Patent Application
20240002871
This application includes one or more Sequence Listings pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.821 et seq., which are disclosed in computer-readable media (file name: 30059-P72448US02_SequenceListing.xml, created on Sep. 19, 2023, and having a size of 215,368_bytes), which file is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety. The sequences in the listing are RNA sequences, but use “t” to denote uracil pursuant to WIPO st.26 standards.
The present disclosure relates to a vector having an exogenous RNA segment. The vector may be suitable for introducing a therapeutic agent, such as a peptide, a protein or a small RNA, into a host. In some examples the host is a plant, wherein movement of the vector (but not necessarily the agent) is optionally limited to the phloem and the agent may be targeted to control or manage a plant disease or condition.
Both general and highly targeted anti-microbial agents have been developed for animals (e.g., humans) whose circulatory systems provide a delivery system for widespread application throughout the animal. In contrast, much less research has been conducted to develop general or targeted therapeutic agents for non-genetically modified plants since lack of a simplified circulatory system complicates delivery throughout the host plant. This is especially problematic in large, long-lived trees (e.g., citrus), where injection of anti-microbial agents may be rapidly diluted. As a result, few solutions exist for treating systemic plant infections or conditions beyond external application of pesticides, e.g., to control the pathogen's vector during the growing season, foliar applications to strengthen a plant's health in general, or expensive, short-duration injection of agents targeting the pathogen or vector.
Plant industries are at substantial risk from various pathogens. Particularly concerning are diseases and conditions affecting the citrus industry. Huanglongbing (HLB), also known as Citrus Greening, is the most serious citrus disease globally. HLB is associated with three species of the bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter spp. (asiaticus, africanus, and americanus) and is transmitted by two psyllid species, Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) (Diaphorina citri, Kuwayama) and African citrus psyllid (Trioza erytreae, Del Guercio). HLB is graft-transmissible and spreads naturally when a bacteria-containing psyllid feeds on a citrus tree and deposits the pathogenic bacteria into the phloem where the bacteria reproduce. The infected tree reacts by producing excessive callose in its phloem in order to isolate the bacteria, which restricts the flow of photoassimilates and can ultimately kill the tree. Once a tree is infected, there is no cure. While the diseased fruit pose no health threat to humans, HLB has devastated millions of acres of citrus groves throughout the world. In the United States alone, ACP and CL asiaticus (CLas) have decimated the Florida citrus industry, causing billions of dollars of crop losses within a very short time span. Moreover, HLB has spread into every citrus producing region in the United States. Most infected trees die within a few years after infection, and fruit develops misshapen and off flavored and thus is unsuitable for consumption. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the entire citrus industry is at substantial risk.
Consideration of plant physiology aids in the development and implementation of strategies for managing plant diseases and conditions. The vascular system of plants is the key conduit for the movement of sugars and amino acids, as well as signaling molecules such as small ribonucleic acids (RNAs), messenger RNAs (mRNAs), proteins, peptides and hormones, which are required for a large number of developmental processes and responses to biotic and abiotic stress (
Confusion in the mRNA movement literature is pervasive. Some studies have indicated that the major determinant of RNA mobility is their abundance in companion cells (Kim, G. et al. (2014), Genomic-scale exchange of mRNA between a parasitic plant and its hosts, Science 345:808-811; Thieme, C. J. et al. (2015), Endogenous Arabidopsis messenger RNAs transported to distant tissues, Nature Plants 1(4):15025; Yang, Y. et al. (2015), Messenger RNA exchange between scions and rootstocks in grafted grapevines, BMC Plant Biol 15, 251). Mathematical modeling has been used to propose a non-selective, Brownian diffusion model for mRNA movement based mainly on their abundance, with half-life and transcript length also playing roles (Calderwood, A. et al. (2016), Transcript Abundance Explains mRNA Mobility Data in Arabidopsis thaliana, Plant Cell 28:610-615). However, other studies have reached opposing conclusions, finding that mRNA abundance in companion cells does not correlate with movement (Xia, C. et al. (2018), Elucidation of the Mechanisms of Long-Distance mRNA Movement in a Nicotiana benthamiana/Tomato Heterograft System, Plant Physiol 177:745-758). In addition, while it is generally assumed that the phloem does not contain RNases that target the transiting RNAs (Morris, R. J. (2018), On the selectivity, specificity and signaling potential of the long-distance movement of messenger RNA, Curr Opin Plant Biol 43:1-7), Xia et al. also found that most mobile mRNAs are degraded and never reach the root or upper stem. Other studies found that the presence of a predicted tRNA-like structure is associated with over 11% of mobile mRNAs (Zhang, W. N. et al. (2016), tRNA-Related Sequences Trigger Systemic mRNA Transport in Plants, Plant Cell 28:1237-1249), suggesting that mobile mRNAs might harbor specific “zip-codes”. However, other abundant mRNAs containing similar tRNA-like motifs were not mobile (Xia, C. et al. (2018), Elucidation of the Mechanisms of Long-Distance mRNA Movement in a Nicotiana benthamiana/Tomato Heterograft System, Plant Physiol 177:745-758). Thus, prior studies have failed to identify and develop a model system consisting of a highly abundant, mobile RNA whose movement is traceable in living tissue under different cellular conditions.
Plant viruses, many of which move through the plant as a ribonucleoprotein complex (vRNP), have evolved to use the same pathway as used by mobile endogenous RNAs. Plant viruses can accumulate in substantial amounts, and most initiate infection in epidermal or mesophyll cells and then move cell-to-cell through highly selective intercellular connectors called plasmodesmata, which allow for continuity between the cytoplasm of neighboring cells (
For viruses that transit through the phloem as viral nucleoproteins (vRNPs), movement is similar to that of host mRNAs. All plant viruses encode at least one movement protein necessary for movement, which binds to viral RNA and also dilates plasmodesmata. Thus, host mRNA movement also likely requires similar host-encoded movement proteins. Viral movement proteins are non-specific RNA binding proteins. However, questions remain with regard to how vRNPs load into the phloem and unload in distal tissues, although reprograming companion cell gene expression may be required (Collum, T. D. et al. (2016), Tobacco mosaic virus-directed reprogramming of auxin/indole acetic acid protein transcriptional responses enhances virus phloem loading, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:E2740-E2749). If mRNA trafficking is so widespread and non-specific, it has remained unclear why RNA viruses require their own encoded movement proteins. Some researchers have suggested that RNA viruses require movement proteins if they move as preformed replication complexes that include a large RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (Heinlein, M. (2015), Plant virus replication and movement, Virology 479:657-671), which is beyond the size-exclusion limit (˜70 kDa) of companion cell plasmodesmata. It has also remained unclear why and how some viruses are phloem-limited. For example, phloem-limited closteroviruses have at least 3 movement proteins, and phloem-limitation can be relieved by over-expressing the silencing suppressor and downregulating host defenses (Folimonova, S. Y. and Tilsner, J. (2018), Hitchhikers, highway tolls and roadworks: the interactions of plant viruses with the phloem, Curr Opin Plant Biol 43:82-88), suggesting that phloem-limitation is a complex process for some viruses. Phloem-limitation can also be an active process (as opposed to lack of a cell-to-cell movement protein). For example, altering a domain of the Potato leaf role virus movement protein conferred the ability to exit the phloem (Bendix, C., and Lewis, J. D. (2018), The enemy within: phloem-limited pathogens, Mol Plant Path 19:238-254).
A direct connection between host movement of mRNAs and vRNP movement was established when the origin of plant virus movement proteins was solved. A pumpkin protein (RPB50) related to the Cucumber mosaic virus movement protein was discovered that was capable of transporting its own mRNA, as well as other mRNAs, into the phloem (Xoconostle-Cazares, B. et al. (1999), Plant paralog to viral movement protein that potentiates transport of mRNA into the phloem, Science (New York, NY) 283:94-98; Ham, B. K. et al. (2009), A polypyrimidine tract binding protein, pumpkin RBP50, forms the basis of a phloem-mobile ribonucleoprotein complex, Plant Cell 21:197-215). A complex population of these endogenous movement proteins, known as non-cell-autonomous proteins (NCAPs), have been proposed as being responsible for the long-distance phloem trafficking of mRNAs (Gaupels, F. et al. (2008), Nitric oxide generation in Vicia faba phloem cells reveals them to be sensitive detectors as well as possible systemic transducers of stress signals, New Phytol 178:634-646; Gomez, G. et al. (2005), Identification of translocatable RNA-binding phloem proteins from melon, potential components of the long-distance RNA transport system, Plant J 41:107-116; Kim, M. et al. (2001), Developmental changes due to long-distance movement of a homeobox fusion transcript in tomato, Science (New York, NY) 293:287-289; Pallas, V. and Gomez, G. (2013), Phloem RNA-binding proteins as potential components of the long-distance RNA transport system, Front Plant Sci 4:130; Yoo, B. C. et al. (2004), A systemic small RNA signaling system in plants, Plant Cell 16:1979-2000).
Since their discovery (Deom, C. M. et al. (1987), The 30-kilodalton gene product of tobacco mosaic virus potentiates virus movement, Science (New York, NY) 237:389-394), a number of viral movement proteins have been identified that are responsible for intracellular trafficking of vRNPs to the plasmodesmata, as well as for cell-to-cell and long-distance movement (Tilsner, J. (2014), Techniques for RNA in vivo imaging in plants, J Microscopy 258(1):1-5). For some viruses (e.g., umbraviruses), cell-to-cell and long-distance movement is associated with multiple movement proteins (Ryabov, E. V. et al. (2001), Umbravirus-encoded proteins both stabilize heterologous viral RNA and mediate its systemic movement in some plant species, Virology 288:391-400). For example, closteroviruses such as Citrus tristeza virus contain three movement proteins. However, for many viruses, all movement activities are thought to be associated with a single movement protein.
Delivering engineered therapeutic agents into plants for combating diseases, insects or other adverse conditions (e.g., HLB and/or the carrier insects) using virus vectors is an established means of introducing traits such as resistance to pathogens or other desired properties into plants for research purposes. Various methods of providing vectors to plants are known in the art. This is often achieved by delivery of the virus vector into a plant cell's nucleus by Agrobacteria tumefactions-mediated “agroinfiltration,” which may result in a modification of that cell's genome, or by delivering the virus vector directly into a cell's cytoplasm, which results in infection without a requirement for genomic modification. In the case of agroinfiltration of RNA viruses, the cDNA of the viral genome is incorporated into the T-DNA, which Agrobacteria delivers into the plants. Such T-DNA includes further regulatory DNA components (e.g., promoter for RNA polymerase), which allow for transcription of the viral genome within plant cells. The incorporated virus, containing therapeutic DNA inserts, is transcribed into RNA within the plant cells, after which the virus behaves like a normal RNA virus (amplification and movement).
Thus, to act as an effective vector, a virus should be engineered to accept inserts without disabling its functionality and to ensure that the engineered virus is able to accumulate systemically in the host to a level sufficient to deliver and in some cases express the insert(s). These inserts, whether having open reading frames (ORFs) that will be translated into proteins or non-coding RNAs that will be used for a beneficial function, should be delivered into the targeted tissue in a manner that is effective and sufficiently non-toxic to the host or to any downstream consumption of the host or the environment. However, only a limited number of viral vectors exist that meet the above criteria and these are available for only certain plants (e.g., citrus tristeza virus for citrus). Unfortunately, there is either no known suitable viral vector, or only suboptimal viral vectors, for most plants, particularly for long lived trees and vines. Moreover, maintaining stability of short sequences inserted into a vector has raised numerous challenges. As apparent from prior research on virus vectors, the ability to stabilize inserted sequences utilizing conventional methodologies has not been successful, particularly for long periods (e.g., months or years). Conventional vectors quickly evolve or mutate, discarding all or part of the inserted sequences since the native virus (without inserts) is generally more fit than viral vectors containing such inserts.
Thus, the ability to implement RNA or DNA therapies on a broad basis is substantially limited with existing technologies. Over 1,000 plant viruses have been identified with many plants subject to infection by multiple viruses. For example, citrus trees are subject to citrus leaf blotch virus, citrus leaf rugose virus, citrus leprosis virus C, citrus psorosis virus, citrus sudden death-associated virus, citrus tristeza virus (CTV), citrus variegation virus, citrus vein enation virus and citrus yellow mosaic virus, among others. However, CTV, the causal agent of catastrophic citrus diseases such as quick decline and stem pitting, is currently the only virus that has been developed as a vector for delivering agents into citrus phloem.
CTV is a member of the genus Closterovirus. It has a flexuous rod-shaped virion composed of two capsid proteins with dimensions of 2000 nm long and 12 nm in diameter. With a genome of over 19 kb, CTV (and other Closteroviruses) are the largest known RNA viruses that infect plants. It is a virulent pathogen that is responsible for killing, or rendering useless, millions of citrus trees worldwide, although the engineered vector form is derived from a less virulent strain, at least for Florida citrus trees (still highly virulent in California trees). Prior studies have purportedly demonstrated that CTV-based vectors can express engineered inserts in plant cells (U.S. Pat. No. 8,389,804; US 20100017911 A1). However, it has not been commercialized due to its inconsistent ability to accumulate in plants and achieve its targeted beneficial outcome. It is thought that CTV's inability to replicate to sufficiently high levels and heat sensitivity limits its ability to generate a sufficient quantity of RNA for treatment.
Thus, CTV-based vectors have a very limited ability to deliver an effective beneficial payload where needed. Moreover, CTV is difficult to work with due to its large size. CTV is also subject to superinfection exclusion, wherein a CTV-based vector is unable to infect a tree already infected with CTV. In addition, strains suitable for one region (e.g., Florida) are unsuitable for varieties of trees in another region (e.g., California). CTV also encodes three RNA silencing suppressors making its ability to generate large amounts of siRNAs problematic. Despite such problems, CTV is the only viral vector platform available for citrus trees.
Accordingly, there is a need for an alternative infectious agent, optionally that solves some or all of the above-noted problems, and which is capable of introducing a desirable property and/or delivering a therapeutic agent(s) into a plant, optionally for an extended period of time, particularly a long-lived plant such as a tree or vine.
Viral vectors may be derived from a wild-type virus and modified with an exogenous insert. The presence of some or all of the wild-type viral genome allows for replication of the vector, either in the host being treated or in manufacture outside of a host. The exogenous insert provides an active agent to achieve some form of activity from the vector. In some examples, the exogenous insert includes RNA that will be converted by the plant into a small interfering RNA (siRNA), which is typically 21-24 nucleotides (nt) in length. In one conventional method, the siRNA sequence is included in a base-paired, double-stranded (“hairpin”) structure. The siRNA sequence extends along one side of the hairpin, and a complementary base-paired sequence extends along the other side of the hairpin. The two sides of the hairpin are separated by an apical loop. Small hairpins are easier to work with, and so the size of the siRNA haipin is typically less than 60 nt.
Hairpins can be highly stable in a structural sense. For example, each base may have minimal or no positional entropy (PE), and each base pair may have a high probability of forming. However, fully base-paired hairpins, particularly hairpins with many G-C base pairs, can result in vectors with low stability for replication, i.e. the vectors are unable to maintain the inserts within their genome as they replicate. As the vector replicates, the hairpins may be deleted from some progeny of the vector. Progeny without the hairpin may be closer to the wild type vector. Since the wild type virus has evolved to be optimally fit, vector progeny without the hairpin may out compete vector progeny with the hairpin until eventually the hairpin in lost. Accordingly, while a viral vector with a hairpin can remain effective for a period of time, the stability of viral vectors may be further improved. Further, it is desirable to increase the size of the targeting sequence. Even when producing a VIGS vector, although the inserts are cut into segments of 21-24 nt in the plant it is beneficial to provide a longer targeting sequence that may be cut into more than one 21-24 nt sequence, or a targeting sequence complementary to multiple targets.
