Opinion Article - Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology (2025) Volume 9, Issue 4
CRISPR-Cas Systems in Bacterial Immunity.
Murúa Weisberg*
Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
- *Corresponding Author:
- Murúa Weisberg
Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
E-mail: weisberg@mit.edu
Received: : 03-Dec-2025, Manuscript No. AAJIDMM- 25-163169; Editor assigned: 05-Dec-2025, PreQC No. AAJIDMM- 25-163169(PQ); Reviewed: 11-Dec-2025, QC No. AAJIDMM- 25-163169; Revised:25-Dec-2025, Manuscript No. AAJIDMM- 25-163169(R); Published: 31-Dec-2025, DOI:10.35841/10.35841/aajidmm-9.4.279
Citation: Citation: Weisberg M. CRISPR-Cas systems in bacterial immunity. J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2025;9(3):269
Introduction
CRISPR-Cas (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and CRISPR-associated proteins) systems represent a revolutionary discovery in the field of microbiology and genetic engineering. Originally identified in the late 1980's and early 1990's, CRISPR sequences were initially a mystery. It wasn't until the mid-2000's that researchers recognized their role as part of a sophisticated immune system in bacteria and archaea. These systems protect prokaryotes from invading genetic elements like viruses (bacteriophages) and plasmids by using a mechanism analogous to a molecular memory [1].
The CRISPR-Cas system is composed of two main components: The CRISPR array and Cas proteins. The CRISPR array consists of repetitive DNA sequences interspersed with unique spacers, which are derived from previous infections by phages or plasmids. These spacers serve as a genetic memory of past invaders. Cas proteins, encoded by genes located near the CRISPR array, are essential for the processing of CRISPR RNA (crRNA) and the interference stage where the invader is neutralized [2].
When a bacterium is first infected by a phage, it integrates a short sequence of the invader's DNA into its CRISPR array, forming a new spacer. This process is known as adaptation. The integration of spacers is facilitated by the Cas1 and Cas2 proteins, which are found in nearly all CRISPR-Cas systems. Once integrated, the spacer can be transcribed and processed into crRNA, which guides the immune response during subsequent infections [3].
During the expression phase, the CRISPR array is transcribed into a long precursor CRISPR RNA (pre-crRNA) that is then processed into individual crRNAs. These crRNAs, in complex with Cas proteins, scan the cell for complementary sequences to the spacer, known as protospacers, in invading phage or plasmid DNA. Upon binding to the target sequence, the Cas protein complex cleaves the foreign DNA, effectively neutralizing the threat. This interference stage is highly specific, allowing bacteria to target and destroy only the invader while leaving their own genome intact [4].
CRISPR-Cas systems are highly diverse, with multiple types and subtypes identified across different bacterial and archaeal species. The most well-studied and utilized for genetic engineering purposes is the type II CRISPR-Cas9 system, derived from Streptococcus pyogenes. This system uses a single Cas9 protein guided by a dual RNA structure to induce site-specific double-strand breaks in DNA, making it a powerful tool for genome editing [5].
The discovery of CRISPR-Cas systems has not only provided profound insights into bacterial immunity but also revolutionized biotechnology. The CRISPR-Cas9 system, in particular, has been harnessed for precise genome editing in a wide range of organisms, including plants, animals, and humans. This technology has applications in gene therapy, agriculture, and synthetic biology, enabling scientists to correct genetic defects, enhance crop resilience, and engineer new biological functions [6].
Despite the potential of CRISPR-Cas systems in biotechnology, there are challenges and ethical considerations. Off-target effects, where the Cas9 protein cuts at unintended sites, remain a concern for gene editing applications. Continuous research is focused on improving the specificity and efficiency of CRISPR-Cas systems to minimize these risks. Additionally, ethical issues surrounding germline editing and the potential for creating Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) with unforeseen consequences necessitate careful regulation and public discourse [7].
Beyond genetic engineering, CRISPR-Cas systems are also being explored for their potential in combating antibiotic resistance. By designing CRISPR-based antimicrobials that specifically target antibiotic-resistant genes, researchers aim to develop new strategies to treat bacterial infections without harming the beneficial microbiota. This approach could provide a powerful alternative to traditional antibiotics, which are increasingly becoming ineffective due to the rise of resistant strains [8].
Furthermore, CRISPR technology is being leveraged for diagnostic purposes. CRISPR-based diagnostic tools, such as Specific High-sensitivity Enzymatic Reporter unlocking (SHERLOCK) and DNA Endonuclease-Targeted CRISPR Trans Reporter (DETECTR), offer rapid, sensitive, and specific detection of pathogens, including viruses like SARS-CoV-2. These diagnostic platforms utilize the collateral cleavage activity of certain Cas proteins to produce a detectable signal upon recognition of a target sequence, providing a valuable resource for disease surveillance and control [9, 10].
Conclusion
In conclusion, CRISPR-Cas systems are a remarkable example of nature's ingenuity in microbial defense mechanisms. Their discovery and subsequent harnessing have transformed our understanding of bacterial immunity and opened up new frontiers in genetic engineering, medicine, and biotechnology. As research continues to advance, the potential applications of CRISPR-Cas systems will undoubtedly expand, offering innovative solutions to some of the most pressing challenges in science and medicine.
References
- Roussin-Leveillee C, Mackey D, Ekanayake G, et al. Extracellular niche establishment by plant pathogens. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2024;22(6):360-72.
- RoyChowdhury M, Sternhagen J, Xin Y, et al. Evolution of pathogenicity in obligate fungal pathogens and allied genera. PeerJ. 2022;10:e13794.
- Banerji R, Kanojiya P, Patil A, et al. Polyamines in the virulence of bacterial pathogens of respiratory tract. Mol Oral Microbiol. 2021;36(1):1-1.
- Saur IM, Huckelhoven R. Recognition and defence of plant-infecting fungal pathogens. J Plant Physiol. 2021;256:153324.
- Leitao JH. Microbial virulence factors. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(15):5320.
- Cai Q, Qiao L, Wang M, et al. Plants send small RNAs in extracellular vesicles to fungal pathogen to silence virulence genes. Science. 2018;360(6393):1126-9.
- Dawood A, Algharib SA, Zhao G, et al. Mycoplasmas as host pantropic and specific pathogens: clinical implications, gene transfer, virulence factors, and future perspectives. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:855731.
- Rodriguez?Moreno L, Ebert MK, Bolton MD, et al. Tools of the crook?infection strategies of fungal plant pathogens. Plant J. 2018;93(4):664-74.
- Begg SL. The role of metal ions in the virulence and viability of bacterial pathogens. Biochem Soc Trans. 2019;47(1):77-87.
- Rana A, Gupta N, Thakur A. Post-transcriptional and translational control of the morphology and virulence in human fungal pathogens. Mol Aspects Med. 2021;81:101017.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref