Development of a CRISPR-based cytosine base editor for restriction-modification system inactivation to enhance transformation efficiency in Vibrio sp. dhg

Development of a CRISPR-based cytosine base editor for restriction-modification system inactivation to enhance transformation efficiency in Vibrio sp. dhg | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Development of a CRISPR-based cytosine base editor for restriction-modification system inactivation to enhance transformation efficiency in Vibrio sp. dhg Yang Jun Shon, Dongyeop Baek, Su Bin Jin, Woo Jae Kim, Gyoo Yeol Jung, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6149600/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 09 Apr, 2025 Read the published version in Journal of Biological Engineering → Version 1 posted 6 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Vibrio sp. dhg is a fast-growing, alginate-utilizing, marine bacterium being developed as a platform host for macroalgae biorefinery. To maximize its potential in the production of various value-added products, there is a need to expand genetic engineering tools for versatile editing. Results The CRISPR-based cytosine base editing (CBE) system was established in Vibrio sp. dhg, enabling C:G-to-T:A point mutations in multiple genomic loci. This CBE system displayed high editing efficiencies for single and multiple targets, reaching up to 100%. The CBE system efficiently introduced premature stop codons, inactivating seven genes encoding putative restriction enzymes of the restriction-modification system in two rounds. A resulting engineered strain displayed significantly enhanced transformation efficiency by up to 55.5-fold. Conclusions Developing a highly efficient CBE system and improving transformation efficiency enable versatile genetic manipulation of Vibrio sp. dhg for diverse engineering in brown macroalgae bioconversion. CRISPR Base editor Vibrio Multiplex editing Restriction-Modification Transformation efficiency Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 1. Background Vibrio sp. dhg, a marine bacterial isolate, has gained much attention as a platform host for macroalgae biorefineries (Lim et al., 2019 ). It grows much faster than model hosts (e.g., Escherichia coli ) with higher specific sugar uptake rates (up to 2-fold) and tolerance to high salinity (up to 100 g L − 1 NaCl) (Coppens et al, 2023 ; Lim et al., 2019 ). In addition to these characteristics, it can rapidly catabolize alginate, which is abundant in brown macroalgae but cannot be metabolized by conventional microbial hosts. These characteristics highlight the versatile potential of Vibrio sp. dhg as a novel microbial host for bioproduction utilizing brown macroalgae as substrate. Indeed, Vibrio sp. dhg has been synthetically engineered by developing optimized transformation, recombineering, and predictive gene expression (Lee et al., 2024 ; Lim et al., 2019 ; Woo et al., 2022 ). These efforts allowed the generation of efficient strains capable of producing diverse biochemicals. These compounds include 2,3-butanediol (Lim et al., 2019 ), lycopene (Lim et al., 2019 ), indole-3-acetic acid (Shin et al., 2023 ), itaconate (Moon et al., 2024 ), and citramalate (Lee et al., 2024 ). However, more advanced genetic engineering tools are required, particularly focusing on multiplex genome editing, for its wide adaptation as a platform chassis. Recently, CRISPR-guided base editing systems have been developed as a precise and efficient alternative for genome engineering in various microbes (Hwang et al., 2013 ; Komor et al., 2017 ; Yeh et al., 2019). Base editors utilize nuclease-inactivated versions of Cas9 fused with a deaminase, enabling targeted point mutations without the need for donor DNA templates (Komor et al., 2016 ; Nishida et al., 2016 ). In particular, with cytosine base editor, C:G-to-T:A transition mutations can be introduced at desired locus target sites. This cytosine base editor has been successfully deployed across numerous microbial strains for versatile purposes in gene inactivation (Wang et al., 2018 ; Yue et al., 2022 ; Yu et al., 2020 ), protein engineering (Hao et al., 2021 ; Hao et al., 2022 ; Wang et al., 2019 ), and expression modulation (Hao et al., 2024 ; Wang et al, 2021 ). Displaying high editing efficiencies, many toolkits have been established in a broad range of hosts such as E. coli (Banno et al., 2018 ), B. subtilis (Yu et al., 2020 ), C. glutamicum (Wang et al., 2018 ), C. ljungdahlii (Xia et al., 2020 ), Streptomyces (Tong et al., 2019 ), Pseudomonas (Yue et al., 2022 ), and Roseobactor species (Wei et al., 2023 ). In this study, an efficient cytosine base editor (CBE) system was established for Vibrio sp. dhg as a novel genome engineering toolkit and applied to improve its transformation efficiency. This toolkit was developed using an expression system amenable to the strain and its editing function was validated on single targets, displaying high editing efficiency. The developed system was then utilized to perform multiplex editing for gene inactivation, specifically targeting the restriction-modification (RM) system by disrupting the genes encoding restriction enzymes (REases). This approach aimed to improve transformation efficiency, an important factor in the genetic manipulation of Vibrio sp. dhg. The developed CBE system and the generated platform strain with improved transformation efficiency are expected to enable wide adaptation of Vibrio sp. dhg as a microbial host for many biotechnological applications. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1 Bacterial strains and culture conditions The bacterial strains used in this study are listed in Table S1 of Additional File 1. E. coli Mach1 T1 R was used for cloning and was cultivated aerobically at 37 o C in Luria-Bertani (LB) broth. Vibrio sp. dhg strains were cultivated in the LB3 (LB supplemented with 20 g/L NaCl) medium at 30 o C, unless mentioned otherwise. Solid agar media additionally contain 15 g/L agar. In the use of antibiotics, chloramphenicol (Cm, 34 µg/mL for E. coli and 10 µg/mL for Vibrio sp. dhg) or/and kanamycin (Kan, 50 µg/mL for E. coli and 200 µg/mL for Vibrio sp. dhg) were supplemented for selective growth of plasmid-containing strains. For induction of the P BAD promoter system, 4 g/L arabinose was added to the medium. 2.2 Plasmid construction Plasmids and primers used in this study are listed in Table S2 and Table S3 of Additional File 1, respectively. To express dCas9-CDA-UGIL (L at the end indicates the LVA degradation tag), the pCBE2 plasmid was constructed by inserting the fusion protein into the pACYCDuet™-1 vector harboring the P BAD promoter system via Gibson assembly. The pCBE1 plasmid was constructed to express dCas9-CDA by blunt end ligation of the truncated PCR fragment without UGI. The initial single target sgRNA expression cassette targeting the super folding green fluorescent protein (sfGFP) was synthesized via Integrated DNA Technologies and inserted into the pRO1600/ColE1 vector to construct psgRNA_sfGFP by Golden Gate assembly using BsmBI digestion-ligation. The 20 nt spacer region for single targets on rpoB and pyrF was exchanged by designing respective overhangs on each end of DNA for Gibson assembly. To construct multiplex editing sgRNA plasmids, the sfGFP dropout system (Stukenberg et al., 2022 ) for spacer exchange and the modular Golden Gate cloning method (Weber et al., 2011 ) for multiple sgRNA cassette assembly were used. The sfGFP dropout system was constructed by inserting the sfGFP expression cassette with internal BsaI recognition sites at each end into the spacer region of sgRNA by Golden Gate assembly. SfGFP dropout to exchange for the desired target spacer was performed by spacer-containing oligonucleotide pair annealing, BsaI digestion of the sfGFP dropout containing sgRNA vector, and ligation of the annealed spacer into the sgRNA expression cassette. For annealing of the oligonucleotide pairs with complementary spacer sequences, 15 µL of each forward and reverse 10 µM oligonucleotide with 5 µL T4-DNA ligase buffer were mixed in a total 50 µL-reaction and annealed by incubation to 95 o C for 15 min then slowly cooled to room temperature (~ 1 h). The sfGFP dropout cassette was restricted by BsaI digestion followed by purification of the vector fragment, which was then used to ligate the annealed spacer oligonucleotide pair with the corresponding sticky ends. Ligation was conducted with 100–200 ng vector and 4–8 µL of annealed oligonucleotide insert in a 20 µL T4 ligation reaction. gRNAs are listed in Table S4 and sequences for premature stop codon formation were designed using “BE-Designer” of the CRISPR RGEN Tools (Hwang and Bae, 2023 ). For modular Golden Gate cloning, the Level 0 single sgRNA modules and Level 1 multiplex sgRNA destination vectors were constructed with corresponding sticky ends listed for modular assembly by BsmBI digestion-ligation. Then, the Level 0 sgRNA expression cassettes were assembled into each Level 1 destination vector according to the appropriate sticky ends by BsmBI modular Golden Gate cloning. 2.3 Transformation of Vibrio strains via electroporation All electroporation procedures followed a modified version of a previously established protocol (Weinstock et al., 2016 ). A single colony was isolated and cultivated overnight at 30°C in a 3 mL medium. The following day, saturated cells were diluted 1:100 in 5 mL fresh medium and incubated at 30°C with shaking at 200 rpm until the OD 600 reached 0.4–0.6 (approx. 1 h). Cell cultures were then placed on ice for 20 minutes. Cell pellets were collected by centrifugation at 4,830×g for 20 minutes at 4°C and removal of supernatant. The cell pellets were washed three times by adding 1 mL of the electroporation buffer (680 mM sucrose, 7 mM potassium phosphate, pH 7), resuspending the cell pellets, centrifuging to collect cells, and removing the supernatant each time. After the final wash, the cells were resuspended in an electroporation buffer to reach an OD 600 of 16. For electroporation, 90 µL of resuspended cells were aliquoted, and up to 1 µg plasmid was added to make a 100 µL mixture. This mixture was transferred into an electroporation cuvette and electroporated at 0.9 kV resulting in a time constant of 2.2–2.4 ms using a Micropulser Electroporator (Bio-Rad Laboratories). After electroporation, 1 mL prewarmed LBv2 (LB supplemented with 204 mM NaCl, 4.2 mM KCl, and 23.14 mM MgCl 2 ) was added and the cells were cultivated at 37°C for 1 h. Finally, the cells were spread on antibiotic-containing agar plates (with serial dilutions, if necessary) and incubated overnight at 37°C. 2.4 Determination of base editing efficiency To perform base editing, either pCBE1 or pCBE2 plasmid and a corresponding psgRNA plasmid were serially transformed into the VDHG100 ( Vibrio sp. dhg Δ dns ) strain (Lim et al., 2019 ) by electroporation. Cells with both plasmids were grown in the presence of Cm and Kan to maintain the pCBE and psgRNA plasmids, respectively. Cells were first streaked onto solid plates and incubated at 30 o C overnight for single colony isolation. Single colonies were picked for overnight culture in 3 mL liquid medium at 30 o C and 200 rpm. Saturated cells were transferred by 1:100 dilution into 5 mL of the fresh medium with arabinose for induction of dCas9-CDAL or dCas9-CDA-UGIL and cultivated for 4 h. For multiplex editing, additional passaging was conducted by repeating the previous cultivation step using the induced cell culture. Single colonies of edited cells were isolated by spreading with serial dilution, or streaking onto a non-selective solid medium. To show a gain of rifampicin resistance in rpoB mutant strains, 50 µg/mL rifampicin was included in the solid medium. When targeting pyrF , 20 µg/mL uracil was supplemented in media from the induction cultivation step to single colony isolation and 1 mg/mL 5-FOA was additionally supplemented to show an increase in resistance compared to the wildtype Vibrio sp. dhg strain. Base editing efficiencies were measured by performing Sanger sequencing of randomly picked colonies from non-selective agar plates (Cosmogenetech, Korea). 2.5 Determination of transformation efficiency For the strain transformation efficiency assay, the pCBE and psgRNA plasmids were first cured via one or two rounds of serial passaging. Cells were grown to saturation at 37°C with shaking at 200 rpm in liquid medium without antibiotics. After single colony isolation by streaking on nonselective solid medium, plasmid-free cells were selected by spotting single colonies on solid medium with and without antibiotics. In performing transformation, saturated cultures of plasmid-free cells were then diluted 1:100 in 30 mL fresh medium and cultivated in flasks until the OD 600 reached 0.4–0.6. The cell pellets were washed three times with 10 mL of electroporation buffer under the same conditions. After adjusting the OD 600 of the final resuspended cells to 16, 90 µL cells from each strain were aliquoted into three separate 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tubes for biologically independent replicates, and 1 µg pACYCDuet™-1 plasmid was added for electroporation. After recovery and serial dilution plating on selective media, colony-forming units (CFUs) were counted and adjusted based on the dilution factor to determine transformation efficiency. 2.6 Genomic analysis for identifying genes which can be inactivated by base editing Genomic DNA sequences were retrieved from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database (accession numbers: CP028943, CP028944, and CP028945) (Sayers et al., 2023 ) and annotated using the Rapid Annotations of Subsystem Technology (RAST) (Aziz et al., 2008 ). Protein-encoding genes were selectively filtered from the annotated dataset for subsequent analyses. CBE system enables the conversion of cytosine (C) to thymine (T), which was utilized to introduce premature stop codons (TAA, TAG, and TGA) in coding sequences. On the coding strand, CAA, CAG, and CGA were targeted for conversion to stop codons. On the non-coding strand, CCA was targeted for conversion to TCA, CTA, and TTA, which corresponds to the introduction of TGA, TAG, and TAA on the coding strand. To identify potential single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs) for genome-wide inactivation, the target sequences CAA, CAG, CGA and CCA were screened within the − 20 to − 16 positions upstream the PAM sequence, corresponding to the editing window of CBEs using a 20-nucleotide spacer. The sequences and relative positions of all targetable sgRNAs for each coding sequence were identified. NGG and NGN PAM requirements were applied for CBEs using the canonical SpCas9 and PAM-flexible SpG variant, respectively. Target sequences for CBE using SpRY, a near-PAMless variant, were also analyzed without a PAM requirement. A Python script was used to perform sgRNA identification and data analysis. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Design of the cytosine base editing (CBE) system for Vibrio sp. dhg A target-specific CBE system was developed for Vibrio sp. dhg by utilizing cytidine deaminase fused with nuclease-inactivated Cas9 (dCas9) and uracil glycosylase inhibitor (UGI). dCas9 was chosen because it is known to be less toxic in not inducing any strand breaks compared to Cas9 or nCas9 (Banno et al., 2018 ; Lee et al., 2023 ; Liu et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, Pm CDA1 from Petromyzon marinus was utilized given it shows higher catalytic activity in changing cytosine to uracil and less dependence on sequence context than other cytidine deaminases (Anzalone et al., 2020 ; Nishida et al., 2016 ; Wang et al., 2018 ; Zong et al., 2018 ). Additionally, as an auxiliary component, uracil glycosylase inhibitor (UGI) that prevents the repair of uracil in DNA (Wang et al., 1991 ) was interrogated for its role in enhancing editing efficiency (Banno et al., 2018 ; Wang et al., 2017 ). These proteins were fused by the SH3 and 3x FLAG tag linkers into the form of a dCas9-CDAL (CBE1) fusion protein, or with an additional UGI as dCas9-CDA-UGIL (CBE2); with the LVA degradation tag attached at the C terminus of each fusion protein. The developed system can achieve target-specific base editing by changing the 20-nt spacer sequence of sgRNA (Fig. 1 A). The sgRNA-dCas9 complex binds to the complementary site of interest. Then, CDA linked to dCas9 edits the target base by deamination of cytosine to uracil. In enhancing editing efficiency, UGI additionally linked to CDA prevents the removal of the non-DNA base, uracil, by base excision repair. This directs the eventual base change to thymine in the replication process where DNA polymerase perceives uracil as thymine. Following this mechanism, the CBE system induces C-to-T, or G-to-A targeting the antisense strand, transitions in an editing window situated 16–20 bp upstream of an NGG protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) site required for CRISPR/Cas9-based systems. In introducing the base editing toolkit in Vibrio sp. dhg, a dual-plasmid expression system composed of the main editing plasmid for expressing the CBE fusion protein and the helper plasmid for expressing sgRNA, was constructed (Fig. 1 B). The CBE1 or CBE2 protein was expressed in a low-copy plasmid under an arabinose-inducible promoter with an LVA degradation tag at the C-terminal, ensuring tight regulation (Guzman et al., 1995 ) and shortened half-life (Andersen et al., 1998 ; Purcell et al., 2012 ) to reduce toxicity and off-target effects. In contrast, sgRNA was expressed in a high-copy plasmid under a strong constitutive promoter. For flexibility in targeting, the crRNA spacer region of the sgRNA was designed to be easily replaceable in the helper plasmid, enabling rapid customization for different editing purposes. This dual-plasmid system also facilitates multiplex editing by allowing the expression of multiple sgRNAs from the sgRNA plasmid, thereby enhancing the versatility of the toolkit. 3.2. Functional validation of CRISPR-based CBE system in Vibrio sp. dhg To initially validate functional mutagenesis of the CBE system in Vibrio sp. dhg, selectable genes in its genome were chosen as targets where their specific mutations are known to confer resistance to corresponding selectable agents or antibiotics. Two genes, rpoB and pyrF , were found to have a codon changeable to a stop codon within the editing window from the PAM sequence (Fig. 2 A). The former encodes the RNA polymerase β subunit (Cutugno et al., 2020 ; Jin et al., 1988 ). A missense mutation at the 531st amino acid, a well-characterized site for rifampicin resistance, could be introduced using the CBE system. The latter encodes orotidine-5'-phosphate decarboxylase and was selected for its potential to confer resistance to 5-fluoroorotic acid (5-FOA) via a CBE-induced nonsense mutation at the 83rd amino acid (Boeke et al., 1987 ; Tripathi et al., 2010 ). The editing efficiency of the CBE1 (dCas9-CDA) and CBE2 (dCas9-CDA-UGI) systems was assessed by targeting rpoB and pyrF (Fig. 2 ). Editing efficiency was calculated by sequencing randomly selected colonies and determining the proportion that carried the desired mutations: the missense mutation S531F in rpoB and the nonsense mutation W83* in pyrF . Using the CBE1 system, which includes only the core elements for base editing, the targeted mutation S531F in rpoB was detected in only 1 out of 16 colonies (6.25%). In pyrF , the targeted mutation W83* was detected in 5 out of 8 colonies (62.5%). With the inclusion of UGI in the CBE2 system, editing efficiency significantly improved, with the targeted S531F mutation present in 4 out of 8 colonies (50%) for rpoB and the W83* mutation in 8 out of 8 colonies (100%) for pyrF . These results demonstrate that UGI is an essential component for achieving high-efficiency base editing, with the CBE2 system reaching up to 100% efficiency. Consequently, the CBE2 system was selected for subsequent experiments. Consistent with the previous report (Cutugno et al., 2020 ; Jin et al., 1988 ), the rpoB -edited strains gained resistance to rifampicin ( Additional File 1: Figure S1 ). Similarly, pyrF -edited strains also showed higher resistance to 5-FOA compared to the wildtype strain in concordance with previous studies (Boeke et al., 1987 ; Tripathi et al., 2010 ) ( Additional File 1: Figure S2 ). Therefore, the developed CBE system successfully introduced premature stop codons in the targeted region of the genome of Vibrio sp. dhg for desired purposes. 3.3. Multiplex base editing for gene inactivation of REases in the RM system In achieving high editing efficiency for single targets, the CBE system was applied for multiplex genome editing. Simultaneous targeting of multiple genes enables rapid engineering for desired genetic reprogramming. As a multiplex editing target, restriction enzymes (REases) composing the RM system were selected (Fig. 3 A) given its inactivation improved transformation efficiency in bacteria such as Caldicellulosiruptor (Chung et al., 2013 ) and Clostridium species (Dong et al., 2010 ). Bacterial RM systems recognize self-DNA by methylating at specific recognition sites by methyltransferases (MTases). If foreign DNA lacking methylation is present in cells, REases remove it to protect the host genome (Johnston et al., 2019 ; Vasu and Nagaraja, 2013 ). This protection mechanism is known to lower genetic engineering efficiency during plasmid transformation or recombination using heterologous DNA fragments. Therefore, the inactivation of the system in Vibrio sp. dhg was warranted to improve genetic engineering efficiencies. To deactivate these REases in Vibrio sp. dhg, the CBE system was utilized to introduce premature stop codons. Initially, genomic sequence analysis was performed to identify REases using the REBASE (Roberts et al., 2023 ), NCBI (Sayers et al., 2023 ), eggNOG (Huerta-Cepas et al., 2019 ), and RAST (Aziz et al., 2008 ) databases. Resultantly, a total of seven REases were found: multiple hsdR type I restriction enzyme subunits R (DBX26_01795, DBX26_11820, DBX26_11465), mrr restriction endonuclease (DBX26_01820), BsuBI/PstI RE restriction endonuclease (DBX26_25330), restriction endonuclease (DBX26_05280), type III restriction-modification endonuclease (DBX26_25295) (Table 1 ). For their disruption, multiple sgRNAs were designed to target regions where premature stop codons can be introduced by changing C to T within the editing windows. For multiplex inactivation of REases in the RM system, targets were divided on the basis of whether they were predicted by REBASE with four targets as “RE1” and only by other databases with three targets as “RE2”. Accordingly, four and three sgRNA expression cassettes were inserted in the “pMultigRNA_RE1” and “pMultigRNA_RE2” plasmid, respectively, using the sfGFP dropout system (Stukenberg et al., 2022 ) and the modular Golden Gate cloning method (Weber et al., 2011 ) (see Methods). The sgRNAs were all monocistronically expressed under the P J23119 promoter for strong expression. Multiplex base editing was performed and its efficiency was evaluated with the two plasmids targeting the four and three genes, separately. The editing efficiency was assessed with eight random colonies by analyzing the number of edited sites per colony and the editing frequency of each target site. With the pMultigRNA_RE1 plasmid targeting four genes (Table 1 ), up to three simultaneous inactivation edits were observed in two of eight colonies (RE1-3. RE1-7), while the majority exhibited editing in only one gene of the targets (Fig. 3 B). With the pMultigRNA_RE2 plasmid targeting three sites, most colonies had two edited sites, and one colony contained desired edits in all three targets (RE2-7) to obtain the RE2 strain (Fig. 3 C). Another round of base editing was also performed to introduce a stop codon in the remaining locus in the RE1-7 strain to achieve the inactivation of all four targets in acquiring the RE1 strain. Table 1 REase targets for gene inactivation in Vibrio sp. dhg Target label Locus Name a,b Predicted source Stop codon RE1 RE0-1 DBX26_01795 hsdR type I restriction enzyme R subunit a REBASE, eggNOG, RAST W139* RE0-2 DBX26_01820 mrr restriction endonuclease a REBASE, eggNOG, RAST W104* RE0-3 DBX26_11820 hsdR type I restriction enzyme R subunit a REBASE, eggNOG, RAST R21* RE0-4 DBX26_25330 BsuBI, PstI restriction endonuclease a REBASE, NCBI, eggNOG, RAST W259* RE2 RE0-5 DBX26_05280 restriction endonuclease a NCBI, eggNOG, RAST Q146* RE0-6 DBX26_11465 hsdR type I restriction enzyme R subunit a eggNOG, RAST Q62* RE0-7 DBX26_25295 type III restriction-modification endonuclease b NCBI Q153* a Name was given according to eggNOG, RAST database annotation b Name was given according to NCBI database annotation To generate the RE3 strain, which includes the inactivation of all 7 REase targets, the pMultisgRNA_RE2 plasmid was introduced into the RE1 strain harboring pCBE2. Components were expressed to edit the remaining RE2 sites, achieving complete inactivation across all 7 targets through two separate rounds of multiplex editing using pMultisgRNA_RE1 and pMultisgRNA_RE2 (Fig. 3 B). While the CBE system demonstrated high multiplex editing efficiency, variations in efficiency were observed across individual sites. For example, RE0-2 (DBX26_01820) and RE0-7 (DBX26_25295) showed high efficiency, with editing efficiency of 87.5–100%, respectively, whereas RE0-3 (DBX26_11820) and RE0-6 (DBX26_11465) exhibited low efficiency, with editing efficiency of 0–12%, respectively ( Additional File 1: Figure S3 ). These discrepancies may arise from factors such as sequence-based gRNA affinity, genomic locus, or the differences in sgRNA expression levels within multiplex cassettes. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the underlying causes of site-specific variability and optimize multiplex editing performance. 3.4. Inactivation of REases of the RM system on transformation efficiency The effect of the inactivation of the REases in plasmid transformation was investigated by using the RE1, RE2, and RE3 strains. The base editing plasmids were removed by serial cultures and the pACYCDuet™-1 plasmid was introduced. As a result, all the strains displayed significant increases in transformation efficiency compared to the wildtype (Fig. 4 ). Notably, REase inactivation in the RE1 strain, as predicted by REBASE, resulted in a 47.6-fold increase in transformation efficiency, whereas RE2 achieved a 9.1-fold increase (Fig. 4 C). However, the combined inactivation in RE3 demonstrated only a slightly higher 55.5-fold increase, indicating that RE2 targets were unable to contribute a synergistic effect. This may result from the resolution of the critical transformation barrier caused by REase activity in the RM system, particularly involving key restriction enzymes identified through REBASE predictions. 3.5. Genomic analysis to identify gene inactivation target by base editing To demonstrate the capability of the CBE system for versatile genome editing, the tool was analyzed for coverage of targetable genes in the genome for gene inactivation (Fig. 5 ). Base editing can be utilized for gene inactivation by premature stop codon formation in converting CGA, CAG, CAA codons in the sense strand or CCA in the antisense strand to TGA, TAG, TAA stop codons within the coding sequence (CDS) of genes. Bioinformatics analysis confirms the utility of the CBE system as a gene inactivation tool in Vibrio sp. dhg as 4403 (89.89%) genes out of a total of 4898 genes in the genome are targetable in forming a premature stop codon (Fig. 5 A), with 84.87% of these genes capable of creating a stop codon within the first 50% of the CDS (Fig. 5 B), a threshold sufficient for effective gene inactivation (Yue et al., 2022 ). To further expand the coverage of editable genes, PAM-flexible or near-PAMless SpG and SpRY variants of Cas9 with NGN and NRN or NYN PAMs, respectively, can be utilized (Kim et al., 2017 ; Walton et al., 2020 ). Their usage enables near whole genome-wide coverage of 98.90-99.59% editable genes (Fig. 5 A), having stop codons in 96.71–97.70% within the first 50% of the CDS (Fig. 5 B). Despite the high performance of the CBE system, its application is limited by the PAM site constraints inherent to CRISPR-based systems. Achieving sequence-wide coverage will require the exploitation and development of PAM-less dCas9-guided base editors and complementary nucleotide-converting systems, such as adenine base editors (ABEs), to expand the versatility of point mutagenesis applications. The successful development of a highly efficient CBE toolkit, combined with the creation of a highly electro-competent strain through REase inactivation, significantly enhanced the genetic tractability of Vibrio sp. dhg. These advancements enable broader utilization of this strain as a robust platform for the bioconversion of macroalgae-derived biomass into high-value products, unlocking new opportunities for sustainable bioproduction. 4. Conclusions In this study, a CRISPR-based cytosine base editing (CBE) system for Vibrio sp. dhg was established, enabling efficient and precise C:G-to-T:A point mutations. This system facilitated both single and multiplex gene inactivation, particularly targeting restriction enzymes (REases) of the Restriction-Modification (RM) system, which significantly improved transformation efficiency by up to 55.5-fold. Genomic analysis confirmed that 89.89% of genes in Vibrio sp. dhg could be targeted for inactivation using this approach, with additional targets through PAM-flexible Cas9 variants. The development of this base editing toolkit is expected to enhance the genetic tractability of Vibrio sp. dhg and accelerate its application as a platform strain for macroalgae biorefineries. Abbreviations CRISPR clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats Cas9 CRISPR-associated protein 9 dCas9 dead Cas9 nCas9 nicking Cas9 PAM protospacer adjacent motif sgRNA single guide RNA DNA deoxyribonucleic acid RNA ribonucleic acid CBE cytosine base editor CDA cytidine deaminase UGI uracil glycosylase inhibitor OD 600 optical density at 600 nm CDS coding sequence sfGFP superfolder green fluorescent protein 5-FOA 5-fluoroorotic acid RM retriction-modification REase restriction enzyme MTase methyltransferase CFU colony forming unit Declarations Funding This research was supported by the Korea Institute of Marine Science and Technology Promotion (KIMST) funded by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (grant number RS-2022-KS221581). This work was also supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grants funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (grant numbers RS-2024-00334792, RS-2024-00399277, RS-2024-00400033 and RS-2024-00453085). Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable Consent for publication Not applicable Competing interests Not applicable Data availability Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files. Further raw datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Authors’ contributions Yang Jun Shon : Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. Dongyeop Baek : Conceptualization, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft. Su Bin Jin : Investigation. Woo Jae Kim : Investigation. Gyoo Yeol Jung : Funding acquisition, Supervision, Resources, Writing – review & editing. Hyun Gyu Lim : Funding acquisition, Supervision, Resources, Writing – review & editing. References Andersen, J.B., Sternberg, C., Poulsen, L.K., Bjorn, S.P., Givskov, M., Molin, S., 1998. New unstable variants of green fluorescent protein for studies of transient gene expression in bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64, 2240–2246. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.64.6.2240-2246.1998. Anzalone, A.V., Koblan, L.W., Liu, D.R., 2020. Genome editing with CRISPR-Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 824–844. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0561-9. Aziz, R.K., Bartels, D., Best, A.A., DeJongh, M., Disz, T., Edwards, R.A., Formsma, K., Gerdes, S., Glass, E.M., Kubal, M., Meyer, F., Olsen, G.J., Olson, R., Osterman, A.L., Overbeek, R.A., McNeil, L.K., Paarmann, D., Paczian, T., Parrello, B., Pusch, G.D., Zagnitko, O., 2008. The RAST Server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genomics 9, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-9-75. Banno, S., Nishida, K., Arazoe, T., Mitsunobu, H., Kondo, A., 2018. Deaminase-mediated multiplex genome editing in Escherichia coli . Nat. Microbiol. 3, 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-017-0102-6. Boeke, J.D., Trueheart, J., Natsoulis, G., Fink, G.R., 1987. [10] 5-Fluoroorotic acid as a selective agent in yeast molecular genetics, in: Recombinant DNA Part E, Methods in Enzymology. Elsevier, pp. 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(87)54076-9. Chung, D., Farkas, J., Westpheling, J., 2013. Overcoming restriction as a barrier to DNA transformation in Caldicellulosiruptor species results in efficient marker replacement. Biotechnol. Biofuels 6, 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-82. Coppens, L., Tschirhart, T., Leary, D. H., Colston, S. M., Compton, J. R., Hervey IV, W. J., Dana, K. L., Vora, G. J., Bordel, S., Ledesma‐Amaro, R., 2023. Vibrio natriegens genome‐scale modeling reveals insights into halophilic adaptations and resource allocation. Mol. Syst. Biol. 19, e10523. https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.202110523. Cutugno, L., Mc Cafferty, J., Pané-Farré, J., O’Byrne, C., Boyd, A., 2020. rpoB mutations conferring rifampicin-resistance affect growth, stress response and motility in Vibrio vulnificus . Microbiology (Reading, Engl) 166, 1160–1170. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.000991. Dong, H., Zhang, Y., Dai, Z., Li, Y., 2010. Engineering Clostridium strain to accept unmethylated DNA. PLoS ONE 5, e9038. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009038. Gaudelli, N.M., Komor, A.C., Rees, H.A., Packer, M.S., Badran, A.H., Bryson, D.I., Liu, D.R., 2017. Programmable base editing of A•T to G•C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551, 464–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24644. Guzman, L.M., Belin, D., Carson, M.J., Beckwith, J., 1995. Tight regulation, modulation, and high-level expression by vectors containing the arabinose P BAD promoter. J. Bacteriol. 177, 4121–4130. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.177.14.4121-4130.1995. Hao, W., Cui, W., Cheng, Z., Han, L., Suo, F., Liu, Z., Zhou, L., Zhou, Z., 2021. Development of a base editor for protein evolution via in situ mutation in vivo. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 9594–9605. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab673. Hao, W., Cui, W., Suo, F., Han, L., Cheng, Z., Zhou, Z., 2022. Construction and application of an efficient dual-base editing platform for Bacillus subtilis evolution employing programmable base conversion. Chem. Sci. 13, 14395–14409. https://doi.org/10.1039/d2sc05824c. Hao, W., Cui, W., Liu, Z., Suo, F., Wu, Y., Han, L., Zhou, Z., 2024. A New‐Generation Base Editor with an Expanded Editing Window for Microbial Cell Evolution In Vivo Based on CRISPR‒Cas12b Engineering. Adv. Sci. 11, 2309767. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202309767. Huerta-Cepas, J., Szklarczyk, D., Heller, D., Hernández-Plaza, A., Forslund, S.K., Cook, H., Mende, D.R., Letunic, I., Rattei, T., Jensen, L.J., von Mering, C., Bork, P., 2019. eggNOG 5.0: a hierarchical, functionally and phylogenetically annotated orthology resource based on 5090 organisms and 2502 viruses. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D309–D314. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1085. Hwang, W. Y., Fu, Y., Reyon, D., Maeder, M. L., Tsai, S. Q., Sander, J. D., Peterson, R. T., Yeh, J. R. J., Joung, J. K., 2013. Efficient genome editing in zebrafish using a CRISPR-Cas system. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 227–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2501. Hwang, G.-H., Bae, S., 2023. Web-Based Computational Tools for Base Editors. Methods Mol. Biol. 2606, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-2879-9_2. Jin, D.J., Walter, W.A., Gross, C.A., 1988. Characterization of the termination phenotypes of rifampicin-resistant mutants. J. Mol. Biol. 202, 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(88)90455-x. Johnston, C.D., Cotton, S.L., Rittling, S.R., Starr, J.R., Borisy, G.G., Dewhirst, F.E., Lemon, K.P., 2019. Systematic evasion of the restriction-modification barrier in bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116, 11454–11459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820256116. Kim, Y.B., Komor, A.C., Levy, J.M., Packer, M.S., Zhao, K.T., Liu, D.R., 2017. Increasing the genome-targeting scope and precision of base editing with engineered Cas9-cytidine deaminase fusions. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3803. Komor, A.C., Kim, Y.B., Packer, M.S., Zuris, J.A., Liu, D.R., 2016. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533, 420–424. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17946. Komor, A. C., Badran, A. H., Liu, D. R., 2017. CRISPR-based technologies for the manipulation of eukaryotic genomes. Cell 168, 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.044. Lee, H.K., Woo, S., Baek, D., Min, M., Jung, G.Y., Lim, H.G., 2024. Direct and robust citramalate production from brown macroalgae using fast-growing Vibrio sp. dhg. Bioresour. Technol. 394, 130304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2024.130304. Lee, J., Lim, K., Kim, A., Mok, Y.G., Chung, E., Cho, S.-I., Lee, J.M., Kim, J.-S., 2023. Prime editing with genuine Cas9 nickases minimizes unwanted indels. Nat. Commun. 14, 1786. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37507-8. Lim, H.G., Kwak, D.H., Park, S., Woo, S., Yang, J.S., Kang, C.W., Kim, B., Noh, M.H., Seo, S.W., Jung, G.Y., 2019. Vibrio sp. dhg as a platform for the biorefinery of brown macroalgae. Nat. Commun. 10, 2486. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10371-1. Liu, Z., Dong, H., Cui, Y., Cong, L., Zhang, D., 2020. Application of different types of CRISPR/Cas-based systems in bacteria. Microb. Cell Fact. 19, 172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-020-01431-z. Moon, J.H., Woo, S., Shin, H.J., Lee, H.K., Jung, G.Y., Lim, H.G., 2024. Direct Itaconate Production from Brown Macroalgae Using Engineered Vibrio sp. dhg. J. Agric. Food Chem. 72, 16860–16866. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.4c04138. Nishida, K., Arazoe, T., Yachie, N., Banno, S., Kakimoto, M., Tabata, M., Mochizuki, M., Miyabe, A., Araki, M., Hara, K.Y., Shimatani, Z., Kondo, A., 2016. Targeted nucleotide editing using hybrid prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems. Science 353. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8729. Purcell, O., Grierson, C.S., Bernardo, M. di, Savery, N.J., 2012. Temperature dependence of ssrA -tag mediated protein degradation. J. Biol. Eng. 6, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-1611-6-10. Roberts, R.J., Vincze, T., Posfai, J., Macelis, D., 2023. REBASE: a database for DNA restriction and modification: enzymes, genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, D629–D630. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac975. Sayers, E.W., Bolton, E.E., Brister, J.R., Canese, K., Chan, J., Comeau, D.C., Farrell, C.M., Feldgarden, M., Fine, A.M., Funk, K., Hatcher, E., Kannan, S., Kelly, C., Kim, S., Klimke, W., Landrum, M.J., Lathrop, S., Lu, Z., Madden, T.L., Malheiro, A., Sherry, S.T., 2023. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information in 2023. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, D29–D38. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1032. Shin, H.J., Woo, S., Jung, G.Y., Park, J.M., 2023. Indole-3-acetic Acid Production from Alginate by Vibrio sp. dhg: Physiology and Characteristics. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-023-0056-x. Stukenberg, D., Hoff, J., Faber, A., Becker, A., 2022. NT-CRISPR, combining natural transformation and CRISPR-Cas9 counterselection for markerless and scarless genome editing in Vibrio natriegens. Commun. Biol. 5, 265. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03150-0. Tong, Y., Whitford, C.M., Robertsen, H.L., Blin, K., Jørgensen, T.S., Klitgaard, A.K., Gren, T., Jiang, X., Weber, T., Lee, S.Y., 2019. Highly efficient DSB-free base editing for Streptomycetes with CRISPR-BEST. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116, 20366–20375. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913493116. Tripathi, S.A., Olson, D.G., Argyros, D.A., Miller, B.B., Barrett, T.F., Murphy, D.M., McCool, J.D., Warner, A.K., Rajgarhia, V.B., Lynd, L.R., Hogsett, D.A., Caiazza, N.C., 2010. Development of pyrF-based genetic system for targeted gene deletion in Clostridium thermocellum and creation of a pta mutant. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76, 6591–6599. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01484-10. Vasu, K., Nagaraja, V., 2013. Diverse functions of restriction-modification systems in addition to cellular defense. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 77, 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00044-12. Walton, R.T., Christie, K.A., Whittaker, M.N., Kleinstiver, B.P., 2020. Unconstrained genome targeting with near-PAMless engineered CRISPR-Cas9 variants. Science 368, 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba8853. Wang, L., Xue, W., Yan, L., Li, X., Wei, J., Chen, M., Wu, J., Yang, B., Yang, L., Chen, J., 2017. Enhanced base editing by co-expression of free uracil DNA glycosylase inhibitor. Cell Res. 27, 1289–1292. https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2017.111. Wang, X., Li, J., Wang, Y., Yang, B., Wei, J., Wu, J., Wang, R., Huang, X., Chen, J., Yang, L., 2018. Efficient base editing in methylated regions with a human APOBEC3A-Cas9 fusion. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 946–949. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4198. Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, J., Guo, Y., Fan, L., Ni, X., Zheng, X., Wang, M., Zheng, P., Sun, J., Ma, Y., 2018. MACBETH: Multiplex automated Corynebacterium glutamicum base editing method. Metab. Eng. 47, 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2018.02.016. Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Li, J., Yang, Y., Ni, X., Cheng, H., Huang, T., Guo, Y., Ma, H., Zheng, P., Wang, M., Sun, J., Ma, Y., 2019. Expanding targeting scope, editing window, and base transition capability of base editing in Corynebacterium glutamicum . Biotechnol. Bioeng. 116, 3016–3029. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27121. Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Wen, X., Zhang, K., Ni, X., et al., 2021. In-situ generation of large numbers of genetic combinations for metabolic reprogramming via CRISPR-guided base editing. Nat. Commun. 12, 678. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21003-y. Wang, Z.G., Smith, D.G., Mosbaugh, D.W., 1991. Overproduction and characterization of the uracil-DNA glycosylase inhibitor of bacteriophage PBS2. Gene 99, 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1119(91)90030-f. Weber, E., Engler, C., Gruetzner, R., Werner, S., Marillonnet, S., 2011. A modular cloning system for standardized assembly of multigene constructs. PLoS ONE 6, e16765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016765. Weinstock, M.T., Hesek, E.D., Wilson, C.M., Gibson, D.G., 2016. Vibrio natriegens as a fast-growing host for molecular biology. Nat. Methods 13, 849–851. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3970. Wei, Y., Feng, L.