This specification describes RNA inserts for a vector that are hairpin-like, or include a hairpin-like region, but not are not conventional fully base-paired hairpins (i.e., the hairpin-like inserts are not fully base-paired outside of their apical loop). In at least some examples, these inserts carry larger targeting sequences and/or provide increased stability for replication than previously described inserts. Increased stability may involve a lower incidence of replicates that have deleted the insert at a given time point, or by replicates with the insert being detectable in the host for a longer period of time. The words stable and unstable may be used herein as relative terms. Inserts described as unstable may have some stability and could be useful for some applications. Hairpins that are described as stable are stable relative to other hairpins, but less stable than stable hairpin-like structures.
This specification also describes vectors that include an exogenous segment. In some examples, the exogenous segment is a hairpin-like structure having two or more base-paired regions, one or more non-base-paired regions separating the base-paired regions, and an apical loop at the end of one of the based paired regions. In some examples, the exogenous segment further complies with one or more design guidelines or parameters. These guidelines or parameters for the exogenous segment may include: the average positional entropy (APE) is in the range of 0.01 to 0.75; the length of the exogenous segment is 300 nt or less; the maximum length of a base-paired region is 19 base pairs; the maximum APE of a base-paired region is 0.8; the maximum number of consecutive G:C pairs in a base-paired region is 4; the maximum number of bases in a non-base-paired region is 20; the ΔG of the exogenous segment is within a range of −5 to +15 kcal/mol or within 10 kcal/mol (+ or −) of the ΔG of a naturally occurring hairpin of similar length; the standard deviation of PE is less than 0.5, less than 15% of bases have a PE greater than 1; the largest PE of any base is not greater than 2.0; and the insert, not considering the apical loop, is 65-90% base-paired. Although inserts are preferably hairpin-like structures, optionally a hairpin may be designed according to one or more of the design guidelines or parameters described herein.
In some examples, a vector includes an exogenous segment that has been designed to mimic a model hairpin-like structure in a wild type virus. In some examples, the exogenous segment mimics the secondary structure of the wild type hairpin-like structure by having a similar arrangement of base-paired regions and non-base-paired region. In some examples, the exogenous segment mimics the secondary structure of the wild-type hairpin-like structure by having a similar ΔG relative to length. Optionally, the vector is derived from the wild type virus having the model hairpin-like structure, or one or more relatives of that wild type virus. A mimicked exogenous segment may also follow one or more of the guidelines or parameters described above. Alternatively, a mimicked exogenous segment may follow one or more analogous guidelines or parameters derived from a study of hairpin-like structures in a wild type virus that the vector is derived from, or one or more relatives of that wild type virus.
In the detailed description, we describe the complete secondary structure of citrus yellow vein associated virus (CYVaV) and some or all of the secondary structure of some of its related umbravirus-like associated RNA (ulaRNA). CYVaV and other ulaRNA are able to replicate and move systemically in plants, in many cases with minimal or no symptoms of infection. CYVaV and other ulaRNA can be developed into vectors to control vascular diseases in trees and vines and/or to target plant pathogens such as insects, fungi and other viruses. In some examples, a vector is derived from a ulaRNA, a Class 2 ulaRNA or CYVaV. These vectors may have exogenous inserts that comply with one or more design guidelines or parameters described above, or mimic a naturally occurring hairpin-like structure in a ulaRNA, a Class 2 ulaRNA or CYVaV. Although the detailed description is focused on ulaRNA, the invention is not limited to ulaRNA.
The present disclosure is also related to a modified vector, for example r a virus induced gene silencing (VIGS) vector. The vector is modified by the addition of a heterologous element that comprises one or more nucleotide sequences not found in the wild-type virus (exogenous segments). The exogenous segment(s) may substantially mimic the secondary structure of a portion, for example a hairpin-like portion, of the wild type vector (e.g. virus), or of a relative of the wild type vector. A hairpin-like portion and its corresponding exogenous segment may each comprise two or more base-paired regions and one or more non-base-paired regions. In some examples, a hairpin-like portion and exogenous segment each comprise one or more non-base-paired regions each located between two base-paired regions. In some examples, the non-base-paired region may be single sided or double sided and form a “loop” or “bulge” between two base-paired regions in the secondary structure of the vector. In some examples, the exogenous segment may have a sequence with many, for example 60 or more, 70 or more, 80 or more or 100 or more, bases, or changes in bases relative to the wild type vector. The exogenous segment may thereby contain an active (i.e. targeted) sequence that is 28 nt or more, 30 nt or more, 35 nt or more, 40 nt or more, or 50 nt or more, in length. In some examples, the exogenous segment contains at least one non-base-paired region. In some examples, an exogenous segment has a minimum free energy similar to a double stranded or hairpin-like portion of the wild type vector. In some examples, an exogenous segment has an active portion, for example an siRNA targeted to a pathogen or a gene silencing RNA targeted at a host plant.
In some examples, an exogenous segment is inserted into a vector a) in the location of, and as a replacement for, a hairpin-like structure that the exogenous segment mimics, b) in the location of, and as a replacement for, a hairpin-like structure that the exogenous segment does not mimic (wherein the exogenous segment mimics a different hairpin-like structure optionally of the vector or a relative of the vector), or c) at a location that previously did not have any hairpin-like structure (wherein the exogenous segment mimics a hairpin-like structure, optionally of the vector or a relative of the vector).
The present disclosure also relates to a novel infectious agent(s) capable of delivering and stably maintaining an exogenous insert(s) into a plant, compositions comprising a plant infected by the disclosed agent(s), and methods and uses relating thereto. The disclosed agents are sometimes referred to herein as “independently mobile RNAs” or “iRNAs.” Despite being infectious single-stranded RNAs, some iRNAs do not encode for any movement protein(s). They also do not encode RNA silencing suppressors, which are a key characteristic of plant viruses. In addition, unlike virtually all plant RNA viruses, with the exception of umbraviruses, and contrary to some definitions of a virus, iRNAs also do not encode a coat protein for encapsidating the RNA into virions, which is a requirement for vectored movement of viruses from plant to plant. Despite the lack of movement protein expression in some examples, iRNAs are able to move systemically within the phloem in a host plant. As compared to viruses, iRNAs have additional advantageous properties, such as: the ability to accumulate to levels exceeding those of most known plant viruses; possessing a relatively small size, e.g., being only about two-thirds the size of the smallest plant RNA virus and thus much easier to work with compared to such conventional plant RNA viruses; and exhibiting the inability to spread on their own to other plants (given their inability to encode for any coat protein). The lack of a silencing suppressor allows the immune system of the host plant to slice or break up the iRNA, thereby releasing siRNAs from the exogenous inserts of the iRNA into the plant. iRNA include umbravirus-like associated RNA (ulaRNA).
In accordance with disclosed embodiments, an infectious agent comprises an RNA, e.g. an iRNA, which may contain one or more engineered insert(s), sometimes referred to herein as a heterologous segment(s) or alternatively as exogenous segment(s), which, for example, triggers in a plant expression of a targeted peptide, protein(s) and/or produces targeted siRNA or other non-coding RNA that are cleaved from the vector for beneficial application, and/or delivers a therapeutic agent into the plant, and/or otherwise effectuates or promotes via such targeting or delivery a beneficial or desired result. Aspects of the present disclosure include: an iRNA-based vector for delivery of targeted anti-pathogenic agents; an anti-bacterial enzybiotic targeted at bacteria infecting a plant or bacteria required by the insect vector; an enzybiotic that is generated from an internal ribosome entry site (IRES) of the tobacco etch virus (TEV) (TEV IRES); incorporation of siRNAs into the iRNA genome; incorporation of inserts into a lock and dock structure to stabilize the base of a scaffold that supports the inserts; incorporation of sequences that may be cut into siRNAs into an iRNA genome that has been modified to enhance the structural stability of the local region to counter the destabilizing effects of the inserts; incorporation of an siRNA that disrupts or kills a targeted insect vector; incorporation of an siRNA that mitigates the negative impacts of a tree's callose production; incorporation of an siRNA that mitigates the plant's recognition of the pathogen; incorporation of an siRNA or other agent that targets bacterial, viral or fungal pathogens; and incorporation of an insert that triggers a particular plant trait (e.g., dwarfism). Thus, the infectious agents and compositions disclosed herein possess superior and advantageous properties as compared to conventional technologies.
The iRNA-based vectors of the present disclosure are suitable for use as a general platform for expression of various proteins and/or delivery of small RNAs into the phloem of citrus and other host plants. In some implementations, a citrus yellow vein associated virus (CYVaV)-based vector is provided, which accumulates to massive levels in companion cells and phloem parenchyma cells. The vectors of the present disclosure may be utilized to examine the effects of silencing specific gene expression, e.g., in the phloem (and beyond) of trees. In addition, CYVaV may be developed into a model system for examining long-distance movement of mRNAs through sieve elements. Since CYVaV is capable of infecting virtually all varieties of citrus, with few if any symptoms generated in the infected plants, movement of RNAs within woody plants may be readily examined.
In accordance with disclosed embodiments, the present disclosure is directed to a plus-sense single stranded ribonucleic acid (RNA) vector comprising a replication element(s) and a heterologous segment(s), wherein the RNA vector lacks a functional coat protein(s) open reading frame(s) (ORFs) and optionally lacks a functional movement protein ORF. The RNA vector is capable of movement in a host plant, for example systemic movement, movement through the phloem, long-distance movement and/or movement from one leaf to another leaf. In some implementations, the RNA vector also lacks any silencing suppressor ORF(s). In some implementations, the RNA vector comprises a 3′ Cap Independent Translation Enhancer (3′ CITE) comprising the nucleic acid sequence(s) of SEQ ID NO:4 and/or SEQ ID NO:5. In some embodiments, the 3′ CITE comprises the nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:3.
In some embodiments, the replication element(s) of the RNA vector comprises one or more conserved polynucleotide sequence(s) having the nucleic acid sequence of: SEQ ID NO:10, SEQ ID NO:11, SEQ ID NO:12, SEQ ID NO:13, and/or SEQ ID NO:14. In some implementations, the replication element(s) additionally or alternatively comprises one of more conserved polynucleotide sequence(s) having the nucleic acid sequence of: SEQ ID NO:15 and/or SEQ ID NO:16.
In some embodiments, the RNA vector is derived from citrus yellow vein associated virus (CYVaV) (SEQ ID NO:1) or an iRNA or ulaRNA relative thereof, for example a Class 2 ulaRNA. The RNA vectors of the present disclosure are capable of systemic and phloem-limited movement and replication within a host plant. The RNA vectors of the present disclosure are functionally stable for replication, movement and/or translation within the host plant for at least one month after infection thereof, more preferably for at least 3 months, at least 6 months, at least 12 months, or at least 2 years, after infection thereof. In preferred embodiments, the RNA vectors and inserts thereof are functionally stable for the life of the host plant (e.g. 5-10 years or more).
In some embodiments, the heterologous segment(s) of the RNA vector of the present disclosure comprises a polynucleotide that encodes at least one polypeptide selected from the group consisting of a reporter molecule, a peptide, and a protein or is an interfering RNA. In some implementations, the polypeptide is an insecticide or an insect control agent, an antibacterial, an antiviral, or an antifungal. In some implementations, the antibacterial is an enzybiotic. In some implementations, the antibacterial targets a bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter species, e.g. Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas).
In some embodiments, the heterologous segment(s) of the RNA vector of the present disclosure comprises a small non-coding RNA molecule and/or an RNA interfering molecule. In some implementations, the small non-coding RNA molecule and/or the RNA interfering molecule targets an insect, a bacterium, a virus, or a fungus. In some implementations, the small non-coding RNA molecule and/or the RNA interfering molecule targets a nucleic acid of the insect, the bacterium, the virus, or the fungus. In some implementations, the small non-coding RNA molecule and/or the RNA interfering molecule targets a virus, for example a virus selected from the group consisting of Citrus vein enation virus (CVEV) and Citrus tristeza virus (CTV). In some implementations, a targeted bacteria is Candidus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas). In some implementations, the iRNA comprises an siRNA hairpin or hairpin-like structure that targets and renders the targeted bacteria non-pathogenic.
It should be understood that the RNA vector may include multiple heterologous segments, each providing for the same or different functionality. In some embodiments, the heterologous segment(s) is a first heterologous segment, wherein the RNA vector further comprising a second heterologous segment(s), wherein the replication element(s) is intermediate the first and second heterologous segments.
In some embodiments, the heterologous segment(s) of the RNA vector of the present disclosure comprises a polynucleotide that encodes for a protein or peptide that alters a phenotypic trait. In some implementations, the phenotypic trait is selected from the group consisting of pesticide tolerance, herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, reduced callose production, increased growth rate, and dwarfism.
The present disclosure is also directed to a host plant comprising the RNA vector of the present disclosure. The host plant may be a whole plant, a plant organ, a plant tissue, or a plant cell. In some implementations, the host plant is in a genus selected from the group consisting of citrus, vitis, ficus and olea. In some implementations, the host plant is a citrus tree or a citrus tree graft.
The present disclosure also relates to a composition comprising a plant, a plant organ, a plant tissue, or a plant cell infected with the RNA vector of the present disclosure. In some implementations, the plant is in a genus selected from the group consisting of citrus, vitis, ficus, malus, and olea. In some implementations, the plant is a citrus tree or a citrus tree graft.
The present disclosure also relates to a method for introducing a heterologous segment(s) into a host plant comprising introducing into the host plant the RNA vector of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the step of introducing the heterologous segment(s) into the host plant comprises grafting a plant organ or plant tissue of a plant that comprises the RNA vector of the present disclosure to a plant organ or plant tissue of another plant that does not comprise the RNA vector prior to said introduction. The RNA vectors of the present disclosure are capable of systemically infecting the host plant.
The present disclosure is also directed to a process of producing in a plant, a plant organ, a plant tissue, or a plant cell a heterologous segment(s), comprising introducing into said plant, said plant organ, said plant tissue or said plant cell the RNA vector of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the plant is in a genus selected from the group consisting of citrus, vitis, ficus and olea.
The present disclosure also relates to a kit comprising the RNA vector of the present disclosure.
The present disclosure is also directed to use of the RNA vector(s) of the present disclosure for introducing the heterologous segment(s) into a plant, a plant organ, a plant tissue, or a plant cell. The present disclosure is also directed to use of the host plant(s) of the present disclosure, or use of the composition(s) of the present disclosure, for introducing the RNA vector(s) into a plant organ or plant tissue that does not, prior to said introducing, comprise the RNA vector. In some implementations, the step of introducing the RNA vector comprises grafting a plant organ or plant tissue of a plant that comprises the RNA vector to a plant organ or plant tissue of another plant that does not comprise the RNA vector.
The present disclosure is also directed to a method of making a vector for use with a plant comprising the steps of inserting one or more heterologous segment(s) into an RNA, wherein the RNA is selected from the group consisting of: CYVaV; a relative of CYVaV; other RNA vectors having least 50% or at least 70% RdRp identity with CYVaV; and another iRNA or ulaRNA. The present disclosure also relates to a vector produced by the disclosed method(s).
The present disclosure also relates to the use of an RNA molecule as a vector, wherein the RNA is selected from the group consisting of: CYVaV; a relative of CYVaV; other RNA vectors having at least 50% or at least 70% RdRp identity with CYVaV; and, another iRNA or ulaRNA. In some implementations, the RNA is used in the treatment of a plant, for example the treatment of a viral or bacterial infection of a plant, for example the treatment of CTV infection or Citrus Greening in a citrus plant, or in the control of insects that are vectors and/or feed on the plant. The RNA is modified with one or more inserted heterologous segment(s), for example an enzybiotic or an siRNA.
The present disclosure is also directed to the use of an RNA molecule characterized by being in the manufacture of a medicament to treat a disease or condition of a plant, wherein the RNA is selected from the group consisting of: CYVaV; a relative of CYVaV; other RNA vectors having at least 50%, or at least 70%, identity with the RdRp of CYVaV; and, another iRNA or ulaRNA. In some implementations, the disease or condition is a viral or bacterial infection of a plant, for example CTV or Citrus Greening in a Citrus plant.
