in conjunction with transposons. The helper plasmid (pHelper) contains four CRISPR-associated transposases (CAST) genes (tnsB, tnsC, tniQ, and Cas12k) and crRNA genes targeting a synthetic PSP1. The donor plasmid (pDonor) connects the targeting sequences to be inserted in the middle of the transposon left-end and right-end. The target plasmid (pTarget) carries the PAM and PSP1 sequences. By transforming the three plasmids into bacteria, the genes could be targeted for insertion between 60 and 66 bp at the 3′ end of PAM. The ShCAST system was shown to enable the insertion of up to 10 kb of DNA in bacteria.103 Furthermore, CRISPR-dCas9 system can be utilized in conjunction with base editors. dCas9 is a specific mutation at the cutting site of the Cas9 protein that renders it inactive as a nucleic acid endonuclease, which enables precise localization and binding to the target site under the guidance of sgRNA. Base editors enable the conversion of cytosine to thymine or adenine to guanine.32 The examples and advantages of CRISPR-Cas systems combined with other technologies are shown in Table 2.Table 2 Examples and advantages of integrating CRISPR-Cas systems with other technologies

CRISPR-Cas systems	Jointly employed technologies	Examples	Advantages	
CRISPR-Cas9 system102	Cre/lox system	After integrating the vector carrying expression cassettes into the host chromosome, Cre recombinase removes the inserted replicon and selection markers flanking lox66 and lox71. CRISPR-Cas9 system cleaves the expression cassettes to restore the original function when they are no longer needed.	Enhancing the versatility and flexibility of gene editing while minimizing the error rate.	
CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system67	RecE/T system	The genome is cleaved by crRNA-directed Cas12a (Cpf1), resulting in DSBs. These DSBs are then repaired using the RecE/T recombination system, which involves both ssDNA and dsDNA recombination.	Increasing homologous recombination activity and achieving robust expression of Cas12a (Cpf1). Enabling the editing of multiple genes and large DNA fragments.	
Type V-K CRISPR-Cas system103	Transposons	Cas12k recognizes specific sequences, and Tn7-like transposons insert exogenous gene fragments into the genome.	Achieving efficient and specific insertion of large DNA fragments without inducing DSBs and is independent of homologous recombination repair process.	
CRISPR-dCas9 system32	Base editors	Multiple sgRNAs are used to localize the genome of Bacillus subtilis, while CBEs are employed to achieve cytosine to thymine base-shift mutations within the target site activity window.	Improving multiplex gene editing efficiency without inducing DSBs and is independent of homologous recombination repair process.	
Abbreviations: Cre: cyclization recombination enzyme, crRNA: CRISPR RNA, DSBs: double-strand breaks, ssDNA: single-stranded DNA, dsDNA: double-stranded DNA, dCas9: a mutant form of the Cas9 protein, sgRNA: small guide RNA.

There are still many difficulties with multiplex gene editing as well as large fragment gene editing in bacteria. For instance, simultaneous gene editing of multiple loci is less efficient and prone to off-target effects.104 Gene editing of large segments frequently results in inefficiencies and complex repair mechanisms.64 CRISPR-Cas systems serve as promising gene editing tools for advanced gene editing functions. For multiplex gene editing, different specific gRNAs are designed to guide Cas proteins to reach multiple target gene sites and cut the target sequences. The process of gene editing is then achieved through various DNA repair mechanisms.64 For long fragment editing, CRISPR-Cas systems can also generate DSBs by Cas protein cleavage, and then homologous recombination can be used to accurately and efficiently edit large gene fragments. Furthermore, the editing efficiency of large fragment gene editing can be enhanced by the utilization of the recently reported CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system,105 or by the combination of CRISPR-Cas systems with the λ-red recombination system106 or transposase.77 The process of multiplex gene editing and large fragment editing using CRISPR-Cas systems is shown in Figure 6.Figure 6 Advanced gene editing functions enabled by CRISPR-Cas systems

(A) Multiplex gene editing can be achieved using CRISPR-Cas9 system, which involves the use of the same Cas9 endonuclease and two sgRNA cassettes. Modified and reprinted with permission from [Cobb et al.107]. Copyright (2014) American Chemical Society.

(B) Insertion and deletion of long DNA fragments can be achieved by combining the use of CRISPR-Cas9 system and λ-Red recombination system. (a) The insertion of gene fragments ranging in length from 3 to 12 kb into the lacZ gene resulted in positive rates above 95% in all cases. (b) The deletion of 12 long fragments ranging in length from 52.0 to 186.7 kb, all with a positive gene editing rate of more than 95%. Modified and reprinted with permission from [106]. Copyright (2020) Springer Nature. Abbreviations: TS: target site, LHA: left homologous arm, RHA: right homologous arm.

Approaches and applications of gene editing in probiotics

The primary objectives accomplished by means of gene editing traditional and advanced probiotics encompass comprehending their processes of operation and augmenting advantageous functionalities.

Traditional probiotics

Many gene editing technologies have been successfully applied to a variety of traditional probiotics such as Lactobacillus, EcN, Bacillus subtilis, Bifidobacteria, and Saccharomyces, and the specific technical features and application scenarios are shown in Table 3.Table 3 List of successfully engineered traditional probiotics using different gene editing technologies

Bacteria	Technologies	Features & Applications	
Lactobacillus	Double-crossover recombination	Inefficiency of vector excision, and complexity of operation108,109	
	Cre/lox recombination system	Constructing a multigene deletion system with 99.4% correctness53	
	DsDNA recombination mediated by λ-Red and RecE/T systems	Improving the efficiency of gene editing, but scarring when removing selection markers110,111	
	SsDNA recombination assisted by ssDNA binding proteins	Increasing the efficiency, but only suitable for point mutations and short fragment deletions112	
	CRISPR-Cas9 system	Knocking out mucin genes for elucidating the mechanism of gut attachment and colonization113	
	CRISPR-Cas9 system	Knocking out the PyrR gene and revealing the essential role of PyrR in the inhibition of pathogen growth114	
	DsDNA and ssDNA recombination assisted by CRISPR-Cas9 system	Increasing the production of GlcNAc115	
	Suicide plasmids carrying the I-SceI recognition site	Realizing the integration of GOI genes into the EcN genome markerlessly and scarlessly116	
EcN	λ-Red recombination system	Enabling T7-promoter EcN to produce heme proteins and heme-derived molecules117	
	RecA recombination system	Increasing the production of heparosan118	
	CRISPR-Cas9 system	Knocking out two cryptic plasmids to increase the production of GABA to treat hypertension, epilepsy, and anxiety119	
	CRISPR-Cas9 system	Integrating the gene fragment of GLP-1 into the attB site of the EcN genome to increase the secretion of GLP-1 and exerting neuroprotective effects against PD120	
	CRISPR-Cas9 system	Fusing the EcN outer membrane protein OmpF with MPER in HIV-1 to induce the immune response against HIV-1121	
	λ-Red recombination system and Cre/loxP system	Knocking out the myc gene cluster, but with low editing efficiency122	
Bacillus subtilis	SsDNA recombination assisted by GP35	Increasing the recombination frequency, but dependent on ssDNA and long homologous arms (500 bp)123	
	5′-phosphorothioate modified dsDNA recombination	Allowing efficient knockout and knock-in124	
	Red/ET recombination system	Realizing the heterologous expression of large-band gene clusters125	
	CRISPR-Cas9 system	Gene editing using a single plasmid system126	
	Combining CRISPR-dCas9 system with cytidine deaminase	Overcoming the challenge of low efficiency of transformation and multiplex gene editing32	
	CRISPR-Cas9n system	Improving the efficiency of multiplex gene editing and the deletion of large fragments Liu et al.127	
	CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system	Improving the efficiency of multiplex gene editing128	
	Suicide plasmids	Enabling efficient gene editing independent of transformation efficiency129	
Bifidobacteria	Endogenous I-G CRISPR-Cas system in combination with an exogenous CRISPR base editor	Overcoming the difficulty in genetic manipulation130	
	CRISPR-δ integration	Increasing the copy number of the integrated genes, resulting in the activity of CMCase to 559 U/L131	
Saccharomyces	CRISPR-Cas system	Integrating large DNA fragments into the yeast chromosome, resulting in the production of BDO132	
Abbreviations: PyrR: pyrimidine regulatory gene, GlcNAc: N-acetylglucosamine, GOI: gastrointestinal gene of interest, GABA: Gamma-aminobutyric acid, GLP: glucagon-like peptide, CMCase: carboxymethyl cellulase, BDO: (R, R)-2, 3-butanediol.

Lactobacillus

Lactobacillus was first evident to exert health benefits in 1907, and since then Lactobacillus has been increasingly supplemented in food for gastrointestinal health.133 Lactobacillus is a Gram-positive bacterium that is primarily fermentative and ultimately metabolizes to produce lactic acid.134 Lactobacillus normally lives in carbohydrate-rich environment and colonizes mammalian mucosal surfaces such as the oral cavity, gastrointestinal tract and vagina, where it plays a role in gut immunity and epithelial barrier stabilization.135 Within the Lactobacillus taxon, several strains of Lacticaseibacillus casei, Lactobacillus johnsonii, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum have been approved as probiotics for incorporation into foods and pharmaceuticals that confer benefits to human health.136,137

The initial attempt to gene editing in Lactobacillus was through homologous recombination using a vector-based double-crossover strategy.138,139 But this approach is limited by the inefficiency of vector excision and the complexity of operation.109 Therefore, the site-specific Cre/lox recombination system was developed and allowed the construction of a multigene deletion system in Lactiplantibacillus plantarum with 99.4% correctness in the colonies analyzed.53 Additionally, dsDNA recombination mediated by λ-Red and RecE/T systems can effectively improve the gene editing efficiency. The use of the conditionally lethal gene pheS∗ as a negative selection marker combined with the temperature-sensitive plasmid pGhost9 in Lactobacillus lactis and Lacticaseibacillus casei enabled rapid screening for Lactobacillus mutants, and dramatically improved the accuracy of gene editing.110 However, excision of the selection markers used in the dsDNA recombination process usually leaves scars.111 In order to make only necessary changes in the bacterial genome without additional antibiotic selection, the application of ssDNA recombination technology assisted by ssDNA binding proteins such as RecT or Bet in Lactococcus lactis was developed. A 10-fold increase in the recombination efficiency of ssDNA can be achieved by increasing the concentration of oligonucleotides or by using phosphorothioate oligonucleotides.112 However, ssDNA recombination technology is primarily applicable to gene editing such as point mutations or short fragment deletions.140

CRISPR-Cas systems are commonly expressed in Lactobacillus. It has been demonstrated that CRISPR repeats can be detected in 59.7% of the 1,262 Lactobacillus genomes, with the type II-A CRISPR-Cas system being the most prevalent sub-type.141 In contrast, the exogenous CRISPR-Cas systems contain three key components: sgRNA, the DSB-mediating proteins, and homologous repair template.142,143 These facts facilitate CRISPR-Cas systems in the manipulation of probiotic genes and the interaction with the host. For example, seven mucin genes in Lactiplantibacillus plantarum AR113 were knocked out by CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene editing technology to understand the mechanism of Lactobacillus adhesion and colonization in the host intestine. The colonization ability of Lactobacillus was significantly reduced after deleting AR113 mucin genes, especially after the reduction of intestinal flora using polyethylene glycol. With the assistance of CRISPR-Cas9-enabled gene knockout, this study proved that both the intestinal flora environment and AR113 mucin gene-regulated adhesion ability of Lactobacillus affect the colonization in the intestinal tract.113 Lactobacillus can secrete antimicrobial substances that inhibit the growth of pathogens. By knocking out genes such as the pyrimidine regulatory gene (PyrR) using CRISPR-Cas systems, a decrease in the production of pyrimidine analogs was found with a subsequent reduction in antimicrobial capacity. This demonstrates that Lacticaseibacillus casei inhibits the growth of pathogens by synthesis and secretion of pyrimidine analogs.114