-J., Yuan, X.-Z., Wang, S.-G., Xia, P.-F., 2023. Developing a base editing system for marine Roseobacter clade bacteria. ACS Synth. Biol. 12, 2178–2186. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.3c00259. Woo, S., Lim, H. G., Han, Y. H., et al., 2022. A Vibrio-based microbial platform for accelerated lignocellulosic sugar conversion. Biotechnol. Biofuels 15, 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-022-02157-3. Xia, P.-F., Casini, I., Schulz, S., Klask, C.-M., Angenent, L.T., Molitor, B., 2020. Reprogramming Acetogenic Bacteria with CRISPR-Targeted Base Editing via Deamination. ACS Synth. Biol. 9, 2162–2171. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.0c00226. Yue, S.-J., Huang, P., Li, S., Cai, Y.-Y., Wang, W., Zhang, X.-H., Nikel, P.I., Hu, H.-B., 2022. Developing a CRISPR-assisted base-editing system for genome engineering of Pseudomonas chlororaphis . Microb. Biotechnol. 15, 2324–2336. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14075. Yu, S., Price, M.A., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Guo, Y., Ni, X., Rosser, S.J., Bi, C., Wang, M., 2020. CRISPR-dCas9 Mediated Cytosine Deaminase Base Editing in Bacillus subtilis . ACS Synth. Biol. 9, 1781–1789. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.0c00151. Zong, Y., Song, Q., Li, C., Jin, S., Zhang, D., Wang, Y., Qiu, J.-L., Gao, C., 2018. Efficient C-to-T base editing in plants using a fusion of nCas9 and human APOBEC3A. Nat. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4261. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AdditionalFile1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 09 Apr, 2025 Read the published version in Journal of Biological Engineering → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 31 Mar, 2025 Reviews received at journal 31 Mar, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Mar, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 25 Mar, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 25 Mar, 2025 First submitted to journal 21 Mar, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6149600","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":433730333,"identity":"438b187b-8d55-4807-af73-ce748f514d42","order_by":0,"name":"Yang Jun Shon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Pohang University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yang","middleName":"Jun","lastName":"Shon","suffix":""},{"id":433730334,"identity":"eb8c653b-4740-4576-97d7-c0161a63091a","order_by":1,"name":"Dongyeop Baek","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Pohang University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dongyeop","middleName":"","lastName":"Baek","suffix":""},{"id":433730335,"identity":"e09c16a0-b600-4154-8e74-e07b4e57e0c4","order_by":2,"name":"Su Bin Jin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Inha University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Su","middleName":"Bin","lastName":"Jin","suffix":""},{"id":433730336,"identity":"9d9c395f-4084-47d0-a2fe-ffc50a168220","order_by":3,"name":"Woo Jae Kim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Pohang University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Woo","middleName":"Jae","lastName":"Kim","suffix":""},{"id":433730337,"identity":"fe83cc8a-9291-4a65-b464-66918ae7f9ba","order_by":4,"name":"Gyoo Yeol Jung","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Pohang University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gyoo","middleName":"Yeol","lastName":"Jung","suffix":""},{"id":433730338,"identity":"b81f11a0-a93f-450f-9fea-f27e600ba52e","order_by":5,"name":"Hyun Gyu Lim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Inha University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hyun","middleName":"Gyu","lastName":"Lim","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-04 00:08:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6149600/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6149600/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13036-025-00500-4","type":"published","date":"2025-04-09T16:05:53+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":79234725,"identity":"580da274-73c3-4f89-8e00-d49b000a8d27","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 03:45:25","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":746860,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCBE system in \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e) Overview of the CBE mechanism, comprising the coordinated actions of dCas9/sgRNA, CDA, and UGI in C-to-T base conversion. (\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e) Schematic diagrams of the plasmids for the expression of dCas9-CDAL (pCBE1) or dCas9-CDA-UGIL (pCBE2) and sgRNA (psgRNA series).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6149600/v1/d3c4d402c76ccf39572be192.png"},{"id":79234702,"identity":"eb399c0b-5522-41de-b988-7b63f6e06573","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 03:45:24","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":676837,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSingle target base editing efficiency characterization\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e) Sequence outcome of single target base editing targeting \u003cem\u003erpoB\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003epyrF\u003c/em\u003e using the CBE1(without UGI) and CBE2(with UGI) system. Eight (or sixteen for the CBE1 system, \u003cem\u003erpoB\u003c/em\u003e target) random colonies were selected and analyzed to calculate editing efficiency as the ratio of colonies containing targeted mutagenesis. (\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e) Comparison of single target base editing efficiency between CBE1 (without UGI) and CBE2 (with UGI).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6149600/v1/593684427705f960e77c53c5.png"},{"id":79234718,"identity":"0a31f49c-0550-4aa3-bb46-3fe01b12178c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 03:45:25","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1969952,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMultiplex base editing for simultaneous inactivation of REases in the RM system\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e) Schematic of inactivating the REases by premature stop codon formation via multiplex base editing to improve transformation efficiency - Disintegration of foreign DNA by the presence of native REases (left), Inactivation of multiple REases by the CBE system (middle), Enhancement of transformation efficiency due to the absence of active REases (right). (\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e) Multiplex base editing efficiency of RE1 targets in terms of the ratio of edited genes in each colony (green). (\u003cstrong\u003eC\u003c/strong\u003e) Multiplex base editing efficiency of RE2 targets in terms of the ratio of edited genes in each colony (blue).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6149600/v1/95bb4a8c091997d562664a6d.png"},{"id":79234696,"identity":"aa8378cb-b212-4805-9266-7af1508cd4f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 03:45:23","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1372071,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6149600/v1/3f0a3c4dd762863f69d71384.png"},{"id":79235256,"identity":"ad54b12d-4a69-47b3-a3ae-92a06181f0f5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 03:53:24","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":473881,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGenome-wide coverage of CBE system with Cas9 variants for gene inactivation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e) Statistical coverage of genes in the \u003cem\u003eVibrio \u003c/em\u003esp\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e dhg genome containing at least one targetable codon for gene inactivation. (\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e) Cumulation of editable genes by relative position in the CDS.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6149600/v1/830974430b37b37ffb1c38dd.png"},{"id":80559149,"identity":"958647a0-eb25-448e-b454-0774c5ff6bce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-14 16:18:01","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":6328029,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6149600/v1/791dc71e-43fa-4678-96e7-587a0793036d.pdf"},{"id":79234697,"identity":"05fd0b38-5869-4180-8952-c7ed93c5aaa2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 03:45:24","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1485166,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6149600/v1/e600886e92b1d25b93bb35b0.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Development of a CRISPR-based cytosine base editor for restriction-modification system inactivation to enhance transformation efficiency in Vibrio sp. dhg","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Background","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg, a marine bacterial isolate, has gained much attention as a platform host for macroalgae biorefineries (Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). It grows much faster than model hosts (e.g., \u003cem\u003eEscherichia coli\u003c/em\u003e) with higher specific sugar uptake rates (up to 2-fold) and tolerance to high salinity (up to 100 g L\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e NaCl) (Coppens et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to these characteristics, it can rapidly catabolize alginate, which is abundant in brown macroalgae but cannot be metabolized by conventional microbial hosts. These characteristics highlight the versatile potential of \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg as a novel microbial host for bioproduction utilizing brown macroalgae as substrate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndeed, \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg has been synthetically engineered by developing optimized transformation, recombineering, and predictive gene expression (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Woo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These efforts allowed the generation of efficient strains capable of producing diverse biochemicals. These compounds include 2,3-butanediol (Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), lycopene (Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), indole-3-acetic acid (Shin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), itaconate (Moon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and citramalate (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). However, more advanced genetic engineering tools are required, particularly focusing on multiplex genome editing, for its wide adaptation as a platform chassis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecently, CRISPR-guided base editing systems have been developed as a precise and efficient alternative for genome engineering in various microbes (Hwang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Komor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Yeh et al., 2019). Base editors utilize nuclease-inactivated versions of Cas9 fused with a deaminase, enabling targeted point mutations without the need for donor DNA templates (Komor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Nishida et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, with cytosine base editor, C:G-to-T:A transition mutations can be introduced at desired locus target sites. This cytosine base editor has been successfully deployed across numerous microbial strains for versatile purposes in gene inactivation (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Yue et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Yu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), protein engineering (Hao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Hao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and expression modulation (Hao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Displaying high editing efficiencies, many toolkits have been established in a broad range of hosts such as \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e (Banno et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), B. \u003cem\u003esubtilis\u003c/em\u003e (Yu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), C. \u003cem\u003eglutamicum\u003c/em\u003e (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), C. \u003cem\u003eljungdahlii\u003c/em\u003e (Xia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), \u003cem\u003eStreptomyces\u003c/em\u003e (Tong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas\u003c/em\u003e (Yue et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and \u003cem\u003eRoseobactor\u003c/em\u003e species (Wei et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, an efficient cytosine base editor (CBE) system was established for \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg as a novel genome engineering toolkit and applied to improve its transformation efficiency. This toolkit was developed using an expression system amenable to the strain and its editing function was validated on single targets, displaying high editing efficiency. The developed system was then utilized to perform multiplex editing for gene inactivation, specifically targeting the restriction-modification (RM) system by disrupting the genes encoding restriction enzymes (REases). This approach aimed to improve transformation efficiency, an important factor in the genetic manipulation of \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg. The developed CBE system and the generated platform strain with improved transformation efficiency are expected to enable wide adaptation of \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg as a microbial host for many biotechnological applications.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Bacterial strains and culture conditions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe bacterial strains used in this study are listed in \u003cb\u003eTable \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e of Additional File 1. \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e Mach1 T1\u003csup\u003eR\u003c/sup\u003e was used for cloning and was cultivated aerobically at 37\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC in Luria-Bertani (LB) broth. \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg strains were cultivated in the LB3 (LB supplemented with 20 g/L NaCl) medium at 30\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC, unless mentioned otherwise. Solid agar media additionally contain 15 g/L agar. In the use of antibiotics, chloramphenicol (Cm, 34 \u0026micro;g/mL for \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e and 10 \u0026micro;g/mL for \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg) or/and kanamycin (Kan, 50 \u0026micro;g/mL for \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e and 200 \u0026micro;g/mL for \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg) were supplemented for selective growth of plasmid-containing strains. For induction of the P\u003csub\u003eBAD\u003c/sub\u003e promoter system, 4 g/L arabinose was added to the medium.