The present disclosure is also directed to an RNA molecule for use as a medicament or in the treatment of a disease or condition of a plant, wherein the RNA is selected from the group consisting of: CYVaV; a relative of CYVaV; other RNA vectors having at least 50% or at least 70% RdRp identity with CYVaV; and, another iRNA or ulaRNA.
The present disclosure is also related to a ribonucleic acid (RNA) vector, for example a plus-sense single stranded ribonucleic acid (RNA) vector, comprising one or more heterologous segment(s), wherein said heterologous element(s) is attached to the main structure of the RNA vector through a lock and dock structure, optionally a branched structure comprising an insert site for the heterologous element and a relatively stable and/or locking structure that does not participate in folding of the heterologous element or the main structure of the RNA vector. In some implementations, the RNA vector is an iRNA or ulaRNA-based vector or a virus-based vector. In some implementations, a lock portion of the lock and dock structure comprises a scaffold normally used for crystallography. In some implementations, the lock and dock structure comprises a branched element, wherein a stem and a branch of the branched element are located within a relatively stable structure forming the lock, such as a tetraloop-tetraloop dock, e.g., a GNRA tetraloop docked into its docking sequence, and another branch of the branched element comprises an insert site for the heterologous element. In some implementations, the heterologous element is a hairpin or an unstructured sequence.
The present disclosure is also related to an iRNA or ulaRNA-based vector having one or more heterologous segment(s) having a sequence that targets a particular pathogen, e.g., such as a virus, a fungus, or a bacteria. In some implementations, the siRNA is effective against a plant pathogenic bacterium. In some implementations, the siRNA targets a Candidatus Liberibacter species such as Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas).
The present disclosure is also related to a vector having a heterologous element comprising a hairpin or hairpin-like structure having a sequence on one side complementary to a sequence within citrus tristeza virus (CTV) or an unstructured sequence complementary to the plus or minus strand of CTV. In some implementations, the sequence within CTV is conserved in multiple CTV strains. In some implementations, the sequence one on side of the hairpin or hairpin-like structure is complementary with a sequence in multiple CTV strains, or all known CTV strains, despite differences in CTV sequences. The present disclosure is also related to a plant having a sour orange rootstock and an iRNA or ulaRNA-based vector having a heterologous element that targets Citrus tristeza virus.
The present disclosure is also related to a method for introducing a heterologous segment(s) into a host plant comprising introducing into said host plant an iRNA or ulaRNA-based vector after a) encapsidating the iRNA or ulaRNA vector in a capsid protein other than the capsid protein of CVEV, or b) by coating the iRNA or ulaRNA with phloem protein 2 (PP2) from sap extracted from cucumber, citrus or other plant, c) by using dodder to take up sap from infected laboratory host and transmit to a secondary host, e) by encapsidating the iRNA or ulaRNA in virions of CVEV and infecting plants by stem slashing or stem peeling, or f) by feeding CYVaV-containing virions to a CVEV-specific aphid vector and then allowing the aphids to feed on trees.
The present disclosure is also related to an iRNA or ulaRNA-based vector comprising one or more inserts at one or more of positions 2250, 2301, 2304, 2317, 2319, 2330, 2331, 2336, 2375 and 2083 of a CYVaV-based RNA. All of these locations are in the 3′ UTR. Inserts up to 200 nt, or possibly more, can be inserted. Multiple inserts may be used in a single vector. In some implementations, the iRNA or ulaRNA-based vector is stabilized, for example by converting G:U pairs to G:C pairs in the 3′UTR structure. In some implementations, the insert is appended to a truncated hairpin at the 5′ end of the 3′ UTR.
The present disclosure is also related to a method of making a ribonucleic acid (RNA) vector comprising stabilizing the 3′ UTR structure of a parental construct and inserting one or more destabilizing heterologous segment(s) into the stabilized parental construct.
The present disclosure describes many CYVaV-based vectors, but in some implementations analogous vectors and/or inserts are produced using another iRNA or ulaRNA or an unrelated RNA or virus as the starting material or sequence. In these implementations, descriptions relating to CYVaV may be modified accordingly. For example, positions described for CYVaV may be substituted with a corresponding position in another type of iRNA or ulaRNA or RNA or virus.
In some implementations, an iRNA or ulaRNA-based vector or a virus-based vector is constructed using starting material (i.e., an iRNA or ulaRNA or virus) obtained from the wild, or multiplied cloned or otherwise reproduced from starting material obtained from the wild. The starting material is modified, for example to change, delete and/or replace, one or more elements of the wild-type structure and/or to add one or more inserts. In other implementations an iRNA or ulaRNA-based vector or virus-based vector is synthetic. For example, an iRNA or ulaRAN-based vector or virus-based vector may be made by creating a synthetic replica of the wild-type RNA and then modifying the synthetic replica, or directly creating a synthetic replica of a modified RNA.
The present disclosure is also related to a method of making a ribonucleic acid (RNA) vector comprising truncating a hairpin or hairpin-like structure in a parental construct and inserting one or more heterologous segment(s) into the truncated parental construct.
The present disclosure is also related to compositions and methods comprised of combinations or sub-combinations of one or more other compositions or methods described herein, to compositions produced by methods described herein, to methods of making compositions described herein, and to methods of treating plants using compositions described herein.
The present disclosure relates to a single stranded RNA vector suitable for introducing a therapeutic agent such as a small RNA into a host plant, or otherwise treating a host plant. The vector, such as iRNA or ulaRNA as described herein, optionally does not encode for any movement protein and does not encode for a coat protein, but is capable of capable of systemic and phloem-limited movement and replication within the host plant. The vector may be modified to include an siRNA effective against a bacterial plant pathogen. The plant pathogen may be, for example, Pseudomonas syringae, Envinia amylovora and Liberibacter asiaticus. The siRNA may be, for example, a complement of the adenylate kinase (ADK) or gyrase subunit A (GyrA) gene of the bacteria. Alternatively, the wild type vector may be introduced into the plant to inhibit or control a bacterial infection in the plant by way of non-specific siRNA created by the RNA silencing or transitive silencing mechanism of the plant. Alternatively, the vector may be modified to include an insert that increases a silencing mechanism of the plant, for example an insert that is a complement to a plant virus. For example, CYVaV or another iRNA or ulaRNA with an insert that complements a portion of citrus tristeza virus (CTV) may be introduced into a citrus tree to treat citrus greening.
The priority application of the present application contains at least one drawing/photograph executed in color. Copies of such color drawing(s) will be provided by the United States Patent & Trademark Office upon request and payment of the required fee.
The polynucleotide sequence of F3-C3 #3 is:
The polynucleotide sequence shown in Panel D is:
No variants are detectable. Many more combinations of two-insert hairpins were made and all are stable. As shown in Panel C, RT-PCR should indicate a single amplified product, with batch sequencing showing little to no heterogeneity. For comparison, sequencing of an unstable construct is shown in Panel D.
The presented sequence of the OULV-insert is (SEQ ID NO:80):
Chromatogram images of the three samples above are shown in Panel D. The overall sequencing quality was very stable, except the thymine (T) at position 117 of the insert. The chromatogram signal showed weak noise of adenine (A), which may indicate that a small population of CY23300ULV may have A instead of T at position 117.
The presented sequence of the duplicated-insert (1132-1329) corresponds to SEQ ID NO:1 (1132-1329). The presented sequence of CY2220 (1132-1329) 2280-1 and CY2220 (1132-1329) 2280-2 are identical (SEQ ID NO:81):
Referring to Panel D, for more detailed information about the stability of the internally duplicated CYVaV construct, the PCR products from infected tissue were cloned into pMiniT2.0 cloning vector and a total of 44 clones were sequenced to get higher resolution for virus population after long-term infection. The sequencing information revealed that most of the population of the virus was very stable. The internally copied-insert of 29 clones out of 44 samples was identical to the original sequence. 13 out of 44 clones only had single nucleotide changes. The single base change written in black parentheses indicates that the base change happened in a single clone. Among the 13 clones, 2 clones had the same base change at nucleotide location 119 [(T119C)X2]. Multiple base changes in individual clones were marked as the same color. 1 out of 44 clones had two base changes and was marked by orange color, C49T, T111C. 1 out of 44 clones had three base changes and was marked by green color, T111C, T121C and T120C. Except for T113C and T187C, most of the base changes happened near the boundary between loop and stem. There was no major deletion or substitution from all of the samples. The polynucleotide sequence presented in Panel D (SEQ ID NO:124):
The presented sequence of CBC139 (G22T) is (SEQ ID NO:83):
The presented sequence of CBC140 (C33T) is (SEQ ID NO:84):
The presented sequence of CDE967 (T119C) is (SEQ ID NO:85):
The presented sequence of CDE974 (G62C) is (SEQ ID NO:86):
The presented sequence of CDE977 (T111C, T121C, T170C) is (SEQ ID NO:87):
The presented sequence of CDE978 (T35C) is (SEQ ID NO:88):
The presented sequence of CDE980 (C49T, T111C) is (SEQ ID NO:89):
The presented sequence of CDF015 (C174T) is (SEQ ID NO:90):
The presented sequence of CDF016 (G125A) is (SEQ ID NO:91):
The presented sequence of CDF017 (C57T) is (SEQ ID NO:92):
The presented sequence of CDF020 (T148C) is (SEQ ID NO:93):
The presented sequence of CDF037 (T119C) is (SEQ ID NO:94):
The presented sequence of CDF041 (T187C) is (SEQ ID NO:95):
The presented sequence of CDF047 (T113C) is (SEQ ID NO:96):
The presented sequence of CDF049 (T101C) is (SEQ ID NO:97):
The present disclosure relates to one or more vectors having novel exogenous segments, compositions comprising a plant infected by the vector(s), and uses and methods relating thereto. In some examples, the exogenous segments are provided in combination with“independently mobile RNAs” or “iRNAs” or other viruses or derivatives thereof. In accordance with disclosed embodiments, the iRNAs, for example ulaRNAs, are capable of infecting plants and encoding for an RNA polymerase to sustain their own replication, but lacking the ability to encode for a coat protein. In addition, iRNAs do not code for any RNA silencing suppressors and some do not code for any movement protein.
As used herein, a “host” refers to a cell, tissue or organism capable of being infected by and capable of replicating a nucleic acid. A host may include a whole plant, a plant organ, plant tissue, a plant protoplast, and a plant cell. A plant organ refers to a distinct and visibly differentiated part of a plant, such as root, stem, leaf, seed, graft or scion. Plant tissue refers to any tissue of a plant in whole or in part. Protoplast refers to an isolated cell without cell walls, having the potency for regeneration into cell culture, tissue or whole plant. Plant cell refers to the structural and physiological unit of plants, consisting of a protoplast and the cell wall.
As used herein, “nucleic acid sequence,” “polynucleotide,” “nucleotide” and “oligonucleotide” are used interchangeably and refer to a polymeric form of nucleotides of any length. Polynucleotides may have any three-dimensional structure, and may perform any function. A “gene” refers to a polynucleotide containing at least one open reading frame that is capable of encoding a particular polypeptide sequence. “Expression” refers to the process by which a polynucleotide is transcribed into mRNA and/or the process by which the transcribed mRNA is translated into peptides, polypeptides, or proteins.
A vector “derived from” a particular molecule means that the vector contains genetic elements or sequence portions from such molecule. In some embodiments, the vector comprises a replicase open reading frame (ORF) from such molecule (e.g., iRNA). One or more heterologous segment(s) may be added as an additional sequence to the vectors of the present disclosure. In some implementations, said heterologous segment(s) is added such that high level expression (e.g., of a particular protein or small RNA) is achieved. The resulting vector is capable of replicating in plant cells by forming further RNA vector molecules by RNA-dependent RNA polymerization using the RNA vector as a template. An iRNA vector may be constructed from the RNA molecule from which it is derived (e.g., CYVaV).
As used herein, the terms “infection” or “capable of infecting,” with respect to a vector of the present invention, include the ability of such vector to transfer or introduce its nucleic acid into a host, such that the nucleic acid or portion(s) thereof is replicated and/or proteins or other agents are synthesized or delivered in the host. Infection also includes the ability of a selected nucleic acid sequence to integrate into a genome of a target host.
As used herein, the term a “phenotypic trait” refers to an observable, measurable or detectable characteristic or property resulting from the expression or suppression of a gene or genes. Phenotype includes observable traits as well as biochemical processes.
As used herein, the term “endogenous” refers to a polypeptide, nucleic acid or gene that is expressed by a host. “Heterologous” refers to a polypeptide, nucleic acid or gene that is not naturally expressed by a host. A “functional heterologous ORF” refers to an open reading frame (ORF) that is not present in the respective unmodified or native molecule and which can be expressed to yield a particular agent such as a peptide, protein or small RNA. For being expressible from the vector in a plant, plant tissue or plant cell, the vector comprising a functional heterologous ORF comprises one or more subgenomic promoters or other sequence(s) required for expression.
As used herein, the term “insert” refers to an exogenous RNA segment, typically of material length (e.g. 40 nucleotides or more, or 60 nucleotides or more), located between two bases in the genetic sequence of a reference RNA molecule. The reference RNA molecule may be a wild type molecule (e.g. the genome of a virus or sub-viral RNA) or a molecule derived from a wild type molecule. No act of insertion is necessarily required, for example a molecule may be synthesized according to a sequence including the sequence of the insert with no intermediary synthesis or collection of the wild type molecule.
As used herein, the term “hairpin” (
As used herein, the term “hairpin-like structure” refers to a primarily base paired segment of RNA having multiple stacks separated by non-base-paired regions, alternatively called “bulges” or “internal loops” (sometimes called “loops” for brevity when the distinction from an apical loop is apparent from the context), and an apical loop between the bases on opposite sides of the stacks. A loop may be symmetric, with an equal number of bases on opposite sides of the loop, or asymmetric, with a different number of bases on opposite sides of the loop. The term “bulge” may be used as an alternative name for a loop, or may be used in some contexts to refer specifically to an asymmetric loop having one or more non-paired bases on only one side. A bulge or loop thereby two stacks. Referring to
As used herein, the term “junction” refers to a non-base-paired region that separates three or more stacks. A simple junction separating three stacks may create, for example, a Y-shaped or T-shaped secondary structure. A stack connected to a junction may be part of a hairpin, a hairpin-like structure, or a stem.
As used herein, the term “stem” refers to a structure that extends from a junction that does not terminate in an apical loop. A stem may connect a junction to another junction, or may connect a junction to the single stranded regions between stems (i.e., single stranded regions that are not apical loops, internal loops or junctions). Referring to
As used herein, the term “RNA vector” refers to a vector including RNA. The RNA vector may be, for example, a viral vector or a sub-viral vector. In some examples, the RNA is a plus-sense single stranded RNA, wherein the term single stranded RNA may include folded RNA with double stranded or base-paired regions. The RNA vector may be derived from a virus or from sub-viral RNA. For example, an RNA vector may be derived from CYVaV, CYVaV-delta, OULV or another ulaRNA; CTV; or, TRV. In some examples, the RNA vector may include proteins expressed by the RNA vector.
Hairpins, hairpin-like structures, and junctions are elements of the secondary structure of RNA molecules. The secondary structure describes the folding of single stranded RNA into base-paired and non-base-paired regions. An RNA molecule may also be defined by its tertiary structure. The tertiary structure includes interactions, i.e. base pairing, of segments of the RNA separated in a manner other than by way of junctions or apical loops. In some cases the tertiary structure includes long-distance interactions between RNA segments separated by many bases and/or intermediate hairpins or hairpin-like structures.
Various assays are known in the art for determining expression of a particular product, including but not limited to: hybridization assays (e.g. Northern blot analysis), amplification procedures (e.g. RT-PCR), and array-based technologies. Expression may also be determined using techniques known in the art for examining the protein product, including but not limited to: radioimmunoassay, ELISA (enzyme linked immunoradiometric assays), sandwich immunoassays, immunoradiometric assays, in situ immunoassays, western blot analysis, immunoprecipitation assays, immunofluorescent assays, GC-Mass Spec, and SDS-PAGE.