In addition to discover the intrinsic property of Lactobacillus, gene editing technologies were applied for the production of a wide range of beneficial metabolites.144 N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc) is the precursor of glycosaminoglycans, which is critical for maintaining the function of healthy cartilage and joint tissue.145 CRISPR-Cas9 technology-assisted dsDNA and ssDNA recombination could enable Lactiplantibacillus plantarum WCFS1 to produce GlcNAc efficiently with a yield of up to 797.3 mg/L without introducing exogenous genes or plasmids. This facilitates the application of seamless gene editing technology in GlcNAc production.115

EcN

EcN is the only non-pathogenic strain of E. coli isolated in 1917. It is capable to colonize the gastrointestinal tract, inhibit the invasion of pathogenic bacteria, and maintain the intestinal homeostasis. Therefore, EcN is a beneficial probiotic that can be used to treat inflammatory gastrointestinal dysfunctions.146,147 EcN is the active component of microbial drug Mutaflor for the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders including diarrhea, diverticular disease and ulcerative colitis.148 Moreover, EcN has excellent genetic stability and can be genetically modified with a variety of molecular biology tools for advanced preventive and therapeutic effects.149

I-SceI is a type I intron-encoded homing endonucleases, also known as meganuclease.150 Similar to restriction endonucleases, I-SceI is able to cleave the dsDNA in the presence of divalent metal ions with high specificity. This process generates DSBs at the target site to facilitate homologous recombination for gene insertion, deletion, or replacement.151 The gastrointestinal gene of interest (GOI) was integrated into a suicide plasmid carrying the I-SceI recognition site. GOI insertion at different sites in the EcN genome was implemented after the expression of the I-SceI meganuclease.116 EcN lacks the T7 RNA polymerase gene, which limits the use of expression vectors based on T7 promoters.152 The T7 RNA polymerase gene can be integrated into the malEFG operon of EcN by λ-Red recombination technology to construct a T7-promoter EcN strain, which can overcome the rate-limiting process of heme biosynthesis. This enabled EcN to efficiently produce heme proteins and heme-derived molecules.117 Heparosan is a polysaccharide precursor for the synthesis of the anticoagulant drug heparin. Multiple 19-kb kps sites can be inserted to EcN by RecA recombinant technology, and 9.1 g/L of heparosan can be produced by fermentation, making the industrial production of heparin through probiotics viable.118

The application of CRISPR-Cas9 system was able to efficiently and precisely remove the two cryptic plasmids from EcN to obtain the derivative strain EcNP to reduce the metabolic burden. Afterward, the gadB gene encoding glutamic acid decarboxylase was transfected into EcNP strain to produce gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) with high yield of 17.9 g/L, which can scale-up the industrial production for hypertension, epilepsy, anxiety disorders and other disease treatments.119 Using CRISPR-Cas9-edited EcN to produce desired products, such as for Parkinson’s disease (PD) or diabetes, has also been conducted. CRISPR-Cas9 system was used to integrate the gene encoding glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1), a therapeutic drug for maintaining blood glucose homeostasis, into the attB locus of the EcN genome to construct EcN-GLP-1. EcN-GLP-1 is capable of continuously secreting GLP-1 into the intestinal tract and regulating the balance of intestinal bacterial flora, thereby exerting a long-term therapeutic effect.120 In addition, the ability of EcN to colonize the mucosal surface and its strong immune-activating effects make it a versatile platform for the display of pathogenic antigens. Expression of HIV-1 periplasmic outer region (MPER) antigen by EcN using CRISPR-Cas9 system was applied for HIV vaccine study. Specifically, the EcN outer membrane protein OmpF was fused with MPER to construct stably transformed EcN strains. The final transformed EcN strains were capable of producing 14.3 μg/108 cfu of MPER, providing a cost-effective platform for HIV vaccination.121

Bacillus subtilis

Bacillus subtilis is a Gram-positive bacterium capable of forming spores and is highly resistant to specific conditions such as temperature, pH and bile salts, and thus can easily adapt to the environment in gastrointestinal tract.153 Bacillus subtilis is a Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) probiotic and plays an important role in the food and pharmaceutical industries for the production of enzymes, drug precursors, and a wide range of biologics.154 Bacillus subtilis is able to synthesize bacteriostatic agents in the gastrointestinal tract to inhibit the growth of pathogens while maintaining intestinal homeostasis.155

Bacillus subtilis is currently used as one of the model bacterium in the industry for the mass production of engineered products.156 The initial application of genetic engineering using λ-Red recombination system in Bacillus subtilis combined with Cre/loxP system was able to knockout of the myc gene cluster, while the editing efficiency remain low.122 To improve the efficiency, application of the homologous protein GP35 of RecT led to increase in the recombination frequency to 1.71 ± 0.15 × 10−1. However, this method relies on ssDNA and long homologous arms (500 bp), which is a time-consuming procedure.123 The use of 5′-phosphorothioate modified dsDNA as substrate in combination with the recombinase pair YqaJ/YqaK greatly improved the efficiency in knockout and knock-in in Bacillus subtilis 1A751.124 In order to enable the expression of natural product-derived gene clusters in Bacillus subtilis, two large gene fragments of the biosynthetic pathways from Brevibacillus brevis X23 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42 were directly integrated into the genome of Bacillus subtilis using Red/ET recombination, resulting in the heterologous expression of large gene clusters.125

Traditional scarless genome engineering approaches are based on a selection-counterselection system and are often limited by the lack of suitable counterselection markers, the toxicity of the counterselection compounds, and the need to mutate the target strains.157 With the emerging potential of CRISPR-Cas9 system, gene editing in Bacillus subtilis become more feasible. For example, gene editing of Bacillus subtilis can be achieved by integrating the cas9 gene controlled by the Bacillus subtilis mannose-inducible promoter PmanP and sgRNA sequences transcribed from the strong promoter in the shuttle plasmid pJOE8999.126 Since CRISPR-Cas9-induced DSBs lead to decreased bacterial survival, the efficiency of transformation and multiplex gene editing is low. dCas9 is a mutant form of the Cas9 protein. It has lost its shearing activity and can only be guided into the genome by sgRNA.158 Therefore, the base editing technology combining CRISPR-dCas9 system and cytidine deaminase was developed. Utilizing the ability of cytidine deaminase to mutate cytosine to thymine, early termination codons as well as targeted point mutations can be generated. The system enabled simultaneous gene editing on three or four loci with 100% and 50% efficiency, respectively.32 Compared to traditional Cas9-mediated gene editing methods, Cas9-nuclease (Cas9n)-mediated gene editing causes less damage and toxicity to the host, and single-strand breaks are easier to repair. CRISPR-Cas9n system is more efficient for large fragments editing as well as multiplex gene editing in Bacillus subtilis.127 Cas12a, known as Cpf1, stands as a distinguished member of the type V-A CRISPR effector family, serving as an RNA-guided DNA endonuclease. CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system enables double gene knockout, multipoint mutation or single gene insertion in Bacillus subtilis at the same time with high efficiency. These approaches promote the development of Bacillus subtilis in metabolic engineering.128

Bifidobacteria

Bifidobacteria are Gram-positive bacteria that are commonly found in the oral cavity, gastrointestinal tract and vagina of mammals.159 Several Bifidobacteria species have been commercialized as probiotics due to the beneficial effects on human life and their intrinsic safety, such as Bifidobacterium bifidum,160 Bifidobacterium breve,161 and Bifidobacterium longum.162 However, Bifidobacteria are genetically recalcitrant, so developing universal gene editing tools for Bifidobacteria remains challenging.163

One successful example was the knockout and knock-in using suicide plasmids in Bifidobacterium longum engineering. By inducing recombinase expression of an excision replicon to cut the plasmid, homologous recombination is facilitated between the vector and the Bifidobacterium longum genome. This approach enables efficient gene editing independent of transformation efficiency.129 The genome of Bifidobacteria is enriched in CRISPR-Cas systems, but the editing of Bifidobacteria genes using this system has been less frequently reported.164 To apply CRISPR-Cas editing tools to genetically refractory Bifidobacteria, personalized editing strategies need to be designed for individual strains. Type I CRISPR system is the most common type of CRISPR in bacteria, of which type I-G is a subtype that has been relatively poorly characterized. It has been reported that drug-resistant Bifidobacterium lactis strains can be resensitized to tetracycline by using the endogenous type I-G CRISPR-Cas system in combination with an exogenous CRISPR base editor.130 However, more efficient gene-editing molecular biology techniques are desired for the application of Bifidobacteria in food and pharmaceutical engineering.

Saccharomyces

Saccharomyces is a single-celled fungus that can ferment sugars into alcohol and carbon dioxide.165 In addition to being widely used in food and wine production, Saccharomyces can inhibit the proliferation of intestinal pathogenic bacteria, which can contribute to the balance of the intestinal microenvironment and enhance the host’s immune response.166,167 Saccharomyces boulardii165 and Saccharomyces cerevisiae168 have been found to be beneficial probiotics applied to the prevention and treatment of diseases.

Saccharomyces was one of the first microorganisms capable of gene editing by CRISPR-Cas systems.169 Saccharomyces cerevisiae has a high capacity for homologous recombination and can be used in conjunction with CRISPR-Cas systems to achieve efficient gene editing without the need for selection markers.170,171 Additionally, it has a lower incidence of off-targeting compared to other eukaryotic cells.172

Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a suitable organism for producing recombinant proteins. The δ-integration method can be used to integrate a high copy number of target genes into the yeast chromosome, enabling large-scale production of recombinant proteins.173 The CRISPR-δ integration method involves the pre-breakdown of the δ-sites on the yeast chromosome using CRISPR-Cas systems, followed by increasing the copy number of the integrated genes through the δ-integration, resulting in the activity of carboxymethyl cellulase (CMCase) to 559 U/L.131 Similarly, CRISPR-Cas systems were used to generate DSBs by cleaving at the δ-sites in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. A 24 kb DNA fragment containing the xylose utilization and (R, R)-2, 3-butanediol (BDO) production pathways was integrated into the yeast chromosome, resulting in the production of 12.51 g/L of BDO from 80 g/L of glucose.132

Next-generation probiotics

Compared to traditional probiotics, gene editing of next-generation probiotics has been reported less frequently due to their infancy. Here we will discuss the gene editing technologies applied to Akkermansia muciniphila, Bacteroides, Clostridium, and Eubacterium (as shown in Table 4).Table 4 List of next-generation probiotics for the gene editing technologies and application

Bacteria	Technologies	Features & Applications	
Akkermansia muciniphila	Transposon mutants	Recognizing important genes such as MUL genes in repressing genes for cholesterol biosynthesis174	
Bacteroides	Suicide plasmids	Constructing allelic deletions and substitutions for drug-resistant Bacteroides and counter-selection using the toxin Bfe1175	
	CRISPR-mediated base editing tool, pnCasBS-CBE	Introducing non-synonymous mutations and stop codons into genes involved in carbohydrate metabolism in B. theta176	
	CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system induced by aTc	Efficiently knocking down multi locus and large fragment (48 kb) genomes, as well as achieving high-efficient insertion of the exogenous gene gfp in B. theta105	
	CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system	Investigating the role of the PULs in Bacteroides uniformis adaptation177	
	aTc-induced Cas9-cytidine deaminase mutagenesis	Knocking down the abundance of human intestinal Bacteroides and applying cytidine deaminase mutagenesis to introduce a stop codon into the PUL genome to reveal the strategy to exploit polysaccharide178	
	Site-specific double crossover mediated by NBU2 integrase	Increasing the maximum titer and specific productivity of butyrate179	
	CRISPR-dCas9 system	Detecting bile acid and aTc in the human gut180	
Clostridium	ClosTron	Investigating the effect of the β-hydroxybutyryl-CoA dehydrogenase gene on the metabolism of Clostridium butyricum and the function of dlt operon181,182	
	Heterologous type II CRISPR-Cas9 system and endogenous type I-B CRISPR-Cas system	Enhancing butyrate production using highly efficient endogenous CRISPR-Cas in Clostridium butyricum183	
CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system	Achieving highly efficient and rapid genome modification and producing near-infrared fluorescence from biliverdin and hemin184	
	CRISPR-Cas9 system	Elucidating clostridial synthesis of several different branched short-chain fatty acids185,186	
	CRISPR-Cas9 system	Enabling the secretion of IL-2 for tumor immunotherapy187	
Eubacterium	Suicide plasmids combined with aTc-induced counter-selection system	Allowing rapid, precise, antibiotic-label-free gene knockout in Eubacterium188	
	CRISPR-EvCas9 system	Improving the knockdown efficiency189	
	CRISPR-Cas9 system induced by aTc	Demonstrating that substantial repression of multiple genes in the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway and fructose-phosphotransferase system190	
Abbreviations: MUL: mucin utilization locus, IL-2: interleukin-2, aTc: anhydrotetracycline, PULs: polysaccharide utilization sites.