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Plasmid construction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlasmids and primers used in this study are listed in \u003cb\u003eTable S2\u003c/b\u003e and \u003cb\u003eTable S3\u003c/b\u003e of Additional File 1, respectively. To express dCas9-CDA-UGIL (L at the end indicates the LVA degradation tag), the pCBE2 plasmid was constructed by inserting the fusion protein into the pACYCDuet\u0026trade;-1 vector harboring the P\u003csub\u003eBAD\u003c/sub\u003e promoter system via Gibson assembly. The pCBE1 plasmid was constructed to express dCas9-CDA by blunt end ligation of the truncated PCR fragment without UGI. The initial single target sgRNA expression cassette targeting the super folding green fluorescent protein (sfGFP) was synthesized via Integrated DNA Technologies and inserted into the pRO1600/ColE1 vector to construct psgRNA_sfGFP by Golden Gate assembly using BsmBI digestion-ligation. The 20 nt spacer region for single targets on \u003cem\u003erpoB\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003epyrF\u003c/em\u003e was exchanged by designing respective overhangs on each end of DNA for Gibson assembly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo construct multiplex editing sgRNA plasmids, the sfGFP dropout system (Stukenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) for spacer exchange and the modular Golden Gate cloning method (Weber et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) for multiple sgRNA cassette assembly were used. The sfGFP dropout system was constructed by inserting the sfGFP expression cassette with internal BsaI recognition sites at each end into the spacer region of sgRNA by Golden Gate assembly. SfGFP dropout to exchange for the desired target spacer was performed by spacer-containing oligonucleotide pair annealing, BsaI digestion of the sfGFP dropout containing sgRNA vector, and ligation of the annealed spacer into the sgRNA expression cassette. For annealing of the oligonucleotide pairs with complementary spacer sequences, 15 \u0026micro;L of each forward and reverse 10 \u0026micro;M oligonucleotide with 5 \u0026micro;L T4-DNA ligase buffer were mixed in a total 50 \u0026micro;L-reaction and annealed by incubation to 95\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 15 min then slowly cooled to room temperature (~\u0026thinsp;1 h). The sfGFP dropout cassette was restricted by BsaI digestion followed by purification of the vector fragment, which was then used to ligate the annealed spacer oligonucleotide pair with the corresponding sticky ends. Ligation was conducted with 100\u0026ndash;200 ng vector and 4\u0026ndash;8 \u0026micro;L of annealed oligonucleotide insert in a 20 \u0026micro;L T4 ligation reaction. gRNAs are listed in \u003cb\u003eTable S4\u003c/b\u003e and sequences for premature stop codon formation were designed using \u0026ldquo;BE-Designer\u0026rdquo; of the CRISPR RGEN Tools (Hwang and Bae, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). For modular Golden Gate cloning, the Level 0 single sgRNA modules and Level 1 multiplex sgRNA destination vectors were constructed with corresponding sticky ends listed for modular assembly by BsmBI digestion-ligation. Then, the Level 0 sgRNA expression cassettes were assembled into each Level 1 destination vector according to the appropriate sticky ends by BsmBI modular Golden Gate cloning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Transformation of \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e strains via electroporation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll electroporation procedures followed a modified version of a previously established protocol (Weinstock et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). A single colony was isolated and cultivated overnight at 30\u0026deg;C in a 3 mL medium. The following day, saturated cells were diluted 1:100 in 5 mL fresh medium and incubated at 30\u0026deg;C with shaking at 200 rpm until the OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e reached 0.4\u0026ndash;0.6 (approx. 1 h). Cell cultures were then placed on ice for 20 minutes. Cell pellets were collected by centrifugation at 4,830\u0026times;g for 20 minutes at 4\u0026deg;C and removal of supernatant. The cell pellets were washed three times by adding 1 mL of the electroporation buffer (680 mM sucrose, 7 mM potassium phosphate, pH 7), resuspending the cell pellets, centrifuging to collect cells, and removing the supernatant each time. After the final wash, the cells were resuspended in an electroporation buffer to reach an OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e of 16. For electroporation, 90 \u0026micro;L of resuspended cells were aliquoted, and up to 1 \u0026micro;g plasmid was added to make a 100 \u0026micro;L mixture. This mixture was transferred into an electroporation cuvette and electroporated at 0.9 kV resulting in a time constant of 2.2\u0026ndash;2.4 ms using a Micropulser Electroporator (Bio-Rad Laboratories). After electroporation, 1 mL prewarmed LBv2 (LB supplemented with 204 mM NaCl, 4.2 mM KCl, and 23.14 mM MgCl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) was added and the cells were cultivated at 37\u0026deg;C for 1 h. Finally, the cells were spread on antibiotic-containing agar plates (with serial dilutions, if necessary) and incubated overnight at 37\u0026deg;C.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Determination of base editing efficiency\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo perform base editing, either pCBE1 or pCBE2 plasmid and a corresponding psgRNA plasmid were serially transformed into the VDHG100 (\u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg Δ\u003cem\u003edns\u003c/em\u003e) strain (Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) by electroporation. Cells with both plasmids were grown in the presence of Cm and Kan to maintain the pCBE and psgRNA plasmids, respectively. Cells were first streaked onto solid plates and incubated at 30\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC overnight for single colony isolation. Single colonies were picked for overnight culture in 3 mL liquid medium at 30\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC and 200 rpm. Saturated cells were transferred by 1:100 dilution into 5 mL of the fresh medium with arabinose for induction of dCas9-CDAL or dCas9-CDA-UGIL and cultivated for 4 h. For multiplex editing, additional passaging was conducted by repeating the previous cultivation step using the induced cell culture. Single colonies of edited cells were isolated by spreading with serial dilution, or streaking onto a non-selective solid medium. To show a gain of rifampicin resistance in \u003cem\u003erpoB\u003c/em\u003e mutant strains, 50 \u0026micro;g/mL rifampicin was included in the solid medium. When targeting \u003cem\u003epyrF\u003c/em\u003e, 20 \u0026micro;g/mL uracil was supplemented in media from the induction cultivation step to single colony isolation and 1 mg/mL 5-FOA was additionally supplemented to show an increase in resistance compared to the wildtype \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg strain. Base editing efficiencies were measured by performing Sanger sequencing of randomly picked colonies from non-selective agar plates (Cosmogenetech, Korea).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Determination of transformation efficiency\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the strain transformation efficiency assay, the pCBE and psgRNA plasmids were first cured via one or two rounds of serial passaging. Cells were grown to saturation at 37\u0026deg;C with shaking at 200 rpm in liquid medium without antibiotics. After single colony isolation by streaking on nonselective solid medium, plasmid-free cells were selected by spotting single colonies on solid medium with and without antibiotics. In performing transformation, saturated cultures of plasmid-free cells were then diluted 1:100 in 30 mL fresh medium and cultivated in flasks until the OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e reached 0.4\u0026ndash;0.6. The cell pellets were washed three times with 10 mL of electroporation buffer under the same conditions. After adjusting the OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e of the final resuspended cells to 16, 90 \u0026micro;L cells from each strain were aliquoted into three separate 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tubes for biologically independent replicates, and 1 \u0026micro;g pACYCDuet\u0026trade;-1 plasmid was added for electroporation. After recovery and serial dilution plating on selective media, colony-forming units (CFUs) were counted and adjusted based on the dilution factor to determine transformation efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 Genomic analysis for identifying genes which can be inactivated by base editing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGenomic DNA sequences were retrieved from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database (accession numbers: CP028943, CP028944, and CP028945) (Sayers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and annotated using the Rapid Annotations of Subsystem Technology (RAST) (Aziz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Protein-encoding genes were selectively filtered from the annotated dataset for subsequent analyses. CBE system enables the conversion of cytosine (C) to thymine (T), which was utilized to introduce premature stop codons (TAA, TAG, and TGA) in coding sequences. On the coding strand, CAA, CAG, and CGA were targeted for conversion to stop codons. On the non-coding strand, CCA was targeted for conversion to TCA, CTA, and TTA, which corresponds to the introduction of TGA, TAG, and TAA on the coding strand. To identify potential single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs) for genome-wide inactivation, the target sequences CAA, CAG, CGA and CCA were screened within the \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20 to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;16 positions upstream the PAM sequence, corresponding to the editing window of CBEs using a 20-nucleotide spacer. The sequences and relative positions of all targetable sgRNAs for each coding sequence were identified. NGG and NGN PAM requirements were applied for CBEs using the canonical SpCas9 and PAM-flexible SpG variant, respectively. Target sequences for CBE using SpRY, a near-PAMless variant, were also analyzed without a PAM requirement. A Python script was used to perform sgRNA identification and data analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Design of the cytosine base editing (CBE) system for \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA target-specific CBE system was developed for \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg by utilizing cytidine deaminase fused with nuclease-inactivated Cas9 (dCas9) and uracil glycosylase inhibitor (UGI). dCas9 was chosen because it is known to be less toxic in not inducing any strand breaks compared to Cas9 or nCas9 (Banno et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Lee et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, \u003cem\u003ePm\u003c/em\u003eCDA1 from \u003cem\u003ePetromyzon marinus\u003c/em\u003e was utilized given it shows higher catalytic activity in changing cytosine to uracil and less dependence on sequence context than other cytidine deaminases (Anzalone et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Nishida et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Zong et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, as an auxiliary component, uracil glycosylase inhibitor (UGI) that prevents the repair of uracil in DNA (Wang et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e) was interrogated for its role in enhancing editing efficiency (Banno et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). These proteins were fused by the SH3 and 3x FLAG tag linkers into the form of a dCas9-CDAL (CBE1) fusion protein, or with an additional UGI as dCas9-CDA-UGIL (CBE2); with the LVA degradation tag attached at the C terminus of each fusion protein.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe developed system can achieve target-specific base editing by changing the 20-nt spacer sequence of sgRNA (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA). The sgRNA-dCas9 complex binds to the complementary site of interest. Then, CDA linked to dCas9 edits the target base by deamination of cytosine to uracil. In enhancing editing efficiency, UGI additionally linked to CDA prevents the removal of the non-DNA base, uracil, by base excision repair. This directs the eventual base change to thymine in the replication process where DNA polymerase perceives uracil as thymine. Following this mechanism, the CBE system induces C-to-T, or G-to-A targeting the antisense strand, transitions in an editing window situated 16\u0026ndash;20 bp upstream of an NGG protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) site required for CRISPR/Cas9-based systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn introducing the base editing toolkit in \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg, a dual-plasmid expression system composed of the main editing plasmid for expressing the CBE fusion protein and the helper plasmid for expressing sgRNA, was constructed (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eB). The CBE1 or CBE2 protein was expressed in a low-copy plasmid under an arabinose-inducible promoter with an LVA degradation tag at the C-terminal, ensuring tight regulation (Guzman et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) and shortened half-life (Andersen et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Purcell et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) to reduce toxicity and off-target effects. In contrast, sgRNA was expressed in a high-copy plasmid under a strong constitutive promoter. For flexibility in targeting, the crRNA spacer region of the sgRNA was designed to be easily replaceable in the helper plasmid, enabling rapid customization for different editing purposes. This dual-plasmid system also facilitates multiplex editing by allowing the expression of multiple sgRNAs from the sgRNA plasmid, thereby enhancing the versatility of the toolkit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Functional validation of CRISPR-based CBE system in \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo initially validate functional mutagenesis of the CBE system in \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg, selectable genes in its genome were chosen as targets where their specific mutations are known to confer resistance to corresponding selectable agents or antibiotics. Two genes, \u003cem\u003erpoB\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003epyrF\u003c/em\u003e, were found to have a codon changeable to a stop codon within the editing window from the PAM sequence (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA). The former encodes the RNA polymerase \u0026beta; subunit (Cutugno et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Jin et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). A missense mutation at the 531st amino acid, a well-characterized site for rifampicin resistance, could be introduced using the CBE system. The latter encodes orotidine-5\u0026apos;-phosphate decarboxylase and was selected for its potential to confer resistance to 5-fluoroorotic acid (5-FOA) via a CBE-induced nonsense mutation at the 83rd amino acid (Boeke et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Tripathi et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe editing efficiency of the CBE1 (dCas9-CDA) and CBE2 (dCas9-CDA-UGI) systems was assessed by targeting \u003cem\u003erpoB\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003epyrF\u003c/em\u003e (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Editing efficiency was calculated by sequencing randomly selected colonies and determining the proportion that carried the desired mutations: the missense mutation S531F in \u003cem\u003erpoB\u003c/em\u003e and the nonsense mutation W83* in \u003cem\u003epyrF\u003c/em\u003e. Using the CBE1 system, which includes only the core elements for base editing, the targeted mutation S531F in \u003cem\u003erpoB\u003c/em\u003e was detected in only 1 out of 16 colonies (6.25%). In \u003cem\u003epyrF\u003c/em\u003e, the targeted mutation W83* was detected in 5 out of 8 colonies (62.5%). With the inclusion of UGI in the CBE2 system, editing efficiency significantly improved, with the targeted S531F mutation present in 4 out of 8 colonies (50%) for \u003cem\u003erpoB\u003c/em\u003e and the W83* mutation in 8 out of 8 colonies (100%) for \u003cem\u003epyrF\u003c/em\u003e. These results demonstrate that UGI is an essential component for achieving high-efficiency base editing, with the CBE2 system reaching up to 100% efficiency. Consequently, the CBE2 system was selected for subsequent experiments. Consistent with the previous report (Cutugno et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Jin et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e), the \u003cem\u003erpoB\u003c/em\u003e-edited strains gained resistance to rifampicin (\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional File 1: Figure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e). Similarly, \u003cem\u003epyrF\u003c/em\u003e-edited strains also showed higher resistance to 5-FOA compared to the wildtype strain in concordance with previous studies (Boeke et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Tripathi et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional File 1: Figure S2\u003c/strong\u003e). Therefore, the developed CBE system successfully introduced premature stop codons in the targeted region of the genome of \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg for desired purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Multiplex base editing for gene inactivation of REases in the RM system\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn achieving high editing efficiency for single targets, the CBE system was applied for multiplex genome editing. Simultaneous targeting of multiple genes enables rapid engineering for desired genetic reprogramming. As a multiplex editing target, restriction enzymes (REases) composing the RM system were selected (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA) given its inactivation improved transformation efficiency in bacteria such as \u003cem\u003eCaldicellulosiruptor\u003c/em\u003e (Chung et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and \u003cem\u003eClostridium\u003c/em\u003e species (Dong et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Bacterial RM systems recognize self-DNA by methylating at specific recognition sites by methyltransferases (MTases). If foreign DNA lacking methylation is present in cells, REases remove it to protect the host genome (Johnston et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Vasu and Nagaraja, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This protection mechanism is known to lower genetic engineering efficiency during plasmid transformation or recombination using heterologous DNA fragments. Therefore, the inactivation of the system in \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg was warranted to improve genetic engineering efficiencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo deactivate these REases in \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg, the CBE system was utilized to introduce premature stop codons. Initially, genomic sequence analysis was performed to identify REases using the REBASE (Roberts et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), NCBI (Sayers et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), eggNOG (Huerta-Cepas et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and RAST (Aziz et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) databases. Resultantly, a total of seven REases were found: multiple \u003cem\u003ehsdR\u003c/em\u003e type I restriction enzyme subunits R (DBX26_01795, DBX26_11820, DBX26_11465), \u003cem\u003emrr\u003c/em\u003e restriction endonuclease (DBX26_01820), BsuBI/PstI RE restriction endonuclease (DBX26_25330), restriction endonuclease (DBX26_05280), type III restriction-modification endonuclease (DBX26_25295) (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). For their disruption, multiple sgRNAs were designed to target regions where premature stop codons can be introduced by changing C to T within the editing windows. For multiplex inactivation of REases in the RM system, targets were divided on the basis of whether they were predicted by REBASE with four targets as \u0026ldquo;RE1\u0026rdquo; and only by other databases with three targets as \u0026ldquo;RE2\u0026rdquo;. Accordingly, four and three sgRNA expression cassettes were inserted in the \u0026ldquo;pMultigRNA_RE1\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;pMultigRNA_RE2\u0026rdquo; plasmid, respectively, using the sfGFP dropout system (Stukenberg et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and the modular Golden Gate cloning method (Weber et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) (see Methods). The sgRNAs were all monocistronically expressed under the P\u003csub\u003eJ23119\u003c/sub\u003e promoter for strong expression.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMultiplex base editing was performed and its efficiency was evaluated with the two plasmids targeting the four and three genes, separately. The editing efficiency was assessed with eight random colonies by analyzing the number of edited sites per colony and the editing frequency of each target site. With the pMultigRNA_RE1 plasmid targeting four genes (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), up to three simultaneous inactivation edits were observed in two of eight colonies (RE1-3. RE1-7), while the majority exhibited editing in only one gene of the targets (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eB). With the pMultigRNA_RE2 plasmid targeting three sites, most colonies had two edited sites, and one colony contained desired edits in all three targets (RE2-7) to obtain the RE2 strain (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eC). Another round of base editing was also performed to introduce a stop codon in the remaining locus in the RE1-7 strain to achieve the inactivation of all four targets in acquiring the RE1 strain.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eREase targets for gene inactivation in \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTarget label\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocus\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eName\u003csup\u003ea,b\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredicted source\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStop\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ecodon\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE0-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDBX26_01795\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ehsdR\u003c/em\u003e type I restriction enzyme R subunit\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eREBASE, eggNOG, RAST\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW139*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE0-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDBX26_01820\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003emrr\u003c/em\u003e restriction endonuclease\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eREBASE, eggNOG, RAST\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW104*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE0-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDBX26_11820\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ehsdR\u003c/em\u003e type I restriction enzyme R subunit\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eREBASE, eggNOG, RAST\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR21*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE0-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDBX26_25330\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBsuBI, PstI restriction endonuclease\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eREBASE, NCBI,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eeggNOG, RAST\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW259*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE0-5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDBX26_05280\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003erestriction endonuclease\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNCBI, eggNOG, RAST\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ146*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE0-6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDBX26_11465\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ehsdR\u003c/em\u003e type I restriction enzyme R subunit\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eeggNOG, RAST\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ62*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE0-7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDBX26_25295\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003etype III restriction-modification endonuclease\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNCBI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ153*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eName was given according to eggNOG, RAST database annotation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eName was given according to NCBI database annotation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo generate the RE3 strain, which includes the inactivation of all 7 REase targets, the pMultisgRNA_RE2 plasmid was introduced into the RE1 strain harboring pCBE2. Components were expressed to edit the remaining RE2 sites, achieving complete inactivation across all 7 targets through two separate rounds of multiplex editing using pMultisgRNA_RE1 and pMultisgRNA_RE2 (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eB). While the CBE system demonstrated high multiplex editing efficiency, variations in efficiency were observed across individual sites. For example, RE0-2 (DBX26_01820) and RE0-7 (DBX26_25295) showed high efficiency, with editing efficiency of 87.5\u0026ndash;100%, respectively, whereas RE0-3 (DBX26_11820) and RE0-6 (DBX26_11465) exhibited low efficiency, with editing efficiency of 0\u0026ndash;12%, respectively (\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional File 1: Figure S3\u003c/strong\u003e). These discrepancies may arise from factors such as sequence-based gRNA affinity, genomic locus, or the differences in sgRNA expression levels within multiplex cassettes. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the underlying causes of site-specific variability and optimize multiplex editing performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Inactivation of REases of the RM system on transformation efficiency\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe effect of the inactivation of the REases in plasmid transformation was investigated by using the RE1, RE2, and RE3 strains. The base editing plasmids were removed by serial cultures and the pACYCDuet\u0026trade;-1 plasmid was introduced. As a result, all the strains displayed significant increases in transformation efficiency compared to the wildtype (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, REase inactivation in the RE1 strain, as predicted by REBASE, resulted in a 47.6-fold increase in transformation efficiency, whereas RE2 achieved a 9.1-fold increase (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eC). However, the combined inactivation in RE3 demonstrated only a slightly higher 55.5-fold increase, indicating that RE2 targets were unable to contribute a synergistic effect. This may result from the resolution of the critical transformation barrier caused by REase activity in the RM system, particularly involving key restriction enzymes identified through REBASE predictions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.5. Genomic analysis to identify gene inactivation target by base editing\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo demonstrate the capability of the CBE system for versatile genome editing, the tool was analyzed for coverage of targetable genes in the genome for gene inactivation (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). Base editing can be utilized for gene inactivation by premature stop codon formation in converting CGA, CAG, CAA codons in the sense strand or CCA in the antisense strand to TGA, TAG, TAA stop codons within the coding sequence (CDS) of genes. Bioinformatics analysis confirms the utility of the CBE system as a gene inactivation tool in \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg as 4403 (89.89%) genes out of a total of 4898 genes in the genome are targetable in forming a premature stop codon (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eA), with 84.87% of these genes capable of creating a stop codon within the first 50% of the CDS (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eB), a threshold sufficient for effective gene inactivation (Yue et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). To further expand the coverage of editable genes, PAM-flexible or near-PAMless SpG and SpRY variants of Cas9 with NGN and NRN or NYN PAMs, respectively, can be utilized (Kim et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Walton et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Their usage enables near whole genome-wide coverage of 98.90-99.59% editable genes (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eA), having stop codons in 96.71\u0026ndash;97.70% within the first 50% of the CDS (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eB).