An “exogenous RNA segment”, alternatively called an “exogenous segment” or “heterologous segment”, refers to a segment of RNA inserted into a native molecule, whereby the source of the exogenous RNA segment is different from the native molecule. The source may be another virus, a living organism such as a plant, animal, bacteria, virus or fungus, a chemically synthesized material, or a combination thereof. The exogenous RNA segment may provide any function appropriate for a particular application, including but not limited to: a non-coding function RNA, a coding function in which the RNA acts as a messenger RNA encoding a sequence which, translated by the host cell, results in synthesis of a peptide (e.g., a molecule comprising between about 2 and 50 amino acids) or a protein (e.g. a molecule comprising 50 or more amino acid) having useful or desired properties.
As used herein, the term “movement protein” refers to a protein(s) required for cell-to-cell and/or long distance movement. “Coat protein” refers to protein(s) comprising or building the virus coat.
As used herein, “virus” includes traditional or conventional viruses and related infectious agents that might or might not satisfy all elements of some definitions of a virus, for example because they do not encode a coat protein. For example, viruses include umbraviruses and umbravirus-like associated RNA (also called “ulaRNA”), for example CYVaV. Virus also includes derivatives, variants or parts of a virus, for example sub-viral RNA, defective RNA, subgenomic RNA and RNA multimers (e.g. dimers), that may be infectious in a host alone or in the presence of the full virus or a helper virus.
Optionally, an RNA vector may be used for virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) or in a manner analogous to VIGS. In the treatment of plants, virus-induced gene silencing makes use of a virus, for example a plus-strand RNA plant virus, as a vector to exploit natural antiviral defenses (e.g. RNA silencing) that target foreign RNA to provide protection against plant pathogens and/or alter plant gene expression. Briefly, double-stranded (ds) RNA regions of viral genomes are substrates for cytoplasmic dsRNA-specific, dicer-like RNases (DCLs) that generate small 21-24 nt (per side) dsRNAs. The dsRNA is known as a small interfering (si)RNA. One of the two viral siRNA strands, which alone may also be referred to as an siRNA, is incorporated into a protein complex called “RISC”, and complementary base-pairing between the siRNA strand and an intact viral genome leads to hybridization-site cleavage by RISC complex Argonaut enzymes. Additionally, the RISC/siRNA complex can amplify the number of siRNAs available for targeting by priming complementary strand synthesis on the viral RNA genome, a process that uses an endogenous cytoplasmic RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RDR6) and host protein SGS3 to generates fully dsRNA products. The dsRNA is then cleaved into secondary siRNAs by DCLs for further RISC-mediated target cleavage. The intercellular mobility of siRNAs in plants allows siRNA to enter the vascular system for migration to distal parts of the plant, leading to the spread of the silencing signal.
Viral RNA genomes that are engineered to contain exogenous inserts such as hairpins generate additional siRNAs from the inserted sequences. These additional siRNAs can be designed to target viruses and other plant pathogens such as nematodes, fungi, and feeding insects due to efficient cross-kingdom transfer of siRNAs into organisms that contain similar RNA silencing systems. Although bacteria do not have the enzymatic components of RNA silencing, they are still able to take up siRNAs and genes are silenced by an unknown mechanism. VIGS-generated siRNAs can therefore be designed to protect the plant against a wide variety of harmful pathogens and pests without modifying the plant genome. In addition, VIGS is used by many laboratory researchers to reduce expression of specific plant genes at the post-transcriptional level to study the ensuing biological consequences. Since plant siRNAs must contain a high degree of complementarity with their target RNA to induce silencing, VIGS produces few, if any, off-target effects. Importantly, the safety of siRNAs for human/animal consumption has been verified by many studies. Ideally, a VIGS vector is mild or asymptomatic in the intended host and retains the insert for a time sufficient to allow treatment of the host.
Over 50 different viruses have been developed as VIGS vectors with these goals in mind, underlying the importance of VIGS technology for both basic and applied agricultural science. However, a critical, unresolved problem is that plant virus vectors engineered to contain any foreign inserted sequence are unstable (e.g. unstable in replication), even when inserts are small hairpins. Over time (usually days to a few weeks), viral progeny emerge in the population with most if not all of the inserted sequence deleted, frequently together with surrounding viral genomic sequences. The enzyme responsible for these deletions is thought to be the virus-encoded RdRp, an enzyme capable of similar recombination-type events leading to the generation of defective truncated viral RNAs that are commonly associated with both plant and animal RNA viruses. Virus fitness may be reduced significantly by the addition of structured sequences, even when these sequences are inserted into regions of the genome known to be devoid of any critical viral functions. Some hairpin inserts are more stable than others, even when they are similarly sized and inserted into the same location in the viral vector geome. Instability of VIGS inserts is regarded in the art as a complex, unsolvable conundrum that is negating the use of this valuable biotechnology for most agricultural purposes. To our knowledge no insert-containing VIGS vector has been made sufficiently stable for usage in long-lived trees and vines, many of which are under considerable threat by bacteria, fungal, viral and other pathogens. For example, in the next decade, all openly grown citrus trees will be infected by Candidus Liberibactor asiaticus, the presumptive causal agent of lethal Citrus Greening disease.
This specification describes, among other things, a plant (e.g. citrus) VIGS vector based on a subviral, umbravirus-like RNA (ulaRNA) originally discovered infecting four limequat trees in the 1950's. This ulaRNA vector, known as citrus yellow vein associated virus (CYVaV or CYVaV1: 2.7 kb), is a plus-sense subviral RNA that contains only the first two open reading frames (ORFs) found in all members of the Tombusviridae; a replication-required protein, and a ribosome-recoding (−1 frameshifting) extension product identified as the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) (
This specification describes viral vectors, for example vectors derived from CYVaV1 or other ulaRNAs. These vectors have stable inserts, for example inserts that may persist for a month or more, three months or more, or a year or more, in the host plant.
To generate a CYVaV1 VIGS vector, we used selective 2′-hydroxyl acylation analyzed by primer extension (SHAPE) RNA structure probing and phylogenetic structure comparisons to solve the secondary structure of full-length CYVaV1 (2.7 kb) (
Before we could understand factors involved in insert instability, more information was needed on the basic biology of CYVaV1 and other ulaRNAs. Like many viruses, all ulaRNAs use −1 ribosomal frameshifting for synthesis of their RdRp. In vitro translation using wheat germ extracts revealed an astonishing 30% frameshifting rate for CYVaV1, compared with 2 to 5% for other members of the Tombusviridae (
To begin testing this hypothesis, we inserted exact duplicates of four natural CYVaV1 hairpin-like structures from coding and non-coding regions into 3′UTR locations that had “kicked out” some foreign hairpins. These hairpin-like structures ranged in size from 33 to 198 nt (labeled 1 to 4 in
We next endeavored to define properties associated with insert stability. We examined the four natural inserts that were stable (which we used as models for mimicked inserts); four non-mimic inserts that were unstable; one non-mimic sequence of 198 nt that was unstable; 50 mimic hairpin-like structures that were stable; and two mimic structures that was unstable. We found that all stable hairpin-like structures were composed of nucleotides that together gave a low, but non-zero, average positional entropy (APE) value for the hairpin (
The four natural model hairpin-like structures that were all stable had APE values of: 0.19 (Hairpin-like structure 1); 0.10 (Hairpin-like structure 2); 0.12 (Hairpin-like structure 3); and 0.15 (Hairpin-like structure 4). All 50 stable mimic hairpin-like structures had APE values ranging from 0.07 to 0.32, which was substantially lower than nearly all of the unstable inserts. Most of the stable hairpin-like exogenous segments also had minimum free energy (DG) similar to (i.e within 10 of) a naturally occurring hairpin-like structure in CYVaV1 of similar (e.g. within 10%) length.
Four unstable hairpin-like inserts had APE values of 1.3, 1.16, 0.83, and 0.39. The unstable insert with APE=0.39 (referred to as M2250gfp30ext herein) was noted to have an 9 high positional entropy (PE greater than 1.0) and 4 very high positional entropy (PE greater than 1.5) nucleotides, with 8 (out of 66 nucleotides total) clustered near the apical loop, which may have contributed to the lack of stability. A deleted (stable) variant found accumulating in plants had a deletion of the apical loop, allowing the high positional entropy residues to form a new apical loop. Another unstable insert (198 nt) was not designed to assume any particular structure and had an APE value of 0.90. An unstable insert with low APE value (0.07; two asterisks in
These results strongly suggest that insert APE, optionally together with insert ΔG relative to the insert size, represent important parameters for designing stable inserts. Furthermore, results may be optionally improved by considering one or more additional stability parameters, for example the number of consecutive G:C pairs and number or clustering of high entropy nucleotides. Without intending to be limited by theory, these findings led to our second hypothesis to explain insert instability of VIGS vectors: High hairpin APE values, which imply that the hairpin is metastable and likely assuming multiple conformations with similar high ΔG values negatively impacts the processivity of the RdRp leading to polymerase pausing, which enhances the probability of a recombination event that excises some or all of the insert, thereby leading to unstable inserts. Without intending to be limited by theory, our overarching hypothesis then can be summarized as follows: Hairpin-like structures in viral genomes have evolved to have low APE values, possibly along with specific ΔG relative to the size of the hairpin-like structure, to maintain the tertiary structure of the metastable full-length genome and processivity of the replicating polymerase. Exogenous segments inserted into a viral vector must conform to these properties, which may or may not be virus-specific, to maintain viral vector fitness.
While vector stability for replication is also important in many applications, the ability to design stable inserts for virus vectors is important for allowing VIGS to be used in long-lived plants (e.g. trees and vines) for extended times against pathogens.
We expect that the parameters for stable inserts described herein extend to inserts used in other RNA vectors derived from virus. Very little is known about the secondary structure of most viruses. For all but three viruses, the secondary structure is known for only portions of the virus. However, we note that, to the extent that secondary structures are known, naturally occurring viruses generally do not contain long fully based-paired regions. Considering the experiments and observations described herein, it seems likely that stable inserts for other virus-derived vectors will follow the principles described herein. In the event that one or more numerical ranges described herein to not apply to vectors derived from another virus, we expect that the general technique of mimicking a natural-occuring hairpin-like structure will be useful. For example, the ΔG relative to length and/or APE and/or secondary structure of a wild-type hairpin-like structure may be used as a guide to designing a stable insert for a vector derived from the same wild-type virus. Given the similarities that we have observed between different ulaRNA, and the stability of a hairpin-like structure from one ulaRNA (OULV) when inserted into another ulaRNA (CYVaV1), we expect both the general technique of mimicking and the numerical parameters described herein to apply throughout ulaRNA. For example, we expect that an insert described herein that is stable in CYVaV1 will also be stable when inserted at least into any other ulaRNA. Further, given the observations and examples described herein regarding TRV and CTV, we expect that an insert described herein that is stable in CYVaV1 will also be stable when inserted at least ino CTV and TRV.
The secondary structure of RNA hairpin-like structures includes one or more of base-paired stacks, internal loops (symmetric or asymmetric), apical loops, and junctions (
Solving the secondary structure of CYVaV1 revealed: (1) the longest fully base-paired region was found in Structure 2 (
One hairpin-like insert with a comparatively low APE (GFPmmck63, APE of 0.25) was unstable. However, this insert had five continuous G-C pairs. Another hairpin-like structure with a comparatively low APE (M2250gfp30ext, APE of 0.39) was also unstable. However, this insert had 9 bases (13.8%) with high entropy (PE greater than 1.0), 4 bases with PE over 1.5, and a standard deviation of entropy of 0.52. The instability of these examples may not indicate the maximum APE that may results in a stable hairpin-like insert. A hairpin-like insert with a similar or higher APE, but without the continuous G-C pairs, large percentage of high entropy bases and/or high standard deviation of PE, might be stable. Stable haripin-like inserts may have a maximum APE of 0.75, 0.65. 0.5, 0.4, 0.39, 0.36 or 0.32. Minimum APE of a stable hairpin-like structure may be 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.06 or 0.07. A range of APE may optionally be provided by any combination of these minimum and maximum APE values, or any APE values described in the examples.
Based on the observation of wild type hairpin-like structures and experiments involving exogenous hairpin-like structures, various additional parameters may be useful for insert stability: (1.1) the length limit of a fully base-paired region; (1.2) the length limit of the entire hairpin-like structures; (1.3) the length limit of consecutive G:C pairs; (1.4) the maximum number of non-paired bases in a symmetrical or asymmetrical internal loop; and, (1.5) the largest average positional entropy of a cluster (i.e. 10 per side) of base-paired nucleotides or an entire base-paired segment. For an RNA vector derived from a wild type virus, an insert may be used that does not exceed one or more of these parameters, or other parameters described herein, as determined by the wild type virus. In some examples, parameters derived from a wild type virus may be modified, for example by 50%. For an insert in a ulaRNA-derived vector, for example a CYVaV 1-derived vector, a hairpin-like insert may have one or more of: nor more than 19, nor more than 13, or no more than 10, consecutive fully paired bases; no more than 300 nt, nor more than 200 nt, or no more than 198 nt bases; no more than 4, or no more than 3, continuous G:C pairs; no more than 20 or no more than 15 bases in a loop (i.e. counting bases on both sides of a loop); an APE of no more than 0.8, or no more than 0.6, in any base-paired region. Optionally, a hairpin-like structure as described immediately above for insertion into a ulaRNA may be inserted into a vector derived from another wild type virus.
Regarding the maximum number of consecutive fully paired bases, the presence of A-U base pairs may allow for larger values. In CYVaV, the largest base-paired region (13 base pairs) had an A-U rich region. Stacks without A-U rich regions in naturally occurring hairpin-like structures in CYVaV had no more than 10 consecutive paired bases.
The limit on the APE of the entire insert tends to result in inserts having at most a small number of bases with high positional entropy. Alternatively or additionally, one or more other guidelines may be used, including: a) the insert does not have any bases with positional entropy greater than 2.0 or greater than 1.5, optionally with an exception that a large insert (e.g. an insert with more than 100 nucleotides) may have a small number (e.g. 1 or 2 or 3) of nucleotides with PE greater than 1.5, b) the insert does not have more than 15%, or does not have more than 10%, of bases with positional entropy greater than 1.0, and c) the standard deviation of the positional entropy of the bases in an insert is 0.5 or less or 0.4 or less, for example in a range of 0.1 to 0.4.
An insert is typically designed by designing a targeting sequence, which provides most or all of a first side of the insert (typically not including the apical loop as part of either side). A second side of the insert, on the opposite side of the apical loop, is designed to be mostly, but not entirely, complementary to the first side. For example, the second side may be 65-90% or 70-85% complementary with the first side. The lack of complete complementarity provides alternating base-paired regions and non-base-paired regions. Each of the base paired regions may have 19 or less, 13 or less or 10 or less base pairs. Each of the base paired regions should also not have more than 4 consecutive G-C base pairs, and optionally not more than 4 consecutive A-U base pairs. Direction of the base pairings is not considered, for example a G-C pairing followed by a C-G pairing is considered to be two consecutive G-C base pairings. Although other parameters described herein may be considered, in many examples hairpin-like structures are stable when designed considering only 65-90% or 70-85% complementary between the first side and the second side of the insert; each of the base paired regions having 19 or less, 13 or less or 10 or less base pairs; and each of the base paired regions have no more than 4 consecutive G-C pairs or no more than 3 consecutive G-C base pairs, and optionally no more than 4 consecutive A-U base pairs. If a hairpin-like structure designed according to these principles is unstable, one or more other parameters or guidelines described herein may be considered to produce a more stable insert.
In some examples, a targeting sequence may extend into the apical loop or across the apical loop from one side of the insert to the other. However, this type of structure may not be possible for all targeting sequences, and might not be beneficial (despite the potentially increased length of targeting sequence) with all targeting sequences, i.e. siRNA targeting sequences.