Akkermansia muciniphila

Akkermansia muciniphila are Gram-negative anaerobic bacteria that colonize the human gut throughout life, and typically constituting 1–4% of all bacteria in fecal samples from healthy adults. Akkermansia muciniphila utilize gastrointestinal mucin as their sole source of carbon and nitrogen, thereby effectively increasing mucus thickness and improving intestinal barrier function.191 Akkermansia muciniphila deficiency has been implicated in the development of a variety of diseases, including metabolic disorders,192 neurological disorders,193 infections194 and cancers,195 as well as aging.196

However, gene editing of Akkermansia muciniphila is challenging, in part because their sensitivity to oxygen and tiny colony morphology limit the engineering of Akkermansia muciniphila. In addition, the survival and proliferation of Akkermansia muciniphila in the gut depend on the metabolism of mucins, a specific physiological requirement that may make gene editing difficult under laboratory conditions.197 Raphael et al. developed the transposon insertion plasmid pSAM_Akk using the codon-optimized transposase Himar1c9, and constructed an Akkermansia muciniphila transposon mutation library by conjugation with the E. coli donor. The Tn mutants from the transposon library were grown in a restriction medium with gastric mucin as the sole carbon and nitrogen source and it was found by transposon sequencing that Akkermansia muciniphila was required to grow on mucin medium via de novo biosynthesis of amino acids. Moreover, Akkermansia muciniphila expressed the mucin utilization locus (MUL) genes to utilize mucin, allowing it to colonize the gut by competing with other microbes.174 This provides an essential tool for unraveling the molecular links between mucin metabolism, regulation of lipid homeostasis, and potential probiotic activity, as well as new opportunities for the future application of gene editing technologies in Akkermansia muciniphila. In 2022, Ouwerkerk et al. isolated six new strains of Akkermansia muciniphila from healthy humans and determined the presence of Cas1, Cas2, and Cas9/Csn1-encoding genes in Akkermansia muciniphila, which indicates that endogenous CRISPR-mediated gene editing in Akkermansia muciniphila also holds potential.198

Bacteroides

Bacteroides are anaerobic, non-sporulating Gram-negative bacteria with a wide metabolic potential in the gastrointestinal microbiota, with the unique ability to digest a diverse range of carbohydrates and to produce short-chain fatty acids.199 Bacteroides can persistently colonize the gut by adapting its cell surface to the intestinal fluid environment because of dynamic changes in its surface structure.200,201 A variety of Bacteroides have been known to have the potential to act as probiotics with important roles in gut microbial communities and immune system maintenance, such as Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron,202 B. vulgatus203, B. fragilis,204 and B. uniformis.205

Several gene editing technologies have been used for Bacteroides modification, including suicide plasmids,206 transposon mutagenesis,207 inducible CRISPRi and recombinase systems,208 CRISPR-Cas systems.105 Recent studies have shown that most Bacteroides are resistant to erythromycin and tetracycline. The researchers developed the inulin selection cassette as an alternative screening tool for drug-resistant Bacteroides by constructing a suicide plasmid to achieve allelic deletions and substitutions. The plasmid also allowed counterselection with the Bfe1 toxin from the secretion system of Bacteroides fragilis type VI without generating mutant background strains.175 To improve the efficiency of gene editing, Liang et al. developed a CRISPR-mediated base editing tool, pnCasBS-CBE, which successfully introduced non-synonymous mutations and stop codons into genes involved in carbohydrate metabolism in B. thetaiotaomicron, with editing efficiencies ranging from 15% to 100%. Zheng et al. discovered that CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system induced by anhydrotetracycline (aTc) could efficiently knockdown multi locus and large fragments (48 kb) in genomes, as well as achieve high-efficiency insertion of the exogenous gene gfp in B. thetaiotaomicron, with insertion efficiency of over 80%. Overall gene editing efficiency was over 60% and up to 100% efficiency in B. vulgatus.105

Gene editing of Bacteroides also leads to a better understanding of its physiological characteristics and mechanism of action. Targeted knockdown of polysaccharide utilization sites (PULs) in B. uniformis using CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system provides a deep understanding of how different PULs contribute to polysaccharide utilization, microbial interactions, and colonization of the mammalian gut.177 In addition, Beller et al. used aTc-induced Cas9-cytidine deaminase mutagenesis to reduce the abundance of human intestinal Bacteroides and applied cytidine deaminase mutagenesis to introduce a stop codon into the genome of PULs, revealing a strategy to exploit polysaccharide.178

In addition to these basic metabolic studies, gene editing of Bacteroides has been used to enhance the product yield and for biosensing. Metabolic engineering of B. thetaiotaomicron was predicted using genome-scale metabolic modeling and heterologous production of unnatural butyrate up to 12 mg/L was achieved by homologous recombination. The maximum titer and specific productivity of butyrate in the pta-ldhD double knockout mutant mediated by NBU2 integrase were increased by nearly 3.4-fold and 4.8-fold compared to wild-type, respectively.179 Automated CRISPR-dCas9-based genetic logic circuits designed within B. thetaiotaomicron as the chassis can be used in biosensing to detect bile acid and aTc in the human gut. The detection limits for isopropyl-β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside, deoxycholic acid, and aTc are 500 μM, 62.5 μM, and 100 ng/μL, respectively.180

However, there are still a number of challenges associated with Bacteroides engineering, mainly related to the lack of understanding of the dynamics and functions of each strain and the mechanisms of their interactions with the host.209

Clostridium

Clostridium is a Gram-positive, specialized anaerobic bacterium that colonizes the intestinal tract of humans and other animals.210 In an aerobic environment, Clostridium exists as inert endospores, and it germinates into metabolically active trophoblasts when oxygen is absent.211 Clostridium primarily utilizes indigestible polysaccharides and produces most of the metabolites that increase intestinal immune tolerance and reduce inflammation.212 In the Clostridium genus, Clostridium butyricum213 and Clostridium sporogenes214 are recognized as valuable probiotics with significant biological functions.

As mentioned above, ClosTron is a kind of group II introns developed for the transformation of Clostridium. Efficient gene knockout has been achieved in many Clostridium butyricum using ClosTron. These studies include exploring the effect of the β-hydroxybutyryl-CoA dehydrogenase gene on the metabolism of Clostridium butyricum,181 and finding that a functional dlt operon controls the d-alanylation of cytoderm components and affects cell septation and vancomycin-induced lysis.182 Moreover, the coupling efficiency of endogenous CRISPR-Cas systems has been shown to be much higher than that of CRISPR-Cas9 systems imported into Clostridium.96,215 Therefore, the chances of successfully establishing efficient genome editing tools are usually higher when using natural CRISPR-Cas mechanisms than when using heterologous CRISPR-Cas9 systems. Researchers applied the heterologous type II CRISPR-Cas9 system and the endogenous type I-B CRISPR-Cas system to perform double knockout in Clostridium butyricum to enhance butyrate production, and found that reusing the endogenous CRISPR-Cas mechanisms to genetically engineer Clostridium butyricum has numerous advantages, such as small vector, low toxicity, high efficiency, and slight off-targeting. The efficiency is as high as 100% compared to the heterologous type II CRISPR-Cas9 system.183 In order to expand CRISPR-Cas-mediated gene editing tools for Clostridia, CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system with two different cas12a genes (Ascas12a and Fncas12a) was established. It shows that CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system provides flexible target selection in Clostridia and the specific folding pattern of the precursor crRNA is important for achieving high mutation generation efficiency. The optimized donor DNA template for gene integration in CRISPR-Cas12a (Cpf1) system achieved highly efficient (85–100%) and rapid (∼1 week) gene modification and successfully engineered Clostridia (Clostridium butyricum and Clostridium sporogenes) to produce near-infrared fluorescence from biliverdin and hemin.184

Clostridium sporogenes was found valuable in tumor treatment.216 However, gene editing operations in Clostridium sporogenes are not straightforward. After struggling for over nine months with no live colonies, Guo et al. discovered that the sgRNA and Cas9 components must be introduced separately into Clostridium sporogenes to effectively promote extracellular DNA uptake and homologous recombination. They first successfully developed the CRISPR-Cas9 deletion system in Clostridium sporogenes in 2019, using deletion mutants and mass spectrometry to elucidate clostridial synthesis of several different branched short-chain fatty acids.185,186 Kubiak et al. adopted CRISPR-Cas9 system to delete the toxin manipulator in Clostridium sporogenes NCIMB 10696. This strain was programmed to secrete mouse-activated Interleukin-2 (IL-2) to stimulate T cell proliferation for tumor immunotherapy.187

Eubacterium

Eubacterium is a Gram-positive bacterium, one of the core genera of the human gut microbiota. As a consensus probiotic among gut microbiologists, it has the ability to promote the maintenance of intestinal flora balance and inhibit intestinal inflammation.217

Researchers constructed an aTc-induced counterselection system using the RelB family of toxins in Eubacterium callanderi, which was combined with a non-replicating mutant vector to construct a suicide plasmid. The expression of RelB family toxins was induced by aTc, which resulted in the inhibition of cell growth. Only those that had lost the integrating plasmid and toxin genes through a second recombination event could be grown on aTc-containing medium, allowing for rapid, precise, and antibiotic-label-free gene knockout in Eubacterium188. Several novel Cas nucleases have been identified in Eubacterium. A compact type II-A Eubacterium ventriosum CRISPR-Cas9 system (EvCas9) was characterized from Eubacterium ventriosum. Compared with SpCas9 and SaCas9, EvCas9 has the advantages of simpler PAM, suitable size for AVV packaging, and dual-recognition mechanism, which was designed as an efficient base editor by fusing cytidine or adenosine deaminase. Knockdown efficiency in bacteria can reach 57–100% using CRISPR-EvCas9 system.189 The aTc-induced CRISPR-Cas9 system can precisely modify target genes with 100% efficiency. By introducing dCas9 protein, expression of the target gene can be effectively inhibited in Eubacterium limosum, and several genes in the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway and fructose-phosphotransferase system showed substantial inhibition greater than 84%.190

Concluding remarks and future perspectives

Probiotics are usually provided in the form of natural products or nutritional agents to maintain human health. However, there is considerable variation in the tolerance and colonization abilities of probiotics, which constrains their applicability.218 Gene editing technologies can enhance the stability and functionality of natural probiotics, making engineered probiotics a promising candidate for development as biotherapeutics.219 Although there is increasing diversity and feasibility in the engineering refurbishment of probiotics, it is important to note that only a limited portion of the microbial community is currently accessible and suitable for gene editing. Numerous advantageous microorganisms exhibit limited accessibility to genetic tools, and the gene editing procedure often entails off-targeting, diminished transformation efficacy, and potential hazards in heritable editing. The modification and precise editing of large gene fragments in probiotics continue to provide significant challenges. The application of gene editing technology in probiotics presents several significant hurdles. (1) The precise identification and consistent existence of the target genes, as well as the continuous generation of the desired substances; (2) the regulation of the interaction between the modified probiotic and other microorganisms in the gastrointestinal tract; (3) the potential for delivery of gene editing toolbox to edited probiotics; and (4) the screening after transformation for the selection of desired strains.220 The process of base editing involves the integration of programmable DNA-binding proteins, such as Cas9, with base deaminase in order to achieve single-base DNA alterations. This integration has been shown to greatly enhance the effectiveness and precision of gene editing. The off-target effect of CRISPR-Cas systems is considerably reduced through the process of prime editing, which involves the extensive modification of Cas9 protein and gRNA.221 The application of omics technologies enables the identification of novel and effective probiotics within the human body.219 CRISPR-Cas systems can also facilitate the investigation of the relationship between probiotics and the host microbial environment when used in conjunction with omics technologies.222 RNA editing can serve as a supplementary method to DNA editing in probiotics in specific instances.223 One notable advantage lies in the brief life cycle of RNA, which allows for reversible and inheritable RNA modification. In cases where DNA-level variable editing of transcripts is not feasible, the sole means of modification is through RNA editing.