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDespite the high performance of the CBE system, its application is limited by the PAM site constraints inherent to CRISPR-based systems. Achieving sequence-wide coverage will require the exploitation and development of PAM-less dCas9-guided base editors and complementary nucleotide-converting systems, such as adenine base editors (ABEs), to expand the versatility of point mutagenesis applications. The successful development of a highly efficient CBE toolkit, combined with the creation of a highly electro-competent strain through REase inactivation, significantly enhanced the genetic tractability of \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg. These advancements enable broader utilization of this strain as a robust platform for the bioconversion of macroalgae-derived biomass into high-value products, unlocking new opportunities for sustainable bioproduction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, a CRISPR-based cytosine base editing (CBE) system for \u003cem\u003eVibrio sp. dhg\u003c/em\u003e was established, enabling efficient and precise C:G-to-T:A point mutations. This system facilitated both single and multiplex gene inactivation, particularly targeting restriction enzymes (REases) of the Restriction-Modification (RM) system, which significantly improved transformation efficiency by up to 55.5-fold. Genomic analysis confirmed that 89.89% of genes in \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg could be targeted for inactivation using this approach, with additional targets through PAM-flexible Cas9 variants. The development of this base editing toolkit is expected to enhance the genetic tractability of \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg and accelerate its application as a platform strain for macroalgae biorefineries.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCRISPR\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eclustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCas9\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCRISPR-associated protein 9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003edCas9\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edead Cas9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003enCas9\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enicking Cas9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePAM\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eprotospacer adjacent motif\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003esgRNA\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esingle guide RNA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eDNA\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edeoxyribonucleic acid\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eRNA\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eribonucleic acid\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCBE\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecytosine base editor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCDA\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecytidine deaminase\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eUGI\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003euracil glycosylase inhibitor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eOD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eoptical density at 600 nm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCDS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecoding sequence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003esfGFP\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esuperfolder green fluorescent protein\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003e5-FOA\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5-fluoroorotic acid\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eRM\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eretriction-modification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eREase\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erestriction enzyme\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eMTase\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emethyltransferase\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCFU\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecolony forming unit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by the Korea Institute of Marine Science and Technology Promotion (KIMST) funded by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (grant number RS-2022-KS221581). This work was also supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grants funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (grant numbers RS-2024-00334792, RS-2024-00399277, RS-2024-00400033 and RS-2024-00453085).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData availability\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files. Further raw datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYang Jun Shon\u003c/strong\u003e: Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Writing \u0026ndash; original draft. \u003cstrong\u003eDongyeop Baek\u003c/strong\u003e: Conceptualization, Project administration, Visualization, Writing \u0026ndash; original draft. \u003cstrong\u003eSu Bin Jin\u003c/strong\u003e: Investigation. \u003cstrong\u003eWoo Jae Kim\u003c/strong\u003e: Investigation. \u003cstrong\u003eGyoo Yeol Jung\u003c/strong\u003e: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Resources, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing. \u003cstrong\u003eHyun Gyu Lim\u003c/strong\u003e: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Resources, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing. \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndersen, J.B., Sternberg, C., Poulsen, L.K., Bjorn, S.P., Givskov, M., Molin, S., 1998. New unstable variants of green fluorescent protein for studies of transient gene expression in bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64, 2240\u0026ndash;2246. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.64.6.2240-2246.1998.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnzalone, A.V., Koblan, L.W., Liu, D.R., 2020. Genome editing with CRISPR-Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 824\u0026ndash;844. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0561-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAziz, R.K., Bartels, D., Best, A.A., DeJongh, M., Disz, T., Edwards, R.A., Formsma, K., Gerdes, S., Glass, E.M., Kubal, M., Meyer, F., Olsen, G.J., Olson, R., Osterman, A.L., Overbeek, R.A., McNeil, L.K., Paarmann, D., Paczian, T., Parrello, B., Pusch, G.D., Zagnitko, O., 2008. The RAST Server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genomics 9, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-9-75.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBanno, S., Nishida, K., Arazoe, T., Mitsunobu, H., Kondo, A., 2018. Deaminase-mediated multiplex genome editing in \u003cem\u003eEscherichia coli\u003c/em\u003e. Nat. Microbiol. 3, 423\u0026ndash;429. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-017-0102-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoeke, J.D., Trueheart, J., Natsoulis, G., Fink, G.R., 1987. [10] 5-Fluoroorotic acid as a selective agent in yeast molecular genetics, in: Recombinant DNA Part E, Methods in Enzymology. Elsevier, pp. 164\u0026ndash;175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(87)54076-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChung, D., Farkas, J., Westpheling, J., 2013. Overcoming restriction as a barrier to DNA transformation in \u003cem\u003eCaldicellulosiruptor\u003c/em\u003e species results in efficient marker replacement. Biotechnol. Biofuels 6, 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-82.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoppens, L., Tschirhart, T., Leary, D. H., Colston, S. M., Compton, J. R., Hervey IV, W. J., Dana, K. L., Vora, G. J., Bordel, S., Ledesma‐Amaro, R., 2023. Vibrio natriegens genome‐scale modeling reveals insights into halophilic adaptations and resource allocation. Mol. Syst. Biol. 19, e10523. https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.202110523.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCutugno, L., Mc Cafferty, J., Pan\u0026eacute;-Farr\u0026eacute;, J., O\u0026rsquo;Byrne, C., Boyd, A., 2020. \u003cem\u003erpoB\u003c/em\u003e mutations conferring rifampicin-resistance affect growth, stress response and motility in \u003cem\u003eVibrio vulnificus\u003c/em\u003e. Microbiology (Reading, Engl) 166, 1160\u0026ndash;1170. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.000991.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDong, H., Zhang, Y., Dai, Z., Li, Y., 2010. Engineering \u003cem\u003eClostridium\u003c/em\u003e strain to accept unmethylated DNA. PLoS ONE 5, e9038. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009038.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaudelli, N.M., Komor, A.C., Rees, H.A., Packer, M.S., Badran, A.H., Bryson, D.I., Liu, D.R., 2017. Programmable base editing of A\u0026bull;T to G\u0026bull;C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551, 464\u0026ndash;471. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24644.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuzman, L.M., Belin, D., Carson, M.J., Beckwith, J., 1995. Tight regulation, modulation, and high-level expression by vectors containing the arabinose P\u003csub\u003eBAD\u003c/sub\u003e promoter. J. Bacteriol. 177, 4121\u0026ndash;4130. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.177.14.4121-4130.1995.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHao, W., Cui, W., Cheng, Z., Han, L., Suo, F., Liu, Z., Zhou, L., Zhou, Z., 2021. Development of a base editor for protein evolution via in situ mutation in vivo. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 9594\u0026ndash;9605. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab673.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHao, W., Cui, W., Suo, F., Han, L., Cheng, Z., Zhou, Z., 2022. Construction and application of an efficient dual-base editing platform for \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e evolution employing programmable base conversion. Chem. Sci. 13, 14395\u0026ndash;14409. https://doi.org/10.1039/d2sc05824c.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHao, W., Cui, W., Liu, Z., Suo, F., Wu, Y., Han, L., Zhou, Z., 2024. A New‐Generation Base Editor with an Expanded Editing Window for Microbial Cell Evolution In Vivo Based on CRISPR‒Cas12b Engineering. Adv. Sci. 11, 2309767. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202309767.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuerta-Cepas, J., Szklarczyk, D., Heller, D., Hern\u0026aacute;ndez-Plaza, A., Forslund, S.K., Cook, H., Mende, D.R., Letunic, I., Rattei, T., Jensen, L.J., von Mering, C., Bork, P., 2019. eggNOG 5.0: a hierarchical, functionally and phylogenetically annotated orthology resource based on 5090 organisms and 2502 viruses. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D309\u0026ndash;D314. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1085.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHwang, W. Y., Fu, Y., Reyon, D., Maeder, M. L., Tsai, S. Q., Sander, J. D., Peterson, R. T., Yeh, J. R. J., Joung, J. K., 2013. Efficient genome editing in zebrafish using a CRISPR-Cas system. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 227\u0026ndash;229. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2501.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHwang, G.-H., Bae, S., 2023. Web-Based Computational Tools for Base Editors. Methods Mol. Biol. 2606, 13\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-2879-9_2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJin, D.J., Walter, W.A., Gross, C.A., 1988. Characterization of the termination phenotypes of rifampicin-resistant mutants. J. Mol. Biol. 202, 245\u0026ndash;253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(88)90455-x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnston, C.D., Cotton, S.L., Rittling, S.R., Starr, J.R., Borisy, G.G., Dewhirst, F.E., Lemon, K.P., 2019. Systematic evasion of the restriction-modification barrier in bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116, 11454\u0026ndash;11459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820256116.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, Y.B., Komor, A.C., Levy, J.M., Packer, M.S., Zhao, K.T., Liu, D.R., 2017. Increasing the genome-targeting scope and precision of base editing with engineered Cas9-cytidine deaminase fusions. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 371\u0026ndash;376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3803.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKomor, A.C., Kim, Y.B., Packer, M.S., Zuris, J.A., Liu, D.R., 2016. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533, 420\u0026ndash;424. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17946.