The limit on the APE of a base-paired region helps to avoid clustering of high positional entropy bases, e.g. bases with positional entropy of more than 1.0. Although the presence of individual high positional entropy bases may not result in a high APE, inserts are less stable when the high positional entropy bases are numerous or clustered near each other. Other factors that may be derived, for example from an analysis of wild type hairpin-like structures and/or examples of stable exogenous hairpin-like structures, to indicate clustering include, for example, the percentage of nucleotides with a high positional entropy (e.g. a positional entropy greater than 1.0); the standard deviation of positional entropies, and the number of bases with very high positional entropy.
In some examples, an insert may exceed one or more of the parameters described above or derived from a wild type virus. For example, we stacked one hairpin-like mimic onto the majority of Structure 3 (in its natural location), resulting in a stable hairpin-like structure of 247 nt (
Folding the first 2400 nt of tobacco rattle virus (TRV) RNA2 revealed a low entropy hairpin from positions 1727 to 1925. The APE value for this hairpin is 0.32 and the ΔG is −61.5 kcal/mol. This can be compared to similarly sized Structure 1 of CYVaV (APE=0.19; ΔG=−89.2 kcals/mol). In another example, a naturally occurring hairpin-like structure was located in CTV and inserted into CYVaV1 and infected into a benthamina plant (see example further below). The resulting vector was stable when assayed after three-weeks (experiment is ongoing). These observations suggest that inserts designed with reference to other wild type virus may be used in CYVaV or other ulaRNA, and that inserts designed with reference to CYVaV or other ulaRNA, or otherwise as described herein, may be useful in other viral vectors, for example other vector derived from plus-sense RNA plant viruses. Even if the resulting vectors are not as stable as CYVaV1-derived vectors, they may be more stable for replication than comparable vectors with conventional (i.e., fully base-paired) hairpins.
Designing hairpin-like structures that have the appropriate attributes, such as average positional entropy, may start with design of the targeting sequence (the one desired in the RISC complex) on one side, for example the 5′ side, of the hairpin. This is matched by a partially complementary sequence on the other side, for example the 3′ side, that will produce the correct values, e.g. average positional entropy values and or ΔG relative to length, for the hairpin-like structure. The partially complementary sequence may have, for example 65-90% or 70-85% complementarity with the targeting sequence. Optionally, the partially complementary sequence may be designed to result in a hairpin-like structure similar in shape to a natural hairpin-like structure being mimicked and/or incorporate other parameters described herein.
The specification also describes optional modifications to make the vector less fit when the insert is deleted such that replicates with the insert out-compete replicates that have deleted the insert. This method is called “reverse fitness”. Normally, the wild-type vector (with no inserts) is most stable. Altering the vector by over stabilizing its structure (in the sense of structural stability rather than replication stability), for example at or near an insertion site, creates a vector that reverts to a metastable (preferred) structure when containing hairpin inserts. In this way, loss of an insert generates an overly stable RNA (in the structural sense), which is less fit and would be lost from the population. However, these optional “reverse fitness” modifications have been found unnecessary in various examples with stable inserts described herein since the inserts are not deleted with replication, or the inserts are deleted at a very low rate.
As discussed above, In addition to testing the effects of mutations that stabilized the backbone (vector) structure in the vicinity of the inserts and stabilizing the active structure of the ribosome recoding (−1 frameshifting site), the inventors decided to test if inserting duplicates of natural hairpin-like structures into the insert sites would be stable. Despite the size of some of these structures, all four of the duplicate hairpin-like structures used were stable in the insert sites. Next, the inventors discovered that mimicking the secondary structures and approximate DG of the natural hairpin-like structures with exogenous sequences also resulted in vectors that did not lose the inserted sequences. The inventors then investigated the properties of the natural hairpin-like structures, finding that various parameters such as the positional entropy of individual nucleotides, average positional entropy of the overall hairpin, and DG were relevant to stability. Unstable inserts typically had either high positional entropy, higher ΔG, multiple consecutive G:C pairs, or high positional entropy nucleotides that were clustered together. Using these principles, exogenous inserts with targeting sequences were designed that could be inserted into vectors and that were stable (i.e. retained in progeny) even without any reverse fitness modifications described herein. However, one or more reverse fitness modifications may be optionally used in combination with otherwise stable inserts.
In another optional aspect of reverse fitness, a hairpin-like or other structure of the wild type virus is removed in combination with adding one or more inserts. The insert or inserts may be added all in other locations, or an insert may be added in the former location of the structure that was removed. For example, a hairpin-like structure of the wild type virus may be removed and replaced with an exogenous hairpin-like structure. Optionally, the exogenous hairpin-like structure is similar in one or more aspects to the hairpin-like structure that was removed, for example in length, minimum free energy (ΔG), average positional entropy, or secondary structure. Alternatively, the exogenous hairpin-like structure is unlike the hairpin-like structure that was removed, but is similar in one or more ways (e.g. length, minimum free energy (ΔG), average positional entropy, or secondary structure) to another hairpin-like structure in the wild type virus, or a relative of the wild type virus, or the exogenous hairpin-like structure is otherwise a hairpin-like structure as described herein.
At least some of the principles described herein relating to positional entropy may also apply to the lock and dock structures described herein, and in particular to hairpin-like structures within or attached to a lock and dock structure. However, the lock and dock structures are a distinct type of insert since they provide a tertiary structural feature. For example, the GAAA tetraloop of the lock and dock provides a binding motif that induces tertiary folding that is not present in the hairpin-like structures described herein. A lock and dock when analyzed as a whole (i.e. considering the lock and dock and a hairpin-like structure attached to the lock and dock together) may operate with one or more exceptions to the principles described herein. For example, it seems that while lock and dock structures benefit from having an APE as described herein, more clustering of high entropy bases may be tolerated, particularly clustering in the terminal loop region. Individual high entropy bases also seem to be tolerated in the terminal loop region. Lock and dock structures may also be stable with a standard deviation of positional entropies of over 0.4. Optionally, when considering wild type hairpin-like or other structures to determine design principles for exogenous inserts, wild type structures having tertiary interactions or special functions may be excluded from consideration. Alternatively, the principles described herein may be applied separately to a hairpin-like structure attached to a lock and dock. The factors described herein may also be applied separately to a hairpin-like structure included as part of a Y-shaped, V-shape, or T-shaped insert or other insert with a junction.
Similar to umbraviruses, iRNAs do not possess a functional coat protein(s) ORF and/or otherwise encode for any coat protein. In addition, the RNA polymerase of iRNAs is similar to that of umbraviruses. However, unlike umbraviruses, iRNAs do not possess a functional movement protein(s) ORF and/or otherwise encode for any cell-to-cell movement protein(s) or any long-distance movement protein(s) that serves as a stabilization protein for countering nonsense mediated decay.
Conventional viruses lacking coat proteins are generally less stable inside a plant cell given their genomes are vulnerable to the host RNA silencing defense system. However, iRNAs are surprisingly stable in the intracellular environment, which is an important characteristic for an effective vector. iRNAs are also restricted to the inoculated host plant in the absence of a specific helper virus, since without associated virions they are not transmissible by an insect vector. It is believed that iRNAs are encapsidated into virions only when in the presence of a specific helper virus, e.g., such as an enamovirus, including Citrus vein enation virus (CVEV), which is a rarely seen virus in the United States.
In disclosed embodiments, a recombinant plus-sense single stranded RNA vector is provided that comprises a replication element(s) (e.g., a portion(s) of the vector molecule responsible for replication) and a heterologous segment(s). The RNA vectors of the present disclosure are capable of accumulating to high levels in phloem, and are capable of delivering a therapeutic agent(s) such as a protein, a peptide, an antibacterial and/or an insecticide (e.g., siRNAs) directly into the plant tissue. In certain implementations, the RNA vector is derived from an iRNA molecule, which lacks the ability to encode for any coat protein(s) or movement protein(s). For example, the vector is derived from and/or includes structural elements of the iRNA molecule known as Citrus yellow vein associated virus (CYVaV), an unclassified molecule associated with yellow-vein disease of citrus. CYVaV and CYVaV-like RNA molecules are widespread in numerous plants, e.g., including but not limited to limequat citrus, strawberry, hops, switchgrass, corn, hemp, fig trees, prickly pear cactus, and sugarcane. CYVaV and CYVaV-like RNA molecules are generally asymptomatic and without a helper virus in such plants.
Thus, disclosed embodiments provide for an iRNA-based vector built on or derived from a plus-sense single-stranded RNA molecule using genetic components, optionally with inserts that mimic genetic components, from an iRNA molecule, e.g., CYVaV or a relative thereof, for example a Class 2 ulaRNA. In addition, the present disclosure is directed to kits and/or mixtures comprising an iRNA-based (e.g. a CYVaV-based) vector(s). Such mixtures may be in a solid form, such as a dried or freeze-dried solid, or in a liquid, e.g. as aqueous solution, suspension or dispersion, or as gels. Such mixtures can be used to infect a plant, plant tissue or plant cell. Such kits and mixtures may be used for successfully infecting a plant(s) or plant cell(s) with the iRNA-based vectors of the present disclosure and/or for expression of heterologous proteins or delivery of other therapeutic agents to such plant or plant cell(s).
The present disclosure also relates to a plant, plant tissue, or plant cell comprising said iRNA-based vector as disclosed herein, and/or a plant, plant tissue, or plant cell comprising a therapeutic agent or heterologous polypeptide encoded or delivered by said vector. The present disclosure also provides for methods of isolating such heterologous polypeptide from the plant, plant tissue, or plant cell. Methods for isolating proteins from a plant, plant tissue or plant cell are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
CYVaV was found in four limequat trees in the 1950s independent of any helper virus (Weathers, L. (1957), A vein yellowing disease of citrus caused by a graft-transmissible virus, Plant Disease Reporter 41:741-742; Weathers, L. G. (1960), Yellow-vein disease of citrus and studies of interactions between yellow-vein and other viruses of citrus, Virology 11:753-764; Weathers, L. G. (1963), Use of synergy in identification of strain of Citrus yellow vein virus, Nature 200:812-813). Further analysis and sequencing of CYVaV was conducted years later by Georgios Vidalakis (University of California, Davis, CA; GenBank: JX101610). Dr. Vidalakis's lab conducted analysis on samples collected from previously established tree sources (Weathers, L. G. (1963), Use of synergy in identification of strain of Citrus yellow vein virus, Nature 200:812-813) and maintained in the disease bank of the Citrus Clonal Protection Program (CCPP). Studies by the Vidalakis lab to characterize CYVaV were inconclusive. However, many of the infected samples containing CYVaV also contained the enamovirus citrus vein enation virus (CVEV); it was relatively common in the 1950s through 1980s for CCPP personnel to mix infect plants with yellow-vein and vein enation for symptom enhancement.
CYVaV is a small (˜2.7 kb) iRNA molecule composed of a single, positive sense strand of RNA. It replicates to extremely high levels, is very stable, is limited to the phloem, and has no known mechanism of natural spread. As such, CYVaV is ideal as a vector platform for introducing an agent(s) into a plant host, e.g., such as a small RNA (e.g., non-coding RNA molecule of about 50 to about 250 nt in length) and/or proteins for disease and/or pest management. The production of proteins that bolster (or silence) defenses, antimicrobial peptides that target bacterium, and/or small RNAs that target plant gene expression or the insect vectors of disease agents provide an effective management strategy. To be efficacious, the proteins and small RNAs should be produced in sufficient quantities and accumulate to sufficient levels in the phloem, particularly small RNAs designed to be taken up by targeted insects or fungal pathogens.
CYVaV is only transmissible in nature with a helper virus but may be moved from tree to tree by grafting, and has been shown to infect nearly all varieties of citrus with the exception of hearty orange, including but not limited to infecting citron, rough lemon, calamondin, sweet orange, sour orange, grapefruit, Rangpur and West Indian lime, lemon, varieties of mandarin, varieties of tangelo, and kumquat. It produces a yellowing of leaf veins in the indicator citron tree and has no or very mild yellow vein symptoms in sweet orange and other citrus with no reported impact on fruit quality, or otherwise causing harm to trees.
The polynucleotide sequence (bases 1 to 2692) of CYVaV is presented below (SEQ ID NO:1):
aacg
agaaau uugacugggc guugaaaggg gaggaggcug auccucgagc
Relatedness of CYVaV with other viruses including Tombusviridae viruses and umbraviruses is shown in
The polynucleotide sequence of the 3′ end of CYVaV (bases 2468 to 2692) is presented below (SEQ ID NO:2):
The polynucleotide sequence of the 3′ Cap Independent Translation Enhancer (3′ CITE) of CYVaV (bases 2468 to 2551) is presented below (SEQ ID NO:3):
The 3′ end (and 3′ CITE) of CYVaV comprises the following conserved polynucleotide sequence(s) (bolded and underlined above):
The polynucleotide sequence of CYVaV that encodes for protein p21 (bases 9 to 578) is presented below (SEQ ID NO:6):
The amino acid sequence of protein p21 is presented below (SEQ ID NO:7):
The polynucleotide sequence of CYVaV that encodes for protein p81 (bases 752 to 2158) is presented below (SEQ ID NO:8):
The amino acid sequence of protein p81 is presented below (SEQ ID NO:9):
The replication element of CYVaV (e.g., that encodes for protein p81) comprises the following conserved polynucleotide sequence(s) (highlighted and underlined above):
In addition, CYVaV may additionally comprise the following conserved polynucleotide sequence(s) (highlighted and underlined above):
The polynucleotide sequences of recoding frameshift sites of CYVaV (see also
Highly similar iRNAs have also been found in Opuntia (GenBank: MH579715), fig trees, and Ethiopian corn (
The polynucleotide sequence of a similar iRNA identified in a fig tree (sometimes referred to herein as “iRNA relative 1” or “iRNA r1”) is presented below (SEQ ID NO:20):
ug
ugagccucacucaacgcgcgauggacguggcgagugccccucagagauuugugaaacucuauagag
The polynucleotide sequence of an iRNA identified in another fig tree (sometimes referred to herein as “iRNA relative 2” or “iRNA r2”) is presented below (SEQ ID NO:21):
uagcacug
uggggccacauuugacgcgcauuggacgcagacaaugucccuccacagauuugugaaucu
The polynucleotide sequence of an iRNA identified in maize (sometimes referred to herein as “iRNA relative 3” or “iRNA r3”) is presented below (SEQ ID NO:22):
acg
agaaauucgauuggcuccaaaagaaagaacuugcggaucccagagcuauccaaccucggaaaccg
a
aacacuggaguugucgacccgcgagacgugcggcucgaguugucgcuuccccgugaggggggcugcc
Note that iRNA relatives (e.g., iRNA r1, iRNA r2, and iRNA r3) may comprise conserved polynucleotide sequence(s) (bolded and underlined above): auagcacug (SEQ ID NO:4); and/or gauuuguga (SEQ ID NO:5). For example, the iRNA molecule comprises both of conserved polynucleotide sequence(s): auagcacug (SEQ ID NO:4); and gauuuguga (SEQ ID NO:5).
In addition, iRNA relatives (e.g., iRNA r1, iRNA r2, and iRNA r3) may comprise conserved polynucleotide sequence(s) (bolded and underlined above): cguuc (SEQ ID NO:10); gaacg (SEQ ID NO:11); gguuca (SEQ ID NO:12); ggag (SEQ ID NO:13); and/or aaauggga (SEQ ID NO:14). For example, the iRNA molecule comprises all of conserved polynucleotide sequence(s): cguuc (SEQ ID NO:10); gaacg (SEQ ID NO:11); gguuca (SEQ ID NO:12); ggag (SEQ ID NO:13); and aaauggga (SEQ ID NO:14).
Further, iRNA relatives (e.g., iRNA r1, iRNA r2, and iRNA r3) may comprise conserved polynucleotide sequence(s) (bolded and underlined above): ucgacg (SEQ ID NO:15); and/or cuccga (SEQ ID NO:16). The iRNA molecule may comprise both conserved polynucleotide sequence(s): ucgacg (SEQ ID NO:15); and cuccga (SEQ ID NO:16). In some embodiments, the iRNA molecule are highly related to CYVaV (or to iRNA r1, iRNA r2, or iRNA r3), and comprise a polynucleotide sequence having 50%, 60%, 70% or more identity for the recoding site for synthesis of RdRp thereof, e.g., 75% or 85% or 90% or 95% or 98% identify of the RdRp of CYVaV (or of iRNA r1, iRNA r2, or iRNA r3).
Thus, in accordance with disclosed embodiments, an RNA vector (e.g., derived from an iRNA molecule) comprises a frameshift ribosome recoding site for synthesis of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp). In addition, the RNA vector may include a 3′ end comprising a polynucleotide sequence that terminates with three cytidylates ( . . . CCC). The penultimate 3′ end hairpin may also contain three guanylates in the terminal loop ( . . . GGG . . . ). Further, the 3′ CITE includes an extended hairpin or portion thereof that binds to Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4 G (eIF4G) and/or Eukaryotic initiation factor 4F (eIF4F).
In certain embodiments, an RNA vector comprises a 3′CITE comprising conserved sequences auagcacug (SEQ ID NO:4) and gauuuguga (SEQ ID NO:5). The RNA vector may also comprise one or more of the following polynucleotide sequences (conserved sequences of identified iRNA molecules): cguuc (SEQ ID NO:10) and gaacg (SEQ ID NO:11); and/or gguuca (SEQ ID NO:12) and ggag (SEQ ID NO:13); and/or aaauggga (SEQ ID NO:14). Alternatively, or in addition, the RNA vector may comprise one or both of the following polynucleotide sequences (conserved sequences of identified iRNA molecules): ucgacg (SEQ ID NO:15) and cuccga (SEQ ID NO:16).
Identified iRNA relatives all have inserts in the 3′UTR and other nucleotide changes that result in the generation of an ORF that encodes a protein (p21.2) of unknown function. One differentiating characteristic of iRNAs such as CYVaV from any plant virus (
In contrast, PEMV2, as with all umbraviruses, encodes for two movement proteins: p26 (long-distance movement) and p27 (cell-to-cell movement) (
The polynucleotide sequence of PEMV2 is presented below (SEQ ID NO:23):
cccugugccu acagugaugu cucuuugugc ucaguguuag gcucuuaaau uuuagcgaug
gcgugacacg guuacacccu gaauugacag gguacagauc aagggaagcc ggggagucac
caacccaccc ugaaucgaca gggcaaaaag ggaagccggg caccgcccac guggaaucga
ccacgucacc uuuucgcguc gacuaugccg ucaacacccu uucggcccgc cagccuagga
caauggcggu agggaaauau aug
acgauaa ucauuaaugu caauaacgac gagcgcaagc
The polynucleotide sequence of the intergenic plus region of PEMV2 (bolded and underlined above) is presented below (SEQ ID NO:24):
The polynucleotide sequences of recoding frameshift sites of PEMV2 (bases 881 to 1019; see also
CYVaV unexpectedly replicates very efficiently in Arabidopsis thaliana protoplasts despite not encoding p26 (or any other movement protein), which is required for accumulation of PEMV2 because of its ability to also counter NMD (see, e.g., May et al. (2020) “The Multifunctional Long-Distance Movement Protein of Pea Enation Mosaic Virus 2 Protects Viral and Host Transcripts from Nonsense Mediated Decay,” mBio 11:300204-20; https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00204-20). Indeed, CYVaV was unusually stable, much more stable than most traditional viruses. CYVaV also produced an astonishingly high level of p81 in wheat germ extracts, at least 50-fold more than the p94 orthologue from PEMV2 (
CYVaV had no synergistic effect with any other combination of citrus virus tested. Additional studies showed that CVEV may be utilized as a helper virus for CYVaV in order to allow for transmission from tree to tree. CVEV was likely responsible for the presence of CYVaV in the original limequat trees; however, CVEV is known to be very heat sensitive and thus was likely lost from the limequat trees during a hot summer.
CYVaV moved sporadically into upper, uninoculated leaves and accumulated at extremely high levels, sometimes visible by ethidium staining on gels. Symptoms that began in the ninth leaf of the major bolt comprised stunting, leaf curling, and deformation of floral tissue. Leaves in axillary stems also began showing similar symptoms around the same time. This astonishing result demonstrated that CYVaV moves systemically in the absence of any encoded movement protein(s), which is not possible by traditional plant viruses. Experiments showed that CYVaV moves systemically in N. benthamiana and is strictly confined to the phloem, replicating only in companion cells and phloem parenchyma cells. In citrus, CYVaV is 100% graft-transmissible, but difficult to transmit in other forms.
Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of symptomatic leaf tissue and roots confirmed that CYVaV is confined to phloem parenchyma cells, companion cells and sieve elements (
Phloem-limited movement of CYVaV explains why it is readily graft-transmissible, but not easily transmissible by any means. CYVaV lacks any encoded movement protein(s) as noted above. Instead, CYVaV utilizes host plant endogenous movement protein phloem protein 2 (PP2), and the pathway for transiting between companion cells, phloem parenchyma cells, and sieve elements.
In addition, since host range is believed to involve compatible interactions between viral movement proteins and host plasmodesmata-associated proteins, it is believed that CYVaV is capable of transiting through the phloem of numerous other woody and non-woody host plants using PP2 as it is a very conserved host endogenous movement protein(s). As such, CYVaV provides an exceptional model system for examining RNA movement (e.g., in N. benthamiana and/or citrus) and for use as a vector for numerous applications. Experiments confirmed that CYVaV moves systemically in a host plant and is limited to the phloem, and is readily graft-transmissible but not readily transmissible between plants in other forms.
Systemic infection by CYVaV was also observed in tomato, cucumber and melon. Referring to
Citrus trees have a complex reproductive biology due to apomixis and sexual incompatibility between varieties. Coupled with a long juvenile period that can exceed six years, genetic improvement by traditional breeding methods is complex and time consuming. The present disclosure overcomes such problems by providing an iRNA-based (e.g., CYVaV-based) vector engineered to include therapeutic siRNA inserts. iRNAs such as CYVaV are unique among infectious agents given they encode a polymerase yet move like a viroid (small circular non-coding RNA that also uses PP2 as a movement protein), and thus are capable of transiting through plants other than citrus. Thus, in addition to citrus, the iRNA-based vectors of the present disclosure may be developed for other woody plants (e.g., trees and legumes), and in particular olive trees and grapevines.
In accordance with disclosed embodiments, CYVaV is utilized in the development of a vector for delivery of small RNAs and proteins into citrus seedlings and N. benthamiana. The procedure utilized for CYVaV vector development was similar to that utilized by the present inventors for engineering betacarmovirus TCV to produce small RNAs (see Aguado, L. C. et al. (2017), RNase III nucleases from diverse kingdoms serve as antiviral effectors, Nature 547:114-117). Exemplary and advantageous sites for adding one, two, three, or more small RNA inserts designed to be excised by RNase III-type exonucleases were identified. Exemplary sites in the CYVaV molecule for inserts include positions 2250, 2301, 2319, 2330, 2336, 2083 and 2375. A small hairpin was expressed directly from the genome that targets GFP expressed in N. benthamiana plant 16C, which silenced GFP.
In accordance with disclosed embodiments, iRNA vectors disclosed herein may contain small RNA inserts with various functionality including: small RNAs that target an essential fungal mRNA; small RNAs that target an insect for death, sterility, or other incapacitating function; small RNAs that target gene expression in the host plant; small RNAs that target plant pathogenic bacteria; small RNAs that target CTV; and small RNAs that target CVEV (as this virus together with CYVaV causes enhanced yellow-vein symptoms) or other virus pathogen(s). In addition, the disclosed vectors may include other small RNAs and/or therapeutic agents known in the art. Thus, a phloem-restricted iRNA-based vector may be engineered to produce small RNAs that have anti-bacterial and/or anti-fungal and/or anti-insect and/or anti-viral properties, which provides for a superior treatment and management strategy compared to current methodologies.
CYVaV vectors may be applied manually to infected or uninfected trees by cutting into the phloem and depositing the vector either as RNA, or by agroinfiltration, or after encapsidation in the coat protein of CVEV or another virus, following citrus inoculation procedures well known to those of skill in the art, e.g. such as procedures developed and used routinely under the Citrus Clonal Protection Program (CCPP). Such procedures are routine for inoculation of CTV and other graft-transmissible pathogens of citrus. Since CYVaV does not encode a capsid protein, no virions are made and thus no natural tree-to-tree transmission of CYVaV is possible. When CYVaV is encapsidated in CVEV or other viral coat protein, no other component of CVEV or other virus is present.
A plant may be infected with an iRNA-based vector by way of agroinfiltration without cutting onto the phloem, for example by agroinfiltration into the leaves of the plant. An iRNA-based vector is not a mere replicon that, once injected into a plant cell, is not expected to leave the plant cell. The goal of agroinfiltration of an iRNA-based vector into, for example, the leaf of a plant is not to install the iRNA-based vector in plants cells near the agroinfiltration site, but rather to have at least some of the iRNA-based vector reach the plant's vasculature and thereafter move systemically through the plant. Typically, when agroinfiltrated into the leaf of a plant, only a portion of the agroinfiltrated iRNA-based vector will reach the plant vasculature and be effective for infecting the plant. In the case of plants recalcitrant to agroinfiltration, the agroinfiltration may be performed first in a related species more susceptible to agroinfiltration followed by grafting from the more susceptible species to the target species. For example, Citrus limon may be more susceptible to agroinfiltration than various species of orange trees. Alternatively or additionally, a species recalcitrant to agroinfiltration may be pretreated to make them more susceptible to agrofiltration. For example, agroinfiltration into Citrus plants may be facilitated by first inoculating the intended agroinfiltration site with an actively growing culture of Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (Xcc) suspended in water, as described for example in Jia and Wang (2014). Xcc-facilitated agroinfiltration of citrus leaves: a tool for rapid functional analysis of transgenes in citrus leaves. Plant Cell Rep. 33:1993-2001.
When infecting the vasculature of a plant directly, for example by way of contact with a cut in the phloem, the iRNA-based vector may be stabilized with a capsid protein of another type of virus. In some examples, the iRNA-based vector is encapsidated with the coat protein of CVEV, which is believed to be a helper virus able to encapsidate CYVaV in nature. In some examples, one or more iRNA-based vector molecules are encapsidated in a self-assembling capsid protein not naturally associated with CYVaV. For example, methods of assembling capsid protein from cowpea chlorotic mottle virus with RNA molecules of various sizes are described in Cadena-Nava, R. D. et al. (2012), Self-assembly of viral capsid protein and RNA molecules of different sizes: requirement for a specific high protein/RNA mass ratio, J. Virol. 86:3318-3326.
Once a first plant has been infected with an iRNA-based vector, another plant may be infected by grafting a part of the first plant to the other plant, or by injecting sap from the first plant into the other plant, or by linking the phloem of two plants through a parasitic dodder plant. Grafting in particular allows for transferring the iRNA-based vector over long distances and with long periods of time (e.g., one day or more) between cutting the graft from the first plant and adding the graft to the second plant. In some examples, an iRNA-based vector is transferred between strains or species by way of sap taken from a plant of one strain or species and injected into the vasculature of another plant of a different strain or species. In some examples, an iRNA-based vector is transferred between strains or species by way of a graft taken from a plant of one strain or species and grafted to another plant of a different strain or species.
A first plant (optionally called in some cases a mother tree) infected with an engineered iRNA-based vector can be used to produce grafts for transmitting the iRNA-based vector to other plants either as a preventative or to treat an infection already present in the other plant. The first plant can also be used to produce seedlings (for example by grafting from the first tree to seedlings of the first plant or another plant) which are used to propagate plants having the iRNA-based vector. Once in a seedling, the iRNA-based vector replicates and moves through the plant as it grows.
As noted above, CYVaV has only two ORFs: a 5′ proximal ORF that encodes replication-required protein p21; and a frame-shifting extension of p21, whereby a ribosome recoding element allows ribosomes to continue translation, extending p21 to produce p81, the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. The organization of these two ORFs is similar to the organization of similar ORFs in viruses in the Tombusviridae and Luteoviridae. However, all viruses in these families, and indeed in all known plant RNA viruses, encode movement proteins or are associated with a secondary virus that encodes a movement protein(s). The ability to encode movement proteins, or associate with a second virus that encodes a movement protein(s), had long been considered a requirement for movement from cell-to-cell and also for transiting through the phloem to establish a systemic infection. As such, the use of iRNAs as vectors had not been proposed, and indeed iRNA molecules were previously considered unsuitable for use as an independent vector due to the lack of any encoded movement protein and belief that they were not independently mobile.
As such, the capacity for independent systemic movement of iRNAs throughout a plant's phloem despite not coding for or depending on any exogenous movement protein(s) is quite surprising. The CYVaV-based vectors of the present disclosure unambiguously and repeatedly demonstrated (via fluorescence in situ hybridization and other techniques) systemic movement without the aid of any helper virus. Young, un-infiltrated (systemic) tissue displayed highly visible symptoms on N. benthamiana, including leaf galls and root galls. The disclosed vectors utilize endogenous host movement protein(s) for mobility. In this regard, host phloem protein(s) (25 kDa phloem protein 2 (PP2) and/or 26 kDa Cucumis sativus phloem protein 2-like) known to traffic host RNAs into sieve elements (see Balachandran, S. et al. (1997), Phloem sap proteins from Cucurbita maxima and Ricinus communis have the capacity to traffic cell to cell through plasmodesmata, PNAS 94(25):14150-14155; Gomez, G. and Pallas, V. (2004), A long-distance translocatable phloem protein from cucumber forms a ribonucleoprotein complex in vivo with Hop stunt viroid RNA, J Virol 78(18):10104-10110) were likely shown to interact with CYVaV using Northwestern blots in vitro and RNA pull-downs from infected phloem sap in vivo. Thus, since known plant viruses encode (or are dependent on) a movement protein, iRNAs are quite different structurally and functionally from traditional plant viruses.
In addition to CYVaV, other RNAs of similar size and that encode a polymerase may be utilized in the development of similarly structured iRNA-based vectors (see, e.g., Chin, L. S. et al. (1993), The beet western yellows virus ST9-associated RNA shares structural and nucleotide sequence homology with Tombusviruses. Virology 192(2):473-482; Passmore, B. K. et al. (1993), Beet western yellows virus-associated RNA: an independently replicating RNA that stimulates virus accumulation. PNAS 90(31):10168-10172). As noted above, other iRNA relatives (e.g., iRNA r1, iRNA r2, and iRNA r3, identified in Opuntia, Fig trees, and Ethiopian corn, respectively) and that encode proteins p21 and p81 (
Although CYVaV is present in the GenBank database (GenBank: JX101610), iRNAs do not belong to any known classification of virus given they lack cistrons that encode movement proteins. Nor are iRNAs dependent on a helper virus for systemic movement within a host. Moreover, iRNAs lack cistrons that encode coat proteins. iRNAs are also dissimilar to viroids, although both are capable of systemic movement in the absence of encoded movement proteins. Viroids are circular single stranded RNAs that have no coding capacity and replicate in the nucleus or chloroplast using a host DNA-dependent RNA polymerase. The vast majority of the tiny viroid genome, typically including about 300 to 400 nucleotides (nt), is needed for the viroid's unusual existence. In addition, viroids do not code for any proteins, which makes them unsuitable for use as vectors. In contrast, iRNAs code for their own RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp).
iRNAs may be categorized in two classes: a first class is characterized by a frameshift requirement to generate the RdRp and RNA structures proximal to the 3′ end that resemble those of umbraviruses. A second class is characterized by a readthrough requirement to generate the RdRp and 3′ RNA structures that resemble those of Tombusviruses. CYVaV is a member of the first class with properties similar to umbraviruses including a frameshifting recoding site and similar structures at the 3′ end, and similar sequences at the 5′ end. iRNA members of the second class have always been discovered in association with a helper virus.