In comparison to the long-established practice of incorporating natural probiotics into food or dietary supplements, gene-edited probiotics warrant more rigorous regulation due to their synthetic modifications. The following factors should be taken into account during the regulatory process for engineered probiotics: (1) the provision of the gene sequence of the exogenously introduced gene to the regulatory agency; (2) the avoidance of the transfer of antibiotic resistance cassettes to the resident microbiota; (3) the assessment of the ability of the microorganisms to replicate or persist and to be cleared from the host and/or the environment; and (4) the observation of the biodistribution of the engineered microorganisms within the host.224 It is also imperative to prioritize the safety of the application process when utilizing probiotics. The integration of biocontainment systems within the genetic structure of probiotics represents a critical strategy for the prevention and/or control of the spread of these microorganisms into the environment.225

Through an examination of the reaction to therapeutic probiotics, significant disparities were observed in the host’s response across many genetic and environmental factors, as well as the considerable diversity within the host’s commensal microbial community. In the future, it is imperative to address the pre-existing imbalanced host microbial community and intestinal flora when genetically modifying probiotics for therapeutic purposes, particularly in the context of long-term disease therapies like irritable bowel disease and diabetes. The therapeutic efficacy of designed probiotics can be significantly influenced by endogenous variables, namely in relation to colonization, survivability, and functionality. The progress in automated machinery and gene editing technology has resulted in the development of diverse high-throughput screening techniques for reconstructing cell factories. These techniques involve altering the physiological functions of cells at the genomic level, thereby creating favorable circumstances for strain proliferation and product accumulation. Consequently, this enhances the production efficiency for personalized therapeutic interventions.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the 10.13039/501100012166 National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFA1206100 , 2021YFA1201100 ), 10.13039/501100004826 Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Z230008 ), the 10.13039/501100001809 National Natural Science Foundation of China (32271449 , 32201158 , 51773188 ), and CAS Project for Young Scientists in Basic Research (YSBR-036 ).

Author contributions

L.W., J.H., and K.L. wrote the manuscript. Y.Z., and M.Z. revised the manuscript.

Declaration of interests

The authors declare no competing interests.
==== Refs
References

1 Hill C. Guarner F. Reid G. Gibson G.R. Merenstein D.J. Pot B. Morelli L. Canani R.B. Flint H.J. Salminen S. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics Consensus Statement on the Scope and Appropriate Use of the Term Probiotic Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 11 2014 506 514 24912386
2 Rosier B.T. Marsh P.D. Mira A. Resilience of the Oral Microbiota in Health: Mechanisms That Prevent Dysbiosis J. Dent. Res. 97 2018 371 380 29195050
3 Sekirov I. Russell S.L. Antunes L.C.M. Finlay B.B. Gut Microbiota in Health and Disease Physiol. Rev. 90 2010 859 904 20664075
4 Serrano M.G. Parikh H.I. Brooks J.P. Edwards D.J. Arodz T.J. Edupuganti L. Huang B. Girerd P.H. Bokhari Y.A. Bradley S.P. Racioethnic Diversity in the Dynamics of the Vaginal Microbiome During Pregnancy Nat. Med. 25 2019 1001 1011 31142850
5 Clarke T.C. Black L.I. Stussman B.J. Barnes P.M. Nahin R.L. Trends in the Use of Complementary Health Approaches among Adults: United States, 2002-2012 Natl. Health Stat. Report. 79 2015 1 16
6 Hoffmann D.E. Fraser C.M. Palumbo F. Ravel J. Rowthorn V. Schwartz J. Probiotics: Achieving a Better Regulatory Fit Food Drug Law J. 69 2014 237 272 25163211
7 Oliveira L.S.d. Wendt G.W. Crestani A.P.J. Casaril K.B.P.B. The Use of Probiotics and Prebiotics Can Enable the Ingestion of Dairy Products by Lactose Intolerant Individuals Clin. Nutr. 41 2022 2644 2650 36308983
8 Gareau M.G. Sherman P.M. Walker W.A. Probiotics and the Gut Microbiota in Intestinal Health and Disease Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 7 2010 503 514 20664519
9 Rühle J. Schwarz J. Dietz S. Rückle X. Schoppmeier U. Lajqi T. Poets C.F. Gille C. Köstlin-Gille N. Impact of Perinatal Administration of Probiotics on Immune Cell Composition in Neonatal Mice Pediatr. Res. 2024 1 10
10 Roselli M. Finamore A. Nuccitelli S. Carnevali P. Brigidi P. Vitali B. Nobili F. Rami R. Garaguso I. Mengheri E. Prevention of Tnbs-Induced Colitis by Different Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium Strains Is Associated with an Expansion of Gammadeltat and Regulatory T Cells of Intestinal Intraepithelial Lymphocytes Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 15 2009 1526 1536 19504616
11 Yan X. Liu X.Y. Zhang D. Zhang Y.D. Li Z.H. Liu X. Wu F. Chen G.Q. Construction of a Sustainable 3-Hydroxybutyrate-Producing Probiotic Escherichia coli for Treatment of Colitis Cell. Mol. Immunol. 18 2021 2344 2357 34480146
12 Mazzolini R. Rodríguez-Arce I. Fernández-Barat L. Piñero-Lambea C. Garrido V. Rebollada-Merino A. Motos A. Torres A. Grilló M.J. Serrano L. Lluch-Senar M. Engineered Live Bacteria Suppress Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Infection in Mouse Lung and Dissolve Endotracheal-Tube Biofilms Nat. Biotechnol. 41 2023 1089 1098 36658340
13 Zhang J. Hasty J. Zarrinpar A. Live Bacterial Therapeutics for Detection and Treatment of Colorectal Cancer Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 21 2024 295 296 38355755
14 Gurbatri C.R. Radford G.A. Vrbanac L. Im J. Thomas E.M. Coker C. Taylor S.R. Jang Y. Sivan A. Rhee K. Engineering Tumor-Colonizing E. coli Nissle 1917 for Detection and Treatment of Colorectal Neoplasia Nat. Commun. 15 2024 646 659 38245513
15 Wang T. Li Y. Li J. Zhang D. Cai N. Zhao G. Ma H. Shang C. Ma Q. Xu Q. Chen N. An Update of the Suicide Plasmid-Mediated Genome Editing System in Corynebacterium Glutamicum Microb. Biotechnol. 12 2019 907 919 31180185
16 Xiao J. Wang Q. Xiao K. Zhu W. Huang J. Cai X. Chen H. Xu X. Generation of Markerless and Multiple-Gene Knockout in Glaesserella Parasuis Based on Natural Transformation and Flp Recombinase Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 106 2022 5167 5178 35851417
17 Lal P.B. Wells F.M. Lyu Y. Ghosh I.N. Landick R. Kiley P.J. A Markerless Method for Genome Engineering in Zymomonas Mobilis ZM4 Front. Microbiol. 10 2019 2216 2227 31681183
18 Kruse R.L. Legras X. Barzi M. Cre/Loxp-HBV Plasmids Generating Recombinant Covalently Closed Circular DNA Genome Upon Transfection Virus Res. 292 2021 198224
19 Yang Y.J. Singh R.P. Lan X. Zhang C.S. Li Y. Li Y. Li Y.Z. Genome Editing in Model Strain Myxococcus Xanthus DK1622 by a Site-Specific Cre/loxP Recombination System Biomolecules 8 2018 137 155 30404219
20 Han M. Wang W. Gong X. Zhu G. Liu X. Yu Z. Zhou J. Ma C. Ma X. A Modified Method of Gene Disruption in Komagataella Phaffii with Cre/loxP System J. Biotechnol. 347 2022 40 48 35189159
21 Wang H. Li Z. Jia R. Hou Y. Yin J. Bian X. Li A. Müller R. Stewart A.F. Fu J. Zhang Y. RecET Direct Cloning and Redαβ Recombineering of Biosynthetic Gene Clusters, Large Operons or Single Genes for Heterologous Expression Nat. Protoc. 11 2016 1175 1190 27254463
22 Fu J. Bian X. Hu S. Wang H. Huang F. Seibert P.M. Plaza A. Xia L. Müller R. Stewart A.F. Zhang Y. Full-Length Rece Enhances Linear-Linear Homologous Recombination and Facilitates Direct Cloning for Bioprospecting Nat. Biotechnol. 30 2012 440 446 22544021
23 Zhang Y. Gu Y. Zheng Y. Wang Y. Nie L. Qiao R. He Y. Deletion of Luxs Gene Mediated by Λred Gene Recombination Technology Reduces Biofilm Formation and Stress Resistance of Lactobacillus Fermentum Food Biosci. 49 2022 101892
24 Sandoval-Villegas N. Nurieva W. Amberger M. Ivics Z. Contemporary Transposon Tools: A Review and Guide through Mechanisms and Applications of Sleeping Beauty, Piggybac and Tol2 for Genome Engineering Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22 2021 5084 5113 34064900
25 Ivics Z. Izsvák Z. The Expanding Universe of Transposon Technologies for Gene and Cell Engineering Mobile DNA 1 2010 25 40 21138556
26 Babakhani S. Oloomi M. Transposons: The Agents of Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria J. Basic Microbiol. 58 2018 905 917 30113080
27 Velázquez E. Al-Ramahi Y. de Lorenzo V. CRISPR/Cas9-Enhanced Targetron Insertion for Delivery of Heterologous Sequences into the Genome of Gram-Negative Bacteria Curr. Protoc. 2 2022 e532
28 Key C.E. Fisher D.J. Use of Group II Intron Technology for Targeted Mutagenesis in Chlamydia Trachomatis Methods Mol. Biol. 1498 2017 163 177 27709575
29 LaRoche-Johnston F. Bosan R. Cousineau B. Group II Introns Generate Functional Chimeric Relaxase Enzymes with Modified Specificities through Exon Shuffling at Both the RNA and DNA Level Mol. Biol. Evol. 38 2021 1075 1089 33118013
30 Lu J. Tong Y. Dong R. Yang Y. Hu W. Zhang M. Liu Q. Zhao S. Adams J.H. Qin L. Chen X. Large DNA Fragment Knock-in and Sequential Gene Editing in Plasmodium Falciparum: A Preliminary Study Using Suicide-Rescue-Based CRISPR/Cas9 System Mol. Cell. Biochem. 479 2024 99 107 37004637
31 Selle K. Barrangou R. Harnessing CRISPR-Cas Systems for Bacterial Genome Editing Trends Microbiol. 23 2015 225 232 25698413
32 Yu S. Price M.A. Wang Y. Liu Y. Guo Y. Ni X. Rosser S.J. Bi C. Wang M. CRISPR-dCas9 Mediated Cytosine Deaminase Base Editing in Bacillus Subtilis ACS Synth. Biol. 9 2020 1781 1789 32551562
33 Knudsen S.M. Karlström O.H. Development of Efficient Suicide Mechanisms for Biological Containment of Bacteria Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57 1991 85 92 2036024
34 Miller V.L. Mekalanos J.J. A Novel Suicide Vector and Its Use in Construction of Insertion Mutations: Osmoregulation of Outer Membrane Proteins and Virulence Determinants in Vibrio Cholerae Requires Toxr J. Bacteriol. 170 1988 2575 2583 2836362
35 Jain G. Ertesvåg H. Improved Site-Specific Mutagenesis in Rhodococcus Opacus Using a Novel Conditional Suicide Plasmid Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 106 2022 7129 7138 36194264
36 Gay P. Le Coq D. Steinmetz M. Ferrari E. Hoch J.A. Cloning Structural Gene sacB, Which Codes for Exoenzyme Levansucrase of Bacillus Subtilis: Expression of the Gene in Escherichia coli J. Bacteriol. 153 1983 1424 1431 6402497
37 Ma W. Wang X. Mao Y. Wang Z. Chen T. Zhao X. Development of a Markerless Gene Replacement System in Corynebacterium Glutamicum Using upp as a Counter-Selection Marker Biotechnol. Lett. 37 2015 609 617 25376333
38 Nešvera J. Pátek M. Tools for Genetic Manipulations in Corynebacterium Glutamicum and Their Applications Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 90 2011 1641 1654 21519933
39 Song B.f. Ju L.z. Li Y.j. Tang L.j. Chromosomal Insertions in the Lactobacillus Casei upp Gene That Are Useful for Vaccine Expression Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80 2014 3321 3326 24657853
40 Zhang W. Gao W. Feng J. Zhang C. He Y. Cao M. Li Q. Sun Y. Yang C. Song C. Wang S. A Markerless Gene Replacement Method for B. Amyloliquefaciens LL3 and Its Use in Genome Reduction and Improvement of Poly-Γ-Glutamic Acid Production Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 98 2014 8963 8973 24859524
41 Wang X.L. Dai S.Y. Wang Q.J. Xu H.N. Shi H.Q. Kang Y.B. Zha D.M. Efficient Markerless Gene Deletions in Pseudomonas Protegens Pf-5 Using a upp-Based Counterselective System Biotechnol. Lett. 42 2020 277 285 31781926
42 Foulquier C. Huang C.N. Nguyen N.-P.-T. Thiel A. WildingSteel T. Soula J. Yoo M. Ehrenreich A. MeynialSalles I. Liebl W. Soucaille P. An Efficient Method for Markerless Mutant Generation by Allelic Exchange in Clostridium Acetobutylicum and Clostridium Saccharobutylicum Using Suicide Vectors Biotechnol. Biofuels 12 2019 31 44 30809274
43 Zheng W. Xia Y. Wang X. Gao S. Zhou D. Ravichandran V. Jiang C. Tu Q. Yin Y. Zhang Y. Precise Genome Engineering in Pseudomonas Using Phage-Encoded Homologous Recombination and the Cascade–Cas3 System Nat. Protoc. 18 2023 2642 2670 37626246
44 Tong C. Liang Y. Zhang Z. Wang S. Zheng X. Liu Q. Song B. Review of Knockout Technology Approaches in Bacterial Drug Resistance Research PeerJ 11 2023 e15790
45 Sternberg N. Hamilton D. Bacteriophage P1 Site-Specific Recombination: I. Recombination between loxP Sites J. Mol. Biol. 150 1981 467 486 6276557
46 Hoess R.H. Ziese M. Sternberg N. P1 Site-Specific Recombination: Nucleotide Sequence of the Recombining Sites Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79 1982 3398 3402 6954485
47 Grindley N.D. Whiteson K.L. Rice P.A. Mechanisms of Site-Specific Recombination Annu. Rev. Biochem. 75 2006 567 605 16756503
48 Cautereels C. Smets J. De Saeger J. Cool L. Zhu Y. Zimmermann A. Steensels J. Gorkovskiy A. Jacobs T.B. Verstrepen K.J. Orthogonal Loxpsym Sites Allow Multiplexed Site-Specific Recombination in Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic Hosts Nat. Commun. 15 2024 1113 1128 38326330
49 Du R. Zhou Z. Han Y. Functional Identification of the Dextransucrase Gene of Leuconostoc Mesenteroides Drp105 Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21 2020 6596 6611 32916950
50 Wüst R.C.I. Houtkooper R.H. Auwerx J. Confounding Factors from Inducible Systems for Spatiotemporal Gene Expression Regulation JCB (J. Cell Biol.) 219 2020 e202003031
51 Tian X. Zhou B. Strategies for Site-Specific Recombination with High Efficiency and Precise Spatiotemporal Resolution J. Biol. Chem. 296 2021 100509
52 Suzuki N. Tsuge Y. Inui M. Yukawa H. Cre/loxP-Mediated Deletion System for Large Genome Rearrangements in Corynebacterium Glutamicum Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 67 2005 225 233 15834716
53 Lambert J.M. Bongers R.S. Kleerebezem M. Cre-Lox-Based System for Multiple Gene Deletions and Selectable-Marker Removal in Lactobacillus Plantarum Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73 2007 1126 1135 17142375
54 Xin Y. Guo T. Mu Y. Kong J. Coupling the Recombineering to Cre-Lox System Enables Simplified Large-Scale Genome Deletion in Lactobacillus Casei Microb. Cell Factories 17 2018 21 32