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKomor, A. C., Badran, A. H., Liu, D. R., 2017. CRISPR-based technologies for the manipulation of eukaryotic genomes. Cell 168, 20\u0026ndash;36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.044.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, H.K., Woo, S., Baek, D., Min, M., Jung, G.Y., Lim, H.G., 2024. Direct and robust citramalate production from brown macroalgae using fast-growing \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg. Bioresour. Technol. 394, 130304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2024.130304.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, J., Lim, K., Kim, A., Mok, Y.G., Chung, E., Cho, S.-I., Lee, J.M., Kim, J.-S., 2023. Prime editing with genuine Cas9 nickases minimizes unwanted indels. Nat. Commun. 14, 1786. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37507-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLim, H.G., Kwak, D.H., Park, S., Woo, S., Yang, J.S., Kang, C.W., Kim, B., Noh, M.H., Seo, S.W., Jung, G.Y., 2019. \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg as a platform for the biorefinery of brown macroalgae. Nat. Commun. 10, 2486. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10371-1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, Z., Dong, H., Cui, Y., Cong, L., Zhang, D., 2020. Application of different types of CRISPR/Cas-based systems in bacteria. Microb. Cell Fact. 19, 172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-020-01431-z.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoon, J.H., Woo, S., Shin, H.J., Lee, H.K., Jung, G.Y., Lim, H.G., 2024. Direct Itaconate Production from Brown Macroalgae Using Engineered \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg. J. Agric. Food Chem. 72, 16860\u0026ndash;16866. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.4c04138.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNishida, K., Arazoe, T., Yachie, N., Banno, S., Kakimoto, M., Tabata, M., Mochizuki, M., Miyabe, A., Araki, M., Hara, K.Y., Shimatani, Z., Kondo, A., 2016. Targeted nucleotide editing using hybrid prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems. Science 353. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8729.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePurcell, O., Grierson, C.S., Bernardo, M. di, Savery, N.J., 2012. Temperature dependence of \u003cem\u003essrA\u003c/em\u003e-tag mediated protein degradation. J. Biol. Eng. 6, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-1611-6-10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoberts, R.J., Vincze, T., Posfai, J., Macelis, D., 2023. REBASE: a database for DNA restriction and modification: enzymes, genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, D629\u0026ndash;D630. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac975.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSayers, E.W., Bolton, E.E., Brister, J.R., Canese, K., Chan, J., Comeau, D.C., Farrell, C.M., Feldgarden, M., Fine, A.M., Funk, K., Hatcher, E., Kannan, S., Kelly, C., Kim, S., Klimke, W., Landrum, M.J., Lathrop, S., Lu, Z., Madden, T.L., Malheiro, A., Sherry, S.T., 2023. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information in 2023. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, D29\u0026ndash;D38. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1032.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShin, H.J., Woo, S., Jung, G.Y., Park, J.M., 2023. Indole-3-acetic Acid Production from Alginate by \u003cem\u003eVibrio \u003c/em\u003esp. dhg: Physiology and Characteristics. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-023-0056-x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStukenberg, D., Hoff, J., Faber, A., Becker, A., 2022. NT-CRISPR, combining natural transformation and CRISPR-Cas9 counterselection for markerless and scarless genome editing in \u003cem\u003eVibrio natriegens.\u003c/em\u003e Commun. Biol. 5, 265. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03150-0.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTong, Y., Whitford, C.M., Robertsen, H.L., Blin, K., J\u0026oslash;rgensen, T.S., Klitgaard, A.K., Gren, T., Jiang, X., Weber, T., Lee, S.Y., 2019. Highly efficient DSB-free base editing for \u003cem\u003eStreptomycetes\u003c/em\u003e with CRISPR-BEST. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116, 20366\u0026ndash;20375. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913493116.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTripathi, S.A., Olson, D.G., Argyros, D.A., Miller, B.B., Barrett, T.F., Murphy, D.M., McCool, J.D., Warner, A.K., Rajgarhia, V.B., Lynd, L.R., Hogsett, D.A., Caiazza, N.C., 2010. Development of pyrF-based genetic system for targeted gene deletion in \u003cem\u003eClostridium thermocellum\u003c/em\u003e and creation of a pta mutant. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76, 6591\u0026ndash;6599. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01484-10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVasu, K., Nagaraja, V., 2013. Diverse functions of restriction-modification systems in addition to cellular defense. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 77, 53\u0026ndash;72. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00044-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalton, R.T., Christie, K.A., Whittaker, M.N., Kleinstiver, B.P., 2020. Unconstrained genome targeting with near-PAMless engineered CRISPR-Cas9 variants. Science 368, 290\u0026ndash;296. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba8853.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, L., Xue, W., Yan, L., Li, X., Wei, J., Chen, M., Wu, J., Yang, B., Yang, L., Chen, J., 2017. Enhanced base editing by co-expression of free uracil DNA glycosylase inhibitor. Cell Res. 27, 1289\u0026ndash;1292. https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2017.111.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, X., Li, J., Wang, Y., Yang, B., Wei, J., Wu, J., Wang, R., Huang, X., Chen, J., Yang, L., 2018. Efficient base editing in methylated regions with a human APOBEC3A-Cas9 fusion. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 946\u0026ndash;949. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4198.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, J., Guo, Y., Fan, L., Ni, X., Zheng, X., Wang, M., Zheng, P., Sun, J., Ma, Y., 2018. MACBETH: Multiplex automated \u003cem\u003eCorynebacterium glutamicum\u003c/em\u003e base editing method. Metab. Eng. 47, 200\u0026ndash;210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2018.02.016.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Y., Liu, Y., Li, J., Yang, Y., Ni, X., Cheng, H., Huang, T., Guo, Y., Ma, H., Zheng, P., Wang, M., Sun, J., Ma, Y., 2019. Expanding targeting scope, editing window, and base transition capability of base editing in \u003cem\u003eCorynebacterium glutamicum\u003c/em\u003e. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 116, 3016\u0026ndash;3029. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27121.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Y., Cheng, H., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Wen, X., Zhang, K., Ni, X., et al., 2021. In-situ generation of large numbers of genetic combinations for metabolic reprogramming via CRISPR-guided base editing. Nat. Commun. 12, 678. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21003-y.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Z.G., Smith, D.G., Mosbaugh, D.W., 1991. Overproduction and characterization of the uracil-DNA glycosylase inhibitor of bacteriophage PBS2. Gene 99, 31\u0026ndash;37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1119(91)90030-f.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeber, E., Engler, C., Gruetzner, R., Werner, S., Marillonnet, S., 2011. A modular cloning system for standardized assembly of multigene constructs. PLoS ONE 6, e16765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016765.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeinstock, M.T., Hesek, E.D., Wilson, C.M., Gibson, D.G., 2016. \u003cem\u003eVibrio natriegens\u003c/em\u003e as a fast-growing host for molecular biology. Nat. Methods 13, 849\u0026ndash;851. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3970.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWei, Y., Feng, L.-J., Yuan, X.-Z., Wang, S.-G., Xia, P.-F., 2023. Developing a base editing system for marine \u003cem\u003eRoseobacter\u003c/em\u003e clade bacteria. ACS Synth. Biol. 12, 2178\u0026ndash;2186. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.3c00259.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoo, S., Lim, H. G., Han, Y. H., et al., 2022. A Vibrio-based microbial platform for accelerated lignocellulosic sugar conversion. Biotechnol. Biofuels 15, 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-022-02157-3.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXia, P.-F., Casini, I., Schulz, S., Klask, C.-M., Angenent, L.T., Molitor, B., 2020. Reprogramming Acetogenic Bacteria with CRISPR-Targeted Base Editing via Deamination. ACS Synth. Biol. 9, 2162\u0026ndash;2171. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.0c00226.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYue, S.-J., Huang, P., Li, S., Cai, Y.-Y., Wang, W., Zhang, X.-H., Nikel, P.I., Hu, H.-B., 2022. Developing a CRISPR-assisted base-editing system for genome engineering of \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas chlororaphis\u003c/em\u003e. Microb. Biotechnol. 15, 2324\u0026ndash;2336. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14075.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu, S., Price, M.A., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Guo, Y., Ni, X., Rosser, S.J., Bi, C., Wang, M., 2020. CRISPR-dCas9 Mediated Cytosine Deaminase Base Editing in \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e. ACS Synth. Biol. 9, 1781\u0026ndash;1789. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.0c00151.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZong, Y., Song, Q., Li, C., Jin, S., Zhang, D., Wang, Y., Qiu, J.-L., Gao, C., 2018. Efficient C-to-T base editing in plants using a fusion of nCas9 and human APOBEC3A. Nat. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4261.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"journal-of-biological-engineering","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jbie","sideBox":"Learn more about [Journal of Biological Engineering](http://jbioleng.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"13036","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13036/3","title":"Journal of Biological Engineering","twitterHandle":"@BioMedCentral","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"CRISPR, Base editor, Vibrio, Multiplex editing, Restriction-Modification, Transformation efficiency","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6149600/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6149600/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBackground\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg is a fast-growing, alginate-utilizing, marine bacterium being developed as a platform host for macroalgae biorefinery. To maximize its potential in the production of various value-added products, there is a need to expand genetic engineering tools for versatile editing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResults\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe CRISPR-based cytosine base editing (CBE) system was established in \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg, enabling C:G-to-T:A point mutations in multiple genomic loci. This CBE system displayed high editing efficiencies for single and multiple targets, reaching up to 100%. The CBE system efficiently introduced premature stop codons, inactivating seven genes encoding putative restriction enzymes of the restriction-modification system in two rounds. A resulting engineered strain displayed significantly enhanced transformation efficiency by up to 55.5-fold.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConclusions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeveloping a highly efficient CBE system and improving transformation efficiency enable versatile genetic manipulation of \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e sp. dhg for diverse engineering in brown macroalgae bioconversion.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development of a CRISPR-based cytosine base editor for restriction-modification system inactivation to enhance transformation efficiency in Vibrio sp. dhg","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-03-26 03:45:18","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6149600/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-03-31T10:58:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-03-31T09:53:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"215226863130542480885991394017989248183","date":"2025-03-25T11:44:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-03-25T11:34:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-03-25T06:53:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Journal of Biological Engineering","date":"2025-03-21T20:24:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"journal-of-biological-engineering","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jbie","sideBox":"Learn more about [Journal of Biological Engineering](http://jbioleng.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"13036","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13036/3","title":"Journal of Biological Engineering","twitterHandle":"@BioMedCentral","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a20b8c74-fff6-4acb-960c-5632aebb5242","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 26th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-04-14T16:16:01+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6149600","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13036-025-00500-4","journal":{"identity":"journal-of-biological-engineering","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Journal of Biological Engineering"},"publishedOn":"2025-04-09 16:05:53","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 9th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-03-26 03:45:18","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s13036-025-00500-4","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13036-025-00500-4","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6149600","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6149600","identity":"rs-6149600","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}