A recent publication by the inventor(s) herein, Liu et al., Structural Analysis and Whole Genome Mapping of a New Type of Plant Virus Subviral RNA: Umbravirus-Like Associated RNAs, 2021, 13:646, provides another description of iRNAs and/or similar or related RNAs. This entire publication is incorporated herein by reference. This publication refers to such RNA molecules as umbravirus-like associated RNAs (ulaRNAs). The ulaRNAs are divided in this publication into three classes. CYVaV is part of the second class of the ulaRNA taxonomy. iRNA as described herein may include other ulaRNAs, for example other Class 2 ulaRNAs.
Additional ulaRNAs have been located since the publication of the paper described above. Class 1 ulaRNA exhibit frameshifting, do not encode a movement protein, and typically have lengths in the range of 4.0-4.6 kb. Known Class 1 ulaRNA currently include BabVQ (babaco). Class 3 ulaRNA exhibit frameshifting, encode a movement protein and typically have lengths in the range of 3.2-3.5 kb. Known Class 3 ulaRNA currently include SbaVA (strawberry) and WULV (wheat). Class 2 ulaRNA exhibit frameshifting, might or might not encode a movement protein, and typically have lengths in the range of 2.7-3.1 kb. Class 2 ulaRNA may be further divided into monocot and dicot based on the plants that they are found in. Monocot Class 2 ulaRNA encode two proteins after the RdRp. Dicot Class 2 ulaRNA encode 0 or 1 protein after the RdRp. Known monocot class 2 ulaRNA include TULV (teosinte), MULV (corn), JgULV (Johnsongrass), SULV (sugarcane), EMaV-2 (corn) and EMaV-1 (corn). Known dicot ulaRNA include OULV (opuntia), FULV (fig), CYVaV (citrus) (also called CYVaV1 herein), CYVaV-delta (hemp) (alternatively called CYVaV2) and CYVaV-RB. PMeV2 (papaya) and PUV (papaya) were previously classified as umbraviruses prior to the introduction of the term ulaRNA, although they are unlike other umbravirus in that no movement protein ORF has been located in them. PMeV2 and PUV are currently considered to be Class 1 ulaRNA.
ulaRNA have two ORFs related to replication. Some ulaRNA also have an ORF related to putative movement proteins. An additional embedded ORF in monocot-infecting Class 2 ulaRNAs is of unknown function. The ORF of some ulaRNA have motifs that are similar to movement proteins in other viruses. ORF5 present in Class 2 ulaRNA have consensus motifs of one class of viral movement proteins. ORF 5-1 in Class 3 ulaRNA has a consensus motif of a different movement protein class. However, both CYVaV-Delta and Opuntia are able to infect N. benthamiana plants with ORF 5 expression suppressed. Infection of CYVaV-Delta decreases without ORF5 expression, but OULV infection increases without ORF5 expression. The function of ORF5 is thus not entirely certain.
It is expected that more ulaRNA will be identified in the future and can also be used as described herein. ulaRNAs are the only viruses other than umbraviruses that do not encode a coat protein. Accordingly, ulaRNAs may be identified by the absence of an open reading frame (ORF) that encodes a coat protein and that they are not an umbravirus. Further, if ulaRNAs have an ORF that encodes a movement protein, this ORF is adjacent to or overlapping with the RdRp. In comparison, movement proteins of umbraviruses are separated from their RdRp. Accordingly, ulaRNAs may be identified by their absence of an ORF encoding a coat protein and that their ORF encoding a movement protein, if any, is adjacent to or overlapping with the ORP encoding the RdRp. All ulaRNA located to date also do note encode a silencing suppressor, which may be used as a further characteristic to identify a ulaRNA. Future ulaRNA may also be identified by their similarity with known ulaRNA using taxonomic methods known in the art.
iRNAs and ulaRNAs provide a number of benefits as compared to conventional viral vectors. For example, iRNAs and ulaRNAs are relatively small, making them easier to structurally and functionally map and genetically manipulate. In contrast, viruses such as CTV are 8-fold larger, making them more cumbersome to use as a vector. iRNAs can replicate and accumulate to unexpectedly high levels (e.g., visible by ethidium staining on gels and 4% of reads by RNAseq), which is critical for the vector's ability to deliver a sufficient amount of therapeutic agent(s) into the target plant. In addition, iRNAs and ulaRNAs are much more stable than many viruses despite not encoding a coat protein or silencing suppressor (
iRNAs and ulaRNAs are also limited to the host's phloem, which is especially useful for targeting pathogens that either reside in, or whose carriers feed from, or whose symptoms accumulate in, the phloem since the payload will be targeted to where it is most needed. By moving independent of movement proteins in at least some examples (whose interactions with specific host proteins is the primary factor for determining host range), iRNAs and ulaRNAs are able to transit within a broader range of hosts, thereby increasing the applicability of a single vector platform. Given the lack of coat protein expression and the dispensability of a helper virus for systemic plant infection, iRNAs and ulaRNAs cannot be vectored from plant-to-plant and instead are introduced directly into the phloem via grafting. The lack of a coat protein prevents formation of infectious particles and thus unintended reversion to wild type infectious agents into the environment. This is particularly beneficial for streamlining regulatory approval as regulators are often concerned with the possible uncontrolled transmission of introduced biological agents.
iRNAs and ulaRNAs are also virtually benign in citrus, unlike viruses like CTV whose isolates can be highly pathogenic. Using a common virus as a vector, such as CTV, runs the risk of superinfection exclusion, where trees previously infected and/or exposed to that virus are not able to be additionally infected by the same virus acting as the vector (e.g., most citrus trees in the USA are infected with CTV). Thus, avoiding superinfection exclusion, at a minimum, requires additional steps to the process that makes it more expensive and cumbersome.
The present disclosure also provides for novel therapeutic, prophylactic, or trait enhancing inserts that are engineered into the iRNA or ulaRNA vector. A variety of inserts are provided, including inserts that target a particular pathogen, an insect, or a manifestation of the disease(s). Alternatively, or in addition, inserts are provided that strengthen or improve plant health and/or enhance desired characteristics of the plant.
The disclosed infectious agents are capable of accumulation and systemic movement throughout the host plant, and can thus deliver therapies throughout a host over a substantial time period. Characteristics of the disclosed agents are therefore highly beneficial for treating numerous specific diseases. Using an infectious agent composed of either RNA or DNA has an additional advantage of being able to code for therapeutic proteins or peptides that would be expressed within infected cells and/or by engineering the infectious agent to contain a specific sequence or cleavable portion of its genetic material to serve as an RNA-based therapeutic agent.
Products with antimicrobial properties against plant pathogens can take a number of formats and are produced through ribosomal (defensins and small bacteriocins) or non-ribosomal synthesis (peptaibols, cyclopeptides and pseudopeptides). The best known are over 900 cationic antimicrobial peptides (CAPs), such as lactoferrin or defensin, which are generally less than 50 amino acids and whose antimicrobial properties are well known in the art. CAPs are non-specific agents that target cell walls generally, with reported effects against bacteria and fungi. CTV engineered with an insert designed to express defensin has received approval for release by the USDA in Florida, but its widespread efficacy is unknown. Moreover, the isolate of CTV used for the vector makes it unsuitable for trees growing in some regions (e.g., California).
RNA therapies that target virus pathogens are also in widespread development in plants. These therapies use non-coding small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), which are generated from the genome of the plant, and thus include genetic modification of the host. In addition to negative viewpoints of some growers and consumers to genetic modification of citrus trees, the length of time to generate genetically modified trees is measured in decades and may ultimately not have the same attributes (texture/color/taste) as varieties developed over decades, and thus is not a solution to current, time sensitive agricultural diseases, in addition to being very expensive to develop and potentially impacting the quality of the fruit.
siRNAs can be used to target bacteria in plants, for example the Candidus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas) bacteria. Plant pathogenic bacteria can be targeted using siRNAs that are produced in plants, taken up by the bacteria, and directly reprogram gene expression in the bacteria as described for example by Singla-Rastogi et al. (2019) Plant small RNA species direct gene silencing in pathogenic bacteria as well as disease protection, bioRxiv preprint post, Dec. 3, 2019, doi: https://www.biorxiv. org/content/10.1101/863902v1. In some implementations, CYVaV or another iRNA based vector is provided that contains siRNA hairpins that target a bacteria such as Candidus liberibacter asiaticus and render the bacteria non-pathogenic. For example, an siRNA hairpin provided to a plant by an iRNA based vector may be taken up the CLas or another bacteria in the plant and control gene expression in the bacteria, thereby killing the bacteria and/or inhibiting an increase of the bacterial population. Compared to an enzybiotic which might have, for example, about 500 bases, an siRNA in the form of a hairpin is considerably smaller (<60 bases) and is more likely to be stable in an iRNA based vector.
It is commonly believed that bacteria do not take up siRNA. However, Singla-Rastogi et al. (2019) describes examples in which small interfering RNA targeted against some specific genes were taken up by Pseudomonas syringae and cause a 50% reduction in the population of Pseudomonas syringae. The inventors have confirmed that the conventional belief is at least partially correct. For example, in experiments conducted by the inventors, E. coli did not take up siRNA. However, as described in the examples herein, small RNA are taken up by some bacteria. In particular, bacteria are taken up by Pseudomonas syringae, Erwinia amylovora and Liberibacter crescens. These three bacteria are all gram negative bacteria that infect plants. However, since these three bacteria are otherwise unrelated to each other, they indicate that small RNA can be taken up by bacteria that infect plants generally, or at least by gram negative bacteria that infect plants. P. syringae is a plant pathogen that causes, for example, bacterial canker in almond trees. Erwinia amylovora is a plant pathogen that causes, for example, fire blight in apple trees, pear trees and some other trees in the Rosaceae family. Liberibacter crescens is a relative of Liberibacter asiaticus and, based on their experiments with Liberibacter crescens, the inventors believe that Liberibacter asiaticus will also take up small RNA.
The small RNA used to control bacteria (i.e. to make bacteria non-pathogenic or kill bacteria) may be less 60 nt, less than 50 nt, less than 40 nt, less than 30 nt, less than 25 nt. The small RNA used to control bacteria may be more than 10 nt or more than 20 nt. The small RNA used to control bacteria may be in the range of 21-24 nt. Longer RNA, for example 100 nt, were not taken up by bacteria in the experiments described herein.
An siRNA is typically designed to be a complement to a part of RNA or DNA associated with the target organism intended to be treated or controlled by the siRNA (“specific siRNA”). For example, as shown in the examples herein, Pseudomonas syringae, Envinia amylovora and Liberibacter crescens can all be controlled by small RNA that are complements of genes (including complements of messenger RNA) of the bacteria. In particular, these bacteria were controlled, for example by 1000 fold reductions in their population in infected plants, by specific siRNA that complement the adenylate kinase (ADK) or gyrase subunit A (GyrA) genes of the bacteria.
Sequences for growth inhibition of Envinia amylovora in vitro and in vivo are presented below. Two Envinia genes were targeted: MurA and GyrA.
The inventors have discovered, however, that some bacteria take up, and can be controlled by, small RNA that are not a complement to any DNA or RNA associated with the bacteria (non-specific siRNA). For example, in relation to the three bacteria mentioned above, Envinia amylovora appears to be affected only by specific siRNA. Pseudomonas syringae, however, can be controlled by either specific siRNA or non-specific siRNA. The presence of non-specific siRNA does not kill the Pseudomonas syringae bacteria but causes them to be smaller and inhibits an increase in their population (see
In some examples described herein, the small RNA used to control bacteria were in the range of 21-24 nt. This size is significant because the RNA silencing mechanism of a plant produces an abundance of 21-24 nt small RNA. Further, the transitive silencing mechanism of a plant causes the replication of small RNA into large double stranded RNA, which are then broken into numerous 21-24 nt small RNA. Thus, the effect of the 21-24 nt RNA used in the experiments suggests that small RNA produced by RNA silencing or transitive silencing by the plant itself may also control bacteria.
The polynucleotide sequence for the inserts of exemplary CYVaV constructs (CYm2250LD1pstGYR3-34sh and CYm2250LD1pstADK327-356sh) that target Gyrase A and Adenylate kinase, respectively, are presented below, wherein the lock and dock (LD1) sequence is shown in lowercase and underlined, and the siRNA small hairpin sequence is shown in uppercase.
gcgatatggattcagggactCGCCGTTGATGACGAAGAAATCGTCAAGCG
aaactttgtgtcctaagtcgc
gcgatatggattcagggactGGGCGAACTGGCCAAAGAAATCCTCCCGGT
aaactttgtgtcctaagtcgc
Bacterial gene sequences targeted by siRNA are presented below. Gene sequences of P. syringae tabaci_Gyrase subunit A (Pst_GY), P. syringae tabaci_Adenylate Kinase (Pst-ADK), and GFPuv were utilized for specific siRNA targets are presented below (wherein sequences underlined in solid line are forward primers for dsRNA synthesis, and sequences underlined in dashed line are reverse primers for dsRNA synthesis)
atgcgcatgattctgctaggagctcccggggccggtaaaggtactcaggcaaaattcatcac
tgttaatgggcacaaattttctgtcagtggagagggtgaaggtgatgcaacatacggaaaac
Since CYVaV and other iRNA do not have a silencing suppressor, the silencing mechanism and/or transitive silencing mechanism of a plant infected with CYVaV or another iRNA produces numerous non-specific siRNA. This suggests that infection of a plant by a virus, in particular by CYVaV or another iRNA, will cause the plant to produce abundant non-specific siRNA, which may control certain bacteria in the plant. In particular, bacterial canker in almond trees, or other disease caused by P. syringae, can be treated by infecting the plant with a virus tolerated by the plant such as CYVaV or another iRNA. In another example, citrus greening can be treated by infecting the plant with a virus tolerated by the plant such as CYVaV or another iRNA.
The wild type CYVaV or other iRNA alone may be sufficient to control the bacterial infection. Alternatively, CYVaV or other iRNA may be engineered to also include a specific siRNA to enhance. In another alternative, the CYVaV or other iRNA may be engineered to also include an siRNA or other insert that enhances the transitive silencing response of the plant. For example, CTV is widespread in citrus trees. CYVaV or other iRNA with an insert that complements a region of the CTV sequence, may be used to vaccinate or treat a citrus tree to inhibit or treat citrus greening. The CYVaV or other iRNA with an insert that complements a region of the CTV sequence would also be useful to inhibit or treat CTV infection in the same citrus trees.
Recently, highly targeted anti-bacterial enzymes have been developed for use in animals and humans as a replacement for current antibiotics. These enzymes are engineered from bacteriophage lysis proteins and are known as enzybiotics. As with the parental bacteriophage proteins, enzybiotics can lyse bacterial cell walls on contact, but are designed to be used external to both gram positive and gram negative bacteria. Enzybiotics are engineered to lyse only targeted bacterium, leaving other members of the microbiome unaffected. In some implementations, an iRNA vector is provided that includes a non-coding RNA insert that can be translated into an anti-bacterial protein like an enzybiotic.
In some implementations, an iRNA vector is provided that includes an RNA insert that interferes with the functionality of the insect vector at issue. Insects have an RNA silencing system similar to plants; small RNAs ingested by insects are taken up into cells and target critical mRNAs for degradation or blockage of translation within the insect. In some embodiments, a targeted insert is provided that is capable of silencing a critical reproductive function of the insect vector, resulting in sterilization of the insect. Of particular relevance are phloem-feeding insects that transmit phloem-limited pathogens, where a non-coding RNA insert into a phloem-limited vector is readily taken up by feeding insects.
In some implementations, an iRNA vector is provided that includes a non-coding RNA insert that targets a plant response to a pathogen. In some cases, bacteria deposited into a tree by an insect vector does not directly damage the tree. However, the host tree produces excessive callose in their phloem in order to isolate the bacteria, which can ultimately restrict the flow of photoassimilates and kill the tree. Thus, the RNA insert silences and/or depresses such callose production.