55 Yan X. Yu H.J. Hong Q. Li S.P. Cre/Lox System and PCR-Based Genome Engineering in Bacillus Subtilis Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74 2008 5556 5562 18641148
56 Cheng S.Y. Lin T.H. Chen P.T. Integration of Multiple Phage Attachment Sites System to Create the Chromosomal T7 System for Protein Production in Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 J. Agric. Food Chem. 70 2022 10239 10247 35960546
57 van Kessel J.C. Marinelli L.J. Hatfull G.F. Recombineering Mycobacteria and Their Phages Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6 2008 851 857 18923412
58 Court R. Cook N. Saikrishnan K. Wigley D. The Crystal Structure of λ-Gam Protein Suggests a Model for Recbcd Inhibition J. Mol. Biol. 371 2007 25 33 17544443
59 Carter D.M. Radding C.M. The Role of Exonuclease and Β Protein of Phage λ in Genetic Recombination J. Biol. Chem. 246 1971 2502 2510 4928646
60 Poteete A.R. What Makes the Bacteriophage λ Red System Useful for Genetic Engineering: Molecular Mechanism and Biological Function FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 201 2001 9 14 11445160
61 Stahl M.M. Thomason L. Poteete A.R. Tarkowski T. Kuzminov A. Stahl F.W. Annealing Vs. Invasion in Phage λ Recombination Genetics 147 1997 961 977 9383045
62 Murphy Kenan C. λ Recombination and Recombineering EcoSal Plus 7 2016 10 1128
63 Xu J. Qian Y. Skonezny P.M. You L. Xing Z. Meyers D.S. Stankavage R.J. Pan S.-H. Li Z.J. Reduction of N-Terminal Methionylation While Increasing Titer by Lowering Metabolic and Protein Production Rates in E. coli Auto-Induced Fed-Batch Fermentation J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 39 2012 1199 1208 22526331
64 Jeong J. Cho N. Jung D. Bang D. Genome-Scale Genetic Engineering in Escherichia coli Biotechnol. Adv. 31 2013 804 810 23624241
65 Su B. Song D. Zhu H. Homology-Dependent Recombination of Large Synthetic Pathways into E. coli Genome Via λ-Red and CRISPR/Cas9 Dependent Selection Methodology Microb. Cell Factories 19 2020 108 119
66 Huang H. Song X. Yang S. Development of a RecE/T-Assisted CRISPR–Cas9 Toolbox for Lactobacillus Biotechnol. J. 14 2019 e1800690
67 Zhao N. Li L. Luo G. Xie S. Lin Y. Han S. Huang Y. Zheng S. Multiplex Gene Editing and Large DNA Fragment Deletion by the CRISPR/Cpf1-RecE/T System in Corynebacterium Glutamicum J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 47 2020 599 608 32876764
68 Wang B. Hu Q. Zhang Y. Shi R. Chai X. Liu Z. Shang X. Zhang Y. Wen T. A RecET-Assisted CRISPR–Cas9 Genome Editing in Corynebacterium Glutamicum Microb. Cell Factories 17 2018 63 79
69 Picardeau M. Transposition of Fly Mariner Elements into Bacteria as a Genetic Tool for Mutagenesis Genetica 138 2010 551 558 19757097
70 Seringhaus M. Kumar A. Hartigan J. Snyder M. Gerstein M. Genomic Analysis of Insertion Behavior and Target Specificity of Mini-Tn7 and Tn3 Transposons in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Nucleic Acids Res. 34 2006 e57 16648358
71 Gallagher L.A. Ramage E. Patrapuvich R. Weiss E. Brittnacher M. Manoil C. Sequence-Defined Transposon Mutant Library of Burkholderia Thailandensis mBio 4 2013 e00604-13
72 Kumar A. Seringhaus M. Biery M.C. Sarnovsky R.J. Umansky L. Piccirillo S. Heidtman M. Cheung K.H. Dobry C.J. Gerstein M.B. Large-Scale Mutagenesis of the Yeast Genome Using a Tn7-Derived Multipurpose Transposon Genome Res. 14 2004 1975 1986 15466296
73 Mike L.A. Stark A.J. Forsyth V.S. Vornhagen J. Smith S.N. Bachman M.A. Mobley H.L.T. A Systematic Analysis of Hypermucoviscosity and Capsule Reveals Distinct and Overlapping Genes That Impact Klebsiella Pneumoniae Fitness PLoS Pathog. 17 2021 e1009376
74 Kulasekara H.D. Transposon Mutagenesis Methods Mol. Biol. 1149 2014 501 519 24818929
75 Ichimura M. Uchida K. Nakayama-Imaohji H. Hirakawa H. Tada T. Morita H. Yasutomo K. Okazaki K. Kuwahara T. Mariner-Based Transposon Mutagenesis for Bacteroides Species J. Basic Microbiol. 54 2014 558 567 23686946
76 Peters J.E. Makarova K.S. Shmakov S. Koonin E.V. Recruitment of CRISPR-Cas Systems by Tn7-Like Transposons Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114 2017 e7358 e7366 28811374
77 Klompe S.E. Vo P.L.H. Halpin-Healy T.S. Sternberg S.H. Transposon-Encoded CRISPR–Cas Systems Direct RNA-Guided DNA Integration Nature 571 2019 219 225 31189177
78 Ferat J.L. Michel F. Group II Self-Splicing Introns in Bacteria Nature 364 1993 358 361 7687328
79 Toro N. Molina-Sánchez M.D. Nisa-Martínez R. Martínez-Abarca F. García-Rodríguez F.M. Bacterial Group II Introns: Identification and Mobility Assay Methods Mol. Biol. 1400 2016 21 32 26895044
80 Lambowitz A.M. Zimmerly S. Group II Introns: Mobile Ribozymes That Invade DNA Cold Spring Harbor Perspect. Biol. 3 2011 a003616
81 Haack D.B. Yan X. Zhang C. Hingey J. Lyumkis D. Baker T.S. Toor N. Cryo-Em Structures of a Group II Intron Reverse Splicing into DNA Cell 178 2019 612 623.e12 31348888
82 Chung K. Xu L. Chai P. Peng J. Devarkar S.C. Pyle A.M. Structures of a Mobile Intron Retroelement Poised to Attack Its Structured DNA Target Science 378 2022 627 634 36356138
83 Monat C. Cousineau B. The Circle to Lariat Ratio of the Ll.Ltrb Group II Intron from Lactococcus Lactis is Greatly Influenced by a Variety of Biological Determinants in Vivo PLoS One 15 2020 e0237367
84 Jia K. Zhu Y. Zhang Y. Li Y. Group II Intron-Anchored Gene Deletion in PLoS One 6 2011 e16693
85 Liu Z.X. Zhang S. Zhu H.Z. Chen Z.H. Yang Y. Li L.Q. Lei Y. Liu Y. Li D.Y. Sun A. Hydrolytic Endonucleolytic Ribozyme (Hyer) Is Programmable for Sequence-Specific DNA Cleavage Science 383 2024 eadh4859
86 Karberg M. Guo H. Zhong J. Coon R. Perutka J. Lambowitz A.M. Group II Introns as Controllable Gene Targeting Vectors for Genetic Manipulation of Bacteria Nat. Biotechnol. 19 2001 1162 1167 11731786
87 Gupta D. Bhattacharjee O. Mandal D. Sen M.K. Dey D. Dasgupta A. Kazi T.A. Gupta R. Sinharoy S. Acharya K. CRISPR-Cas9 System: A New-Fangled Dawn in Gene Editing Life Sci. 232 2019 116636
88 Beumer K. Bhattacharyya G. Bibikova M. Trautman J.K. Carroll D. Efficient Gene Targeting in Drosophila with Zinc-Finger Nucleases Genetics 172 2006 2391 2403 16452139
89 Zu Y. Tong X. Wang Z. Liu D. Pan R. Li Z. Hu Y. Luo Z. Huang P. Wu Q. Talen-Mediated Precise Genome Modification by Homologous Recombination in Zebrafish Nat. Methods 10 2013 329 331 23435258
90 Pallarès Masmitjà M. Knödlseder N. Güell M. CRISPR-gRNA Design Methods Mol. Biol. 1961 2019 3 11 30912036
91 Jinek M. Chylinski K. Fonfara I. Hauer M. Doudna J.A. Charpentier E. A Programmable Dual-RNA-Guided DNA Endonuclease in Adaptive Bacterial Immunity Science 337 2012 816 821 22745249
92 Makarova K.S. Wolf Y.I. Iranzo J. Shmakov S.A. Alkhnbashi O.S. Brouns S.J.J. Charpentier E. Cheng D. Haft D.H. Horvath P. Evolutionary Classification of CRISPR-Cas Systems: A Burst of Class 2 and Derived Variants Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18 2020 67 83 31857715
93 Jiang Y. Qian F. Yang J. Liu Y. Dong F. Xu C. Sun B. Chen B. Xu X. Li Y. CRISPR-Cpf1 Assisted Genome Editing of Nat. Commun. 8 2017 15179 15190 28469274
94 Chen T. Chen Z. Zhang H. Li Y. Yao L. Zeng B. Zhang Z. Development of a CRISPR/Cpf1 System for Multiplex Gene Editing in Aspergillus Oryzae Folia Microbiol. (Praha). 69 2024 373 382 37490214
95 Kordyś M. Sen R. Warkocki Z. Applications of the Versatile CRISPR-Cas13 RNA Targeting System WIREs RNA 13 2022 e1694
96 Zhang J. Zong W. Hong W. Zhang Z.T. Wang Y. Exploiting Endogenous CRISPR-Cas System for Multiplex Genome Editing in Clostridium Tyrobutyricum and Engineer the Strain for High-Level Butanol Production Metab. Eng. 47 2018 49 59 29530750
97 Liu L. Yang D. Zhang Z. Liu T. Hu G. He M. Zhao S. Peng N. High-Efficiency Genome Editing Based on Endogenous CRISPR-Cas System Enhances Cell Growth and Lactic Acid Production in Pediococcus Acidilactici Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 87 2021 e0094821
98 Bowater R. Doherty A.J. Making Ends Meet: Repairing Breaks in Bacterial DNA by Non-Homologous End-Joining PLoS Genet. 2 2006 e8
99 Bertrand C. Thibessard A. Bruand C. Lecointe F. Leblond P. Bacterial Nhej: A Never Ending Story Mol. Microbiol. 111 2019 1139 1151 30746801
100 Liu H. Robinson D.S. Wu Z.Y. Kuo R. Yoshikuni Y. Blaby I.K. Cheng J.F. Bacterial Genome Editing by Coupling Cre-Lox and CRISPR-Cas9 Systems PLoS One 15 2020 e0241867
101 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 6 2018 222 231 30240613
102 Cai M.Z. Chen P.T. Novel Combined Cre-Cas System for Improved Chromosome Editing in Bacillus Subtilis J. Biosci. Bioeng. 132 2021 113 119 33994114
103 Strecker J. Ladha A. Gardner Z. Schmid-Burgk J.L. Makarova K.S. Koonin E.V. Zhang F. RNA-Guided DNA Insertion with CRISPR-Associated Transposases Science 365 2019 48 53 31171706
104 Lim S.R. Lee S.J. Multiplex CRISPR-Cas Genome Editing: Next-Generation Microbial Strain Engineering J. Agric. Food Chem. 72 2024 11871 11884 38744727
105 Zheng L. Tan Y. Hu Y. Shen J. Qu Z. Chen X. Ho C.L. Leung E.L.H. Zhao W. Dai L. CRISPR/Cas-Based Genome Editing for Human Gut Commensal Bacteroides Species ACS Synth. Biol. 11 2022 464 472 34990118
106 Huang C. Guo L. Wang J. Wang N. Huo Y.X. Efficient Long Fragment Editing Technique Enables Large-Scale and Scarless Bacterial Genome Engineering Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 104 2020 7943 7956 32794018
107 Cobb R.E. Wang Y. Zhao H. High-Efficiency Multiplex Genome Editing of Streptomyces Species Using an Engineered CRISPR/Cas System ACS Synth. Biol. 4 2015 723 728 25458909
108 Rothstein S.M. Sen S. Mansell T.J. Towards High-Throughput Genome Engineering in Lactic Acid Bacteria Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 61 2020 181 188 31986469
109 Biswas I. Gruss A. Ehrlich S.D. Maguin E. High-Efficiency Gene Inactivation and Replacement System for Gram-Positive Bacteria J. Bacteriol. 175 1993 3628 3635 8501066
110 Xin Y. Guo T. Mu Y. Kong J. Development of a Counterselectable Seamless Mutagenesis System in Lactic Acid Bacteria Microb. Cell Factories 16 2017 116 129
111 Wu J. Xin Y. Kong J. Guo T. Genetic Tools for the Development of Recombinant Lactic Acid Bacteria Microb. Cell Factories 20 2021 118 128
112 Van Pijkeren J.P. Neoh K.M. Sirias D. Findley A.S. Britton R.A. Exploring Optimization Parameters to Increase ssDNA Recombineering in Lactococcus Lactis and Lactobacillus Reuteri Bioengineered 3 2012 209 217 22750793
113 Qin W. Xia Y. Xiong Z. Song X. Ai L. Wang G. The Intestinal Colonization of Lactiplantibacillus Plantarum AR113 Is Influenced by Its Mucins and Intestinal Environment Food Res. Int. 157 2022 111382
114 Chen S. He X. Qin Z. Li G. Wang W. Nai Z. Tian Y. Liu D. Jiang X. Loss in the Antibacterial Ability of a PyrR Gene Regulating Pyrimidine Biosynthesis after Using CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Knockout for Metabolic Engineering in Lactobacillus Casei Microorganisms 11 2023 2371 2390 37894029
115 Zhou D. Jiang Z. Pang Q. Zhu Y. Wang Q. Qi Q. CRISPR/Cas9-Assisted Seamless Genome Editing in Lactobacillus Plantarum and Its Application in N-Acetylglucosamine Production Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 85 2019 e01367-19 31444197
116 Seco E.M. Fernández L.Á. Efficient Markerless Integration of Genes in the Chromosome of Probiotic E. coli Nissle 1917 by Bacterial Conjugation Microb. Biotechnol. 15 2022 1374 1391 34755474
117 Fiege K. Frankenberg-Dinkel N. Construction of a New T7 Promoter Compatible Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 Strain for Recombinant Production of Heme-Dependent Proteins Microb. Cell Factories 19 2020 190 197
118 Yu Y. Gong B. Wang H. Yang G. Zhou X. Chromosome Evolution of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 for High-Level Production of Heparosan Biotechnol. Bioeng. 120 2023 1081 1096 36539926
119 Lan Y.J. Tan S.I. Cheng S.Y. Ting W.W. Xue C. Lin T.H. Cai M.Z. Chen P.T. Ng I.S. Development of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 Derivative by CRISPR/Cas9 and Application for Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid (GABA) Production in Antibiotic-Free System Biochem. Eng. J. 168 2021 107952
120 Wu H. Wei J. Zhao X. Liu Y. Chen Z. Wei K. Lu J. Chen W. Jiang M. Li S. Chen T. Neuroprotective Effects of an Engineered Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 on Parkinson's Disease in Mice by Delivering Glp-1 and Modulating Gut Microbiota Bioeng. Transl. Med. 8 2023 e10351
121 Ninyio N. Schmitt K. Sergon G. Nilsson C. Andersson S. Scherbak N. Stable Expression of HIV-1 Mper Extended Epitope on the Surface of the Recombinant Probiotic Bacteria Escherichia Coli Nissle 1917 Using CRISPR/Cas9 Microb. Cell Factories 23 2024 39 53
122 Wang Y. Weng J. Waseem R. Yin X. Zhang R. Shen Q. Bacillus Subtilis Genome Editing Using ssDNA with Short Homology Regions Nucleic Acids Res. 40 2012 e91
123 Sun Z. Deng A. Hu T. Wu J. Sun Q. Bai H. Zhang G. Wen T. A High-Efficiency Recombineering System with PCR-Based ssDNA in Bacillus Subtilis Mediated by the Native Phage Recombinase Gp35 Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 99 2015 5151 5162 25750031
124 Liu Q. Li R. Shi H. Yang R. Shen Q. Cui Q. Wang X. Li A. Zhang Y. Fu J. A Recombineering System for Bacillus Subtilis Based on the Native Phage Recombinase Pair Yqaj/Yqak Eng. Microbiol. 3 2023 100099
125 Liu Q. Shen Q. Bian X. Chen H. Fu J. Wang H. Lei P. Guo Z. Chen W. Li D. Zhang Y. Simple and Rapid Direct Cloning and Heterologous Expression of Natural Product Biosynthetic Gene Cluster in Bacillus Subtilis Via Red/ET Recombineering Sci. Rep. 6 2016 34623
126 Altenbuchner J. Müller V. Editing of the Bacillus Subtilis Genome by the CRISPR-Cas9 System Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82 2016 5421 5427 27342565
127 Liu D. Huang C. Guo J. Zhang P. Chen T. Wang Z. Zhao X. Development and Characterization of a CRISPR/Cas9n-Based Multiplex Genome Editing System for Bacillus Subtilis Biotechnol. Biofuels 12 2019 197 214 31572493
128 Wu Y. Liu Y. Lv X. Li J. Du G. Liu L. Camers-B: CRISPR/Cpf1 Assisted Multiple-Genes Editing and Regulation System for Bacillus Subtilis Biotechnol. Bioeng. 117 2020 1817 1825 32129468
129 Zuo F. Zeng Z. Hammarström L. Marcotte H. Inducible Plasmid Self-Destruction (IPSD) Assisted Genome Engineering in Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria ACS Synth. Biol. 8 2019 1723 1729 31277549
130 Pan M. Morovic W. Hidalgo-Cantabrana C. Roberts A. Walden K.K.O. Goh Y.J. Barrangou R. Genomic and Epigenetic Landscapes Drive CRISPR-Based Genome Editing in Bifidobacterium Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119 2022 e2205068119
131 Sasaki Y. Mitsui R. Yamada R. Ogino H. Secretory Overexpression of the Endoglucanase by Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Via CRISPR-Δ-Integration and Multiple Promoter Shuffling Enzym. Microb. Technol. 121 2019 17 22
132 Shi S. Liang Y. Zhang M.M. Ang E.L. Zhao H. A Highly Efficient Single-Step, Markerless Strategy for Multi-Copy Chromosomal Integration of Large Biochemical Pathways in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Metab. Eng. 33 2016 19 27 26546089
133 Metchnikoff E. The Prolongation of Life: Optimistic Studies 2003 Springer Publishing Company
134 Tachedjian G. Aldunate M. Bradshaw C.S. Cone R.A. The Role of Lactic Acid Production by Probiotic Lactobacillus Species in Vaginal Health Res. Microbiol. 168 2017 782 792 28435139
135 Li C. Peng K. Xiao S. Long Y. Yu Q. The Role of Lactobacillus in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: From Actualities to Prospects Cell Death Dis. 9 2023 361 373
136 Saxelin M. Tynkkynen S. Mattila-Sandholm T. de Vos W.M. Probiotic and Other Functional Microbes: From Markets to Mechanisms Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 16 2005 204 211 15831388
137 Bell H.N. Rebernick R.J. Goyert J. Singhal R. Kuljanin M. Kerk S.A. Huang W. Das N.K. Andren A. Solanki S. Reuterin in the Healthy Gut Microbiome Suppresses Colorectal Cancer Growth through Altering Redox Balance Cancer Cell 40 2022 185 200.e6 34951957
138 Leenhouts K.J. Kok J. Venema G. Replacement Recombination in Lactococcus Lactis J. Bacteriol. 173 1991 4794 4798 1906872
139 Bhowmik T. Fernández L. Steele J.L. Gene Replacement in Lactobacillus Helveticus J. Bacteriol. 175 1993 6341 6344 8104928
140 Oh J.H. van Pijkeren J.P. CRISPR–Cas9-Assisted Recombineering in Lactobacillus Reuteri Nucleic Acids Res. 42 2014 e131
141 Crawley A.B. Henriksen E.D. Stout E. Brandt K. Barrangou R. Characterizing the Activity of Abundant, Diverse and Active CRISPR-Cas Systems in Sci. Rep. 8 2018 11544
142 Vaid S. Pandey V.K. Singh R. Dar A.H. Shams R. Thakur K.S. A Concise Review on Development of Probiotics from Lactobacillus Using CRISPR-Cas Technology of Gene Editing Food Chem. Adv. 1 2022 100099
143 Hidalgo-Cantabrana C. Goh Y.J. Pan M. Sanozky-Dawes R. Barrangou R. Genome Editing Using the Endogenous Type I CRISPR-Cas System in Lactobacillus Crispatus Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116 2019 15774 15783 31341082
144 Chuah L.-O. Foo H.L. Loh T.C. Mohammed Alitheen N.B. Yeap S.K. Abdul Mutalib N.E. Abdul Rahim R. Yusoff K. Postbiotic Metabolites Produced by Lactobacillus Plantarum Strains Exert Selective Cytotoxicity Effects on Cancer Cells BMC Compl. Alternative Med. 19 2019 114 126
145 Shikhman A.R. Brinson D.C. Valbracht J. Lotz M.K. Differential Metabolic Effects of Glucosamine and N-Acetylglucosamine in Human Articular Chondrocytes Osteoarthritis Cartilage 17 2009 1022 1028 19332174
146 Hwang I.Y. Koh E. Wong A. March J.C. Bentley W.E. Lee Y.S. Chang M.W. Engineered Probiotic Escherichia coli Can Eliminate and Prevent Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Gut Infection in Animal Models Nat. Commun. 8 2017 15028 15039 28398304
147 Praveschotinunt P. Duraj-Thatte A.M. Gelfat I. Bahl F. Chou D.B. Joshi N.S. Engineered E. coli Nissle 1917 for the Delivery of Matrix-Tethered Therapeutic Domains to the Gut Nat. Commun. 10 2019 5580 5594 31811125
148 Scaldaferri F. Gerardi V. Mangiola F. Lopetuso L.R. Pizzoferrato M. Petito V. Papa A. Stojanovic J. Poscia A. Cammarota G. Gasbarrini A. Role and Mechanisms of Action of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 in the Maintenance of Remission in Ulcerative Colitis Patients: An Update World J. Gastroenterol. 22 2016 5505 5511 27350728
149 Lynch J.P. Goers L. Lesser C.F. Emerging Strategies for Engineering Escherichia coli Nissle 1917-Based Therapeutics Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 43 2022 772 786 35232591
150 Jacquier A. Dujon B. An Intron-Encoded Protein Is Active in a Gene Conversion Process That Spreads an Intron into a Mitochondrial Gene Cell 41 1985 383 394 3886163
151 Plessis A. Perrin A. Haber J.E. Dujon B. Site-Specific Recombination Determined by I-SceI, a Mitochondrial Group I Intron-Encoded Endonuclease Expressed in the Yeast Nucleus Genetics 130 1992 451 460 1551570
152 William Studier F. Rosenberg A.H. Dunn J.J. Dubendorff J.W. Use of T7 RNA Polymerase to Direct Expression of Cloned Genes Methods Enzymol. 185 1990 60 89 2199796
153 Earl A.M. Losick R. Kolter R. Ecology and Genomics of Bacillus Subtilis Trends Microbiol. 16 2008 269 275 18467096
154 Sewalt V. Shanahan D. Gregg L. La Marta J. Carrillo R. The Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Process for Industrial Microbial Enzymes Ind. Biotechnol. 12 2016 295 302
155 Chung K.S. Shin J.S. Lee J.H. Park S.E. Han H.S. Rhee Y.K. Cho C.W. Hong H.D. Lee K.T. Protective Effect of Exopolysaccharide Fraction from Bacillus Subtilis against Dextran Sulfate Sodium-Induced Colitis through Maintenance of Intestinal Barrier and Suppression of Inflammatory Responses Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 178 2021 363 372 33652052
156 Lefevre M. Racedo S.M. Ripert G. Housez B. Cazaubiel M. Maudet C. Jüsten P. Marteau P. Urdaci M.C. Probiotic Strain Bacillus Subtilis Cu1 Stimulates Immune System of Elderly During Common Infectious Disease Period: A Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study Immun. Ageing 12 2015 24 35 26640504
157 Altenbuchner J. Editing of the Bacillus Subtilis Genome by the CRISPR-Cas9 System Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82 2016 5421 5427 27342565
158 Calvo-Villamañán A. Ng J.W. Planel R. Ménager H. Chen A. Cui L. Bikard D. On-Target Activity Predictions Enable Improved CRISPR–dCas9 Screens in Bacteria Nucleic Acids Res. 48 2020 e64
159 Turroni F. van Sinderen D. Ventura M. Genomics and Ecological Overview of the Genus Bifidobacterium Int. J. Food Microbiol. 149 2011 37 44 21276626
160 Makizaki Y. Maeda A. Oikawa Y. Tamura S. Tanaka Y. Nakajima S. Ohno H. Yamamura H. Probiotic Bifidobacterium Bifidum G9-1 Ameliorates Phytohemagglutinin-Induced Diarrhea Caused by Intestinal Dysbiosis Microbiol. Immunol. 63 2019 481 486 31544979
161 Okubo R. Koga M. Katsumata N. Odamaki T. Matsuyama S. Oka M. Narita H. Hashimoto N. Kusumi I. Xiao J. Matsuoka Y.J. Effect of Bifidobacterium Breve A-1 on Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in Schizophrenia: A Proof-of-Concept Study J. Affect. Disord. 245 2019 377 385 30423465
162 Lin H. Wang Q. Yuan M. Liu L. Chen Z. Zhao Y. Das R. Duan Y. Xu X. Xue Y. The Prolonged Disruption of a Single-Course Amoxicillin on Mice Gut Microbiota and Resistome, and Recovery by Inulin, Bifidobacterium Longum and Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Environ. Pollut. 265 2020 114651
163 Turroni F. Bottacini F. Foroni E. Mulder I. Kim J.-H. Zomer A. Sánchez B. Bidossi A. Ferrarini A. Giubellini V. Genome Analysis of Bifidobacterium Bifidum PRL2010 Reveals Metabolic Pathways for Host-Derived Glycan Foraging Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 2010 19514 19519 20974960
164 Briner A.E. Lugli G.A. Milani C. Duranti S. Turroni F. Gueimonde M. Margolles A. van Sinderen D. Ventura M. Barrangou R. Occurrence and Diversity of CRISPR-Cas Systems in the Genus Bifidobacterium PLoS One 10 2015 e0133661
165 Czerucka D. Piche T. Rampal P. Review Article: Yeast as Probiotics Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 26 2007 767 778 17767461
166 Sen S. Mansell T.J. Yeasts as Probiotics: Mechanisms, Outcomes, and Future Potential Fungal Genet. Biol. 137 2020 103333
167 Scott B.M. Gutiérrez-Vázquez C. Sanmarco L.M. da Silva Pereira J.A. Li Z. Plasencia A. Hewson P. Cox L.M. O’Brien M. Chen S.K. Self-Tunable Engineered Yeast Probiotics for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Nat. Med. 27 2021 1212 1222 34183837
168 Fakruddin M. Hossain M.N. Ahmed M.M. Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activities of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae IFST062013, a Potential Probiotic BMC Compl. Alternative Med. 17 2017 64 75
169 Da Silva N.A. Srikrishnan S. Introduction and Expression of Genes for Metabolic Engineering Applications in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae FEMS Yeast Res. 12 2012 197 214 22129153
170 Pâques F. Haber J.E. Multiple Pathways of Recombination Induced by Double-Strand Breaks in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 63 1999 349 404 10357855
171 Mitsui R. Yamada R. Ogino H. CRISPR System in the Yeast Saccharomyces Cerevisiae and Its Application in the Bioproduction of Useful Chemicals World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 35 2019 111 120 31280424
172 Jakociunas T. Rajkumar A.S. Zhang J. Arsovska D. Rodriguez A. Jendresen C.B. Skjødt M.L. Nielsen A.T. Borodina I. Jensen M.K. CasEMBLR: Cas9-Facilitated Multiloci Genomic Integration of in Vivo Assembled DNA Parts in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae ACS Synth. Biol. 4 2015 1226 1234 25781611
173 Yamada R. Tanaka T. Ogino C. Kondo A. Gene Copy Number and Polyploidy on Products Formation in Yeast Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 88 2010 849 857 20803138
174 Davey L.E. Malkus P.N. Villa M. Dolat L. Holmes Z.C. Letourneau J. Ansaldo E. David L.A. Barton G.M. Valdivia R.H. A Genetic System for Akkermansia Muciniphila Reveals a Role for Mucin Foraging in Gut Colonization and Host Sterol Biosynthesis Gene Expression Nat. Microbiol. 8 2023 1450 1467 37337046
175 García-Bayona L. Comstock Laurie E. Streamlined Genetic Manipulation of Diverse Bacteroides and Parabacteroides Isolates from the Human Gut Microbiota mBio 10 2019 10 1128
176 Liang J. Tan Y. Highly Efficient CRISPR-Mediated Base Editing for the Gut Bacteroides Spp. With Pncasbs-Cbe Biotechnol. J. 18 2023 e2200504
177 Feng J. Qian Y. Zhou Z. Ertmer S. Vivas E.I. Lan F. Hamilton J.J. Rey F.E. Anantharaman K. Venturelli O.S. Polysaccharide Utilization Loci in Bacteroides Determine Population Fitness and Community-Level Interactions Cell Host Microbe 30 2022 200 215.e12 34995484
178 Beller Z.W. Wesener D.A. Seebeck T.R. Guruge J.L. Byrne A.E. Henrissat S. Terrapon N. Henrissat B. Rodionov D.A. Osterman A.L. Inducible CRISPR-Targeted “Knockdown” of Human Gut Bacteroides in Gnotobiotic Mice Discloses Glycan Utilization Strategies Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 120 2023 e2311422120
179 Kim K. Choe D. Song Y. Kang M. Lee S.G. Lee D.H. Cho B.K. Engineering Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron to Produce Non-Native Butyrate Based on a Genome-Scale Metabolic Model-Guided Design Metab. Eng. 68 2021 174 186 34655791
180 Taketani M. Zhang J. Zhang S. Triassi A.J. Huang Y.-J. Griffith L.G. Voigt C.A. Genetic Circuit Design Automation for the Gut Resident Species Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron Nat. Biotechnol. 38 2020 962 969 32231334
181 Cai G. Jin B. Saint C. Monis P. Genetic Manipulation of Butyrate Formation Pathways in Clostridium Butyricum J. Biotechnol. 155 2011 269 274 21787814
182 Wydau-Dematteis S. Louis M. Zahr N. Lai-Kuen R. Saubaméa B. Butel M.J. Pons J.L. The Functional Dlt Operon of Clostridium Butyricum Controls the D-Alanylation of Cell Wall Components and Influences Cell Septation and Vancomycin-Induced Lysis Anaerobe 35 2015 105 114 26363197
183 Zhou X. Wang X. Luo H. Wang Y. Wang Y. Tu T. Qin X. Su X. Bai Y. Yao B. Exploiting Heterologous and Endogenous CRISPR-Cas Systems for Genome Editing in the Probiotic Clostridium Butyricum Biotechnol. Bioeng. 118 2021 2448 2459 33719068
184 Zhang Y. Kubiak Aleksandra M. Bailey Tom S. Claessen L. Hittmeyer P. Dubois L. Theys J. Lambin P. Development of a CRISPR-Cas12a System for Efficient Genome Engineering in Clostridia Microbiol. Spectr. 11 2023 e0245923 37947521
185 Guo C.J. Modulating Microbiome Metabolites in Vivo Science 369 2020 153 155
186 Guo C.J. Allen B.M. Hiam K.J. Dodd D. Van Treuren W. Higginbottom S. Nagashima K. Fischer C.R. Sonnenburg J.L. Spitzer M.H. Fischbach M.A. Depletion of Microbiome-Derived Molecules in the Host Using Clostridium Genetics Science 366 2019 eaav1282
187 Kubiak A.M. Bailey T.S. Dubois L.J. Theys J. Lambin P. Efficient Secretion of Murine IL-2 from an Attenuated Strain of Clostridium Sporogenes, a Novel Delivery Vehicle for Cancer Immunotherapy Front. Microbiol. 12 2021 669488
188 Millard J. Agius A. Zhang Y. Soucaille P. Minton N.P. Exploitation of a Type 1 Toxin–Antitoxin System as an Inducible Counter-Selective Marker for Genome Editing in the Acetogen Eubacterium Limosum Microorganisms 11 2023 1256 1269 37317230
189 Tang N. Wu Z. Gao Y. Chen W. Wang Z. Su M. Ji W. Ji Q. Molecular Basis and Genome Editing Applications of a Compact Eubacterium Ventriosum CRISPR-Cas9 System ACS Synth. Biol. 13 2024 269 281 38061052
190 Shin J. Kang S. Song Y. Jin S. Lee J.S. Lee J.-K. Kim D.R. Kim S.C. Cho S. Cho B.-K. Genome Engineering of Eubacterium Limosum Using Expanded Genetic Tools and the CRISPR-Cas9 System ACS Synth. Biol. 8 2019 2059 2068 31373788
191 Zhao X. Zhao J. Li D. Yang H. Chen C. Qin M. Wen Z. He Z. Xu L. Akkermansia Muciniphila: A Potential Target and Pending Issues for Oncotherapy Pharmacol. Res. 196 2023 106916
192 Duan N. Hand E. Pheko M. Sharma S. Emiola A. Structure-Guided Discovery of Anti-CRISPR and Anti-Phage Defense Proteins Nat. Commun. 15 2024 649 659 38245560
193 Li N. Tan S. Wang Y. Deng J. Wang N. Zhu S. Tian W. Xu J. Wang Q. Akkermansia Muciniphila Supplementation Prevents Cognitive Impairment in Sleep-Deprived Mice by Modulating Microglial Engulfment of Synapses Gut Microb. 15 2023 2252764
194 Wang L.j. Jin Y.l. Pei W.l. Li J.c. Zhang R.l. Wang J.j. Lin W. Amuc_1100 Pretreatment Alleviates Acute Pancreatitis in a Mouse Model through Regulating Gut Microbiota and Inhibiting Inflammatory Infiltration Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 45 2024 570 580 38012292
195 Zhang L. Ji Q. Chen Q. Wei Z. Liu S. Zhang L. Zhang Y. Li Z. Liu H. Sui H. Akkermansia Muciniphila Inhibits Tryptophan Metabolism Via the AhR/β-Catenin Signaling Pathway to Counter the Progression of Colorectal Cancer Int. J. Biol. Sci. 19 2023 4393 4410 37781044
196 Grajeda-Iglesias C. Durand S. Daillère R. Iribarren K. Lemaitre F. Derosa L. Aprahamian F. Bossut N. Nirmalathasan N. Madeo F. Oral Administration of Akkermansia Muciniphila Elevates Systemic Antiaging and Anticancer Metabolites Aging (Albany NY) 13 2021 6375 6405 33653967
197 Cani P.D. Depommier C. Derrien M. Everard A. de Vos W.M. Akkermansia Muciniphila: Paradigm for Next-Generation Beneficial Microorganisms Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 19 2022 625 637 35641786
198 Ouwerkerk J.P. Tytgat H.L.P. Elzinga J. Koehorst J. Van den Abbeele P. Henrissat B. Gueimonde M. Cani P.D. Van de Wiele T. Belzer C. de Vos W.M. Comparative Genomics and Physiology of Akkermansia Muciniphila Isolates from Human Intestine Reveal Specialized Mucosal Adaptation Microorganisms 10 2022 1605 1622 36014023
199 Schwalm N.D. 3rd Groisman E.A. Navigating the Gut Buffet: Control of Polysaccharide Utilization in Bacteroides Spp Trends Microbiol. 25 2017 1005 1015 28733133
200 Yinhe S. Lixiang L. Yan L. Xiang G. Yanqing L. Xiuli Z. Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron and Its Inactivated Bacteria Ameliorate Colitis by Inhibiting Macrophage Activation Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 48 2024 102276
201 Porter N.T. Canales P. Peterson D.A. Martens E.C. A Subset of Polysaccharide Capsules in the Human Symbiont Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron Promote Increased Competitive Fitness in the Mouse Gut Cell Host Microbe 22 2017 494 506.e8 28966055
202 Lammerts van Bueren A. Saraf A. Martens E.C. Dijkhuizen L. Differential Metabolism of Exopolysaccharides from Probiotic Lactobacilli by the Human Gut Symbiont Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81 2015 3973 3983 25841008
203 Roupar D. González A. Martins J.T. Gonçalves D.A. Teixeira J.A. Botelho C. Nobre C. Modulation of Designed Gut Bacterial Communities by Prebiotics and the Impact of Their Metabolites on Intestinal Cells Foods 12 2023 4216 4233 38231688
204 Fan H. Chen Z. Lin R. Liu Y. Wu X. Puthiyakunnon S. Wang Y. Zhu B. Zhang Q. Bai Y. Zhi F. Bacteroides Fragilis Strain Zy-312 Defense against Cronobacter Sakazakii-Induced Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Vitro and in a Neonatal Rat Model mSystems 4 2019 305 319
205 Dai W. Zhang J. Chen L. Yu J. Zhang J. Yin H. Shang Q. Yu G. Discovery of Bacteroides Uniformis F18-22 as a Safe and Novel Probiotic Bacterium for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis from the Healthy Human Colon Int. J. Mol. Sci. 24 2023 14669
206 Shoemaker N.B. Getty C. Gardner J.F. Salyers A.A. Tn4351 Transposes in Bacteroides Spp. And Mediates the Integration of Plasmid R751 into the Bacteroides Chromosome J. Bacteriol. 165 1986 929 936 3005243
207 Veeranagouda Y. Husain F. Wexler H.M. Transposon Mutagenesis of Bacteroides Fragilis Methods Mol. Biol. 2016 2019 105 116 31197713
208 Mimee M. Tucker A.C. Voigt C.A. Lu T.K. Programming a Human Commensal Bacterium, Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, to Sense and Respond to Stimuli in the Murine Gut Microbiota Cell Syst. 1 2015 62 71 26918244
209 Lai Y. Hayashi N. Lu T.K. Engineering the Human Gut Commensal Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron with Synthetic Biology Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 70 2022 102178
210 Cruz-Morales P. Orellana C.A. Moutafis G. Moonen G. Rincon G. Nielsen L.K. Marcellin E. Revisiting the Evolution and Taxonomy of Clostridia, a Phylogenomic Update Genome Biol. Evol. 11 2019 2035 2044 31076745
211 Minton N.P. Clostridia in Cancer Therapy Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 1 2003 237 242 15035028
212 Stoeva M.K. Garcia-So J. Justice N. Myers J. Tyagi S. Nemchek M. McMurdie P.J. Kolterman O. Eid J. Butyrate-Producing Human Gut Symbiont, Clostridium Butyricum, and Its Role in Health and Disease Gut Microb. 13 2021 1 28
213 Kanai T. Mikami Y. Hayashi A. A Breakthrough in Probiotics: Clostridium Butyricum Regulates Gut Homeostasis and Anti-Inflammatory Response in Inflammatory Bowel Disease J. Gastroenterol. 50 2015 928 939 25940150
214 Du L. Qi R. Wang J. Liu Z. Wu Z. Indole-3-Propionic Acid, a Functional Metabolite of Clostridium Sporogenes, Promotes Muscle Tissue Development and Reduces Muscle Cell Inflammation Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22 2021 12435
215 Pyne M.E. Bruder M.R. MooYoung M. Chung D.A. Chou C.P. Harnessing Heterologous and Endogenous CRISPR-Cas Machineries for Efficient Markerless Genome Editing in Clostridium Sci. Rep. 6 2016 25666
216 Heppner F. Möse J.R. The Liquefaction (Oncolysis) of Malignant Gliomas by a Non Pathogenic Clostridium Acta Neurochir. 42 1978 123 125 696441
217 Mukherjee A. Lordan C. Ross R.P. Cotter P.D. Gut Microbes from the Phylogenetically Diverse Genus Eubacterium and Their Various Contributions to Gut Health Gut Microb. 12 2020 1802866
218 Suez J. Zmora N. Segal E. Elinav E. The Pros, Cons, and Many Unknowns of Probiotics Nat. Med. 25 2019 716 729 31061539
219 Yadav R. Kumar V. Baweja M. Shukla P. Gene Editing and Genetic Engineering Approaches for Advanced Probiotics: A Review Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 58 2018 1735 1746 28071925
220 Liu L. Helal S.E. Peng N. CRISPR-Cas-Based Engineering of Probiotics Biodes. Res. 5 2023 0017
221 Cohen J. Prime Editing Promises to Be a Cut above CRISPR Science 366 2019 406 31649173
222 Sundararaman A. Halami P.M. Genome Editing of Probiotic Bacteria: Present Status and Future Prospects Biologia 77 2022 1831 1841
223 Liu S. Wang H. Li X. Zhang F. Lee J.K.J. Li Z. Yu C. Hu J.J. Zhao X. Suematsu T. Structural Basis of gRNA Stabilization and mRNA Recognition in Trypanosomal RNA Editing Science 381 2023 eadg4725
224 Charbonneau M.R. Isabella V.M. Li N. Kurtz C.B. Developing a New Class of Engineered Live Bacterial Therapeutics to Treat Human Diseases Nat. Commun. 11 2020 1738 32269218
225 Mugwanda K. Hamese S. Van Zyl W.F. Prinsloo E. Du Plessis M. Dicks L.M.T. Thimiri Govinda Raj D.B. Recent Advances in Genetic Tools for Engineering Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria Biosci. Rep. 43 2023 BSR20211299