In some implementations, an iRNA vector is provided that includes a non-coding RNA insert that targets a virus, for example CTV. In some implementations, an iRNA vector is provided that includes a non-coding RNA insert that is taken up by a pathogenic bacteria or fungus making the non-coding RNA available to silence a critical function within the pathogen that can kill or reduce the virulence of that pathogen to its host.
In some implementations, an iRNA-based vector, e.g., an iRNA vector that includes a non-coding RNA insert, is grafted into rootstocks or seedlings in order to provide protection against a pathogen or in order to make that rootstock or seedling more robust. For example, planting citrus trees on sour orange root stock can be advantageous since trees grown on sour orange rootstock are, among other things, less affected by HLB than trees grown on many other rootstocks. The sour orange rootstock is also tolerant of a wide range of growing conditions. However, sour orange rootstock is also highly susceptible to CTV and many citrus growers abandoned sour orange rootstock after CTV outbreaks. Introducing an iRNA based vector adapted to target CTV into sour orange rootstock thereby produces rootstock that is tolerant to both CTV and HLB. The iRNA-based vector can be introduced into the sour orange rootstock, for example, by grafting a scion containing the iRNA based vector to the rootstock or by grafting a part of plant containing the iRNA-based vector to the rootstock or to a scion grafted to the rootstock. In some examples, seedlings are produce having sour orange rootstock, a scion of sour orange or another citrus species, and the iRNA-based vector containing a heterologous element that targets CTV. In some implementations, the heterologous element is a hairpin or single-stranded sequence, which includes a sequence complimentary to (though not necessarily exactly the same as) a sequence conserved within one or more strains of CTV.
Enhanced Stabilization: The ability to achieve a sufficiently stable insert in a viral vector has eluded prior researchers due in part to a lack of expertise in RNA structure. Some researchers attempted to use an empirical trial-by-error approach to choose insert locations, but without a sufficient understanding of the effect of the insert on the stability of the vector. In accordance with the present disclosure, the core principles behind what makes inserts stable were investigated and utilized to optimize the process of insert location and structure. First, an excellent correlation was discovered between vector instability and numerous structural alterations throughout the viral genome as assayed by SHAPE structure probing, which results in poor in vitro translation of the polymerase that requires a −1 ribosomal frameshift. The following hypothesis was then tested: what if RNA viruses can discern “self” from “non-self” ? In other words, what if RNA viruses have evolved their genomes such that every portion of the genome is maximally structured to support the most fit virus? This implies that every hairpin emanating from the genomic RNA nucleic acid “backbone” is maximally stable for its size and shape and properly configured for a successful virus.
It was determined that the insertion of haphazard hairpins whose design is based solely on siRNA generation, and which do not resemble in length, structure and/or stability endogenous, evolved hairpins, stresses and destabilizes the entire structure of a viral genome. Since RNA viral genomes are dynamic, with active and inactive structures precisely balanced to control key viral functions like frameshifting, destabilizing the genome can have adverse repercussions that are relieved if the inserts are deleted through recombination. If the genome contains foreign structures, the deletion or removal of inserts or portions thereof (e.g., replicase-mediated events) will eventually occur, thereby leading to the non-functionality of the commercial RNA vector product. Such deletion and/or removal of inserts or portions thereof increases the possibility of generating a more fit virus (though not necessarily functioning to target the desired pathogens/host gene expression), as the virus with a destabilizing insert is more poorly fit.
Following from the proposed hypothesis, designing inserts that “mimic” the structure (i.e., length and/or the size and location of looped or non-base-paired regions) and/or stability (i.e., the ΔG) of endogenous hairpins (which optionally include hairpin-like structures and structures with multiple hairpins or hairpin structures) should increase stability of the insert within the vector, particularly when inserted into suitable locations. Mimicked hairpins are designed by using the sequence of interest (i.e., an siRNA) as some or all of one side, for example the 5′ side, of the hairpin and an artificial sequence on the other side, for example the 3′ side, that provides the corresponding nucleotides for the base-pairs and loops, resulting in a structure that mimics an endogenous (natural) hairpin at some location on the wild-type vector or a related wild-type vector. A mimic insert may be inserted in the same location, i.e., as a replacement for the wild-type hairpin that was mimicked. Alternatively, a mimic insert may be inserted into a different location, with the wild-type hairpin either retained or deleted, if not required for viability of the vector.
In accordance with the present disclosure, hairpin inserts were engineered to have a structure that mimics the structure of a natural endogenous hairpin structure of the vector of interest or a relative thereof (e.g., a CYVaV vector having an insert that mimics a hairpin structure of CYVaV or another ulaRNA, for example a Class 2 ulaRNA such as OULV). As noted above, providing and maintaining stability of sequences inserted into the CYVaV vector, which are subsequently converted into siRNAs when the RNA virus vector is targeted by the RNA silencing defense system in infected plants, raises various challenges. While some insertions are randomly more stable than others (i.e., the inserts remain in the vector for a longer time), little was previously understood about parameters required for stabilization. Solving the secondary structure of the CYVaV vector revealed an extremely compact structure with few extensive single-stranded regions, which would generally be considered the most suitable locations for making insertions. Various locations (noted above) were identified for accepting particular hairpin inserts (e.g., that targeted nuclear-encoded GFP), although other hairpin structures had different stabilities in all of these particular locations. Thus, producing a vector that allows for little or no discernable insert loss (e.g., assayed first by PCR and then by sequencing the cloned population after four to six weeks) proved difficult. This indicated that these hairpins decreased the fitness of the vector and that deletion of almost all (but not precisely all as surrounding vector sequences could also be deleted) or part of the insert increased fitness.
Intuitively, the more stable the structure of the hairpin insert (i.e., the higher or ‘more negative’ the ΔG), the less it should interfere with important viral structures (generally thought to be the reason for vector instability), providing that the polymerase is still able to melt the hairpin during replication. Surprisingly, it was discovered that the opposite is true (see
In accordance with disclosed embodiments, hairpin inserts are engineered to mimic the structure (i.e., the overall length and the location of paired and unpaired “loop” regions) and/or sequence and/or ΔG of natural hairpin structures found in the vector molecule of interest. The utilization of such mimic hairpin(s) results in an extremely stable RNA hairpin insert(s) in an RNA virus vector, which remains stable for an extended period of time, preferably at least one year, or at least three years, or at least five years, or 5-10 years or more (e.g., for the life of the host plant). Thus, the disclosed methods and structures are suitable for producing commercial products in which the vector is capable of generating anti-pathogenic or other efficacious siRNAs for many years, if not for the productive lifespan of a host tree.
An RNA vector (e.g., CYVaV vector) including such mimic hairpins exhibited substantially increased stability as compared to a vector that included a hairpin structure that did not mimic the natural hairpin structure. The structure and sequence of a natural hairpin was determined; a mimic hairpin having a substantially similar structure and/or sequence and/or ΔG to the natural hairpin was then inserted into the vector molecule. Studies demonstrated that vectors possessing such mimic hairpin(s) inserted at the same location as the corresponding natural hairpin(s) (i.e., replacing the natural hairpin(s) at such location) were stable. Further studies demonstrated that vectors possessing such mimic hairpin(s) inserted at one or more different locations from the corresponding natural hairpin(s), but possessing substantially the same structure(s) and/or sequence(s) and/or ΔG as compared to the natural hairpin(s), were stable. It was found that hairpin structures having relatively conserved sequences across iRNAs (e.g., CYVaV and relatives thereof, other RNA molecules having least 50% or at least 70% identity with CYVaV) were particularly suitable as mimic hairpin structures. However, it was also found that a wild-type hairpin structure in a CYVaV relative, for example another Class 2 ulaRNA such as OULV, could be used to design a stable CYVaV insert even if the wild-type hairpin structure is not present in CYVaV. In some examples, an insert has a ΔG within 10 kcal/mol (plus or minus, or in a range of −5 to +15), or within 5 kcal/mol, or within 2 kcal/mol of the ΔG of a wild-type hairpin structure. Preferably, the insert structure is as close as possible (or slightly below) the hairpin being mimicked.
Referring to
Mimicked hairpins were inserted in one of three different locations, either singly or with a second mimic hairpin. All tested structures were extremely stable, including constructs including two inserts (see
Referring to
ggaagugauggacgaaauuaauga
uuccauaacuggaacauuacauuucg
The first 24 nt of Mmck6.1, shown in bold above, are an siRNA sequence targeted at CTV. Insert CS7-V2.2 is a targeted against the callose synthase gene of the host plant. The sequence of CS7-V2.2 is (SEQ ID NO:76):
gguaucaaugggcagacgaagauuuggcauaacugccaaucuuccgucug
The first 27 nt of CS7-V2.2, shown in bold above, are an siRNA sequence targeted at the callose synthase gene of N. benthamiana.
The (relatively) unstable insert shown in Panel D is CY2301GFP30sh, a conventional (i.e. fully base-paired) hairpin which is also shown in
As demonstrated by the disclosed data, the mimic hairpin inserts are extremely stable within the vector (e.g., a CYVaV-based vector) and thus are particularly well suited for use as a vector, for example a VIGS vector, for targeting pathogens and endogenous gene expression to control diseases in long lived plants. As known in the art, VIGS is a post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS)-based technique that exploits the natural defense mechanisms employed by plants to protect against a viral pathogen. See, e.g., Pantaleo et al. (2007) Molecular Bases of Viral RNA Targeting by Viral Small Interfering RNA-Programmed RISC, J Virol 81(8):3797-3806; Ramegowda et al. (2014) Virus-induced gene silencing is a versatile tool for unraveling the functional relevance of multiple abiotic-stress-responsive genes in crop plants, Plant Genetics and Genomics, Vol. 5, Art. 323; Mei et al. (2016) A Foxtail mosaic virus Vector for Virus-Induced Silencing in Maize, Plant Physiol 171:760-772).
Conventional VIGS vectors have not been suitable for long-lived trees. Viruses have relatively limited host ranges, requiring the need to develop a different virus vector for each tree or vine (and sometimes requiring more than one virus vector for the same crop). As such, the cost for the development and approval of a virus that infects a single or limited crop type may be prohibitive. In addition, any virus utilized as a vector should be relatively mild or asymptomatic, thus eliminating numerous viruses as suitable vectors. In addition, sequences inserted into conventional viral vectors are generally unstable, with the insert typically remaining intact only for several days or weeks. However, stability is needed for many years for some hosts such as tree and vine crops.
CYVaV and CYVaV-like molecules are particularly well suited for use as a VIGS vector, or vector having an siRNA or other insert, particularly for use in treating tree and vine pathogens requiring long-term stability. CYVaV exhibits an exceptionally wide host range due to its lack of endogenous movement proteins and use of host movement proteins and little or no detrimental symptoms to the host, may be engineered to include extremely stable inserted sequences, and rarely (if ever) unintentionally spread from plant to plant. In addition, CYVaV does not encode any RNA silencing suppressor.
Reverse Fitness Engineering: In accordance with the present disclosure, a stable parental structure of an RNA vector (for example an RNA virus) is optionally modified in combination with adding a heterologous element. In some embodiments, the modification may include a structurally stabilizing modification and/or a structurally de-stabilizing modification (e.g., converting G:U pairs to G:C pairs in the parental structure). In some examples, the modification may include truncating a hairpin of the parental structure. In some examples, the modification may include inserting a scaffold into the parental structure. One or more of these examples may be combined. Without intending to be limited by theory, these modifications produce a structure that is more fit for one or more process in the infection cycle when a heterologous element is added then when the heterologous element is deleted. The RNA vector with intact heterologous element thereby replicates in greater numbers than any copies wherein the heterologous element is deleted. While described herein in relation to iRNA-based vectors used to treat plants, it is expected that these techniques may be applied to other RNA vector and used to treat plants or other organisms such as animals.
In some implementations, methods of engineering mimic hairpin structures in the vector are used in combination with methods of engineering “reverse fitness” into the vector in order to minimize or prevent the possibility that should the mimic hairpin(s) or portions thereof be lost, the remaining vector will thrive or dominate in the population. Reverse fitness engineering techniques provide an optional characteristic, given even inserts stabilized using the disclosed hairpin mimic process could still potentially be inadvertently lost in rare events and/or over an extended period of time. Such loss of insert(s) could generate a vector similar or substantially identical to the wild-type vector, which has evolved for millions of years to be a very fit molecule. Thus, in the absence of reverse fitness, the engineered structure, if it were to lose an insert, could otherwise dominate in the population over time. The engineering techniques disclosed herein substantially minimize or eliminate such adverse though rare possibility. Since the mimic inserts are extremely stable, adding a reverse fitness modification is not required to produce a useful vector but optionally may be added. Similar reverse fitness modifications may also optionally be used with other types of inserts or heterologous segments.
Given the low fidelity and high error rate of RNA virus replication, viruses evolve very rapidly. The most fit virus will eventually predominate within a population infecting a particular host under a specific set of environmental conditions. Over many years of research, a substantial number of alterations in different viruses and subviral RNAs have been generated. In all cases except one, the altered virus was less fit than the WT virus in direct competition assays. (In one exception involving a single base change, the mutant was equally fit as compared to the WT). The data indicates that, even though the disclosed mimic hairpin inserts in the vector constructs are extremely stable, chance recombination events may occur over time that could potentially eliminate the insert(s) and result in a more parental-looking vector with increased fitness. The structure resulting from such chance events could replace the therapeutic vector including the mimic inserts as the dominant species accumulating in the host (e.g., plants or trees). Given that some hosts such as trees may potentially live for hundreds of years with countless viral amplification events producing progeny, in some cases it may be useful to provide an exceptional level of stability for viral vectors to remain the dominant variant. In order to provide such stability, vectors including the mimic inserts were engineered to be more fit than the vector if the insert or a portion thereof is lost. In order to achieve such fitness level, hairpin mimics were inserted into a vector that contains additional alterations (i.e., in addition to the mimic hairpins) that increase fitness in the presence of the mimic inserts relative to fitness in the absence of the mimic inserts.
We discovered the specifics of how to engineer reverse fitness when we solved the active, intermediate, and inactive structures for the WT CYVaV −1PRF recoding site (the site where −1 programmed ribosomal frameshifting takes place leading to synthesis of the polymerase), and found that these structures differed slightly between CYVaV and all other Class 2 umbravirus-like (ula)RNAs. A primary difference between CYVaV and other Class 2 ulaRNAs is the presence of two natural inserts in other ulaRNA (
It was hypothesized that when WT CYVaV lost the inserts found in other Class 2 ulaRNAs, changes were needed to rebalance the stability of the active and inactive recoding structures so that the proper amount of polymerase is made, which is critical for virus fitness (
Referring to Table 1 below, alterations were made in WT CYVaV (no inserts). i2631A and U664C stabilize the inactive structure. Stabilizing the active structure (to rebalance the two structures) then requires A652G to reform a required pseudoknot with U664C, and A604U. Other mutations that destabilize the inactive structure and compensate for i2631A or U664C may also be used.
Results for experiments comparing the effect of mutations on WT CYVaV and CYVaV containing a partially stable, non-mimic hairpin insert are shown in Table 2 below. Note that for all of these combinations, the vector+non-mimic insert generates more p81 polymerase. The bottom two combinations are very detrimental for translation of only WT CYVaV.
Based on these data, and our understanding of the effect of the mutations on the balance between inactive and active recoding structures and the likely contribution of the mimic hairpins to this balance (destabilizing the inactive structure), the disclosed combination of mutations result in more stable vector+mimic inserts as compared to the vector containing the mutations but lacking the mimic inserts or portions thereof. These alterations may also be added to the disclosed vector+two mimic hairpins.
Additional characteristics and features of the present disclosure will be further understood through reference to the following additional examples and discussion, which are provided by way of further illustration and are not intended to be limiting of the present disclosure.
CYVaV Structure. Full length structure of CYVaV was determined by SHAPE structure probing and phylogenetic comparisons with the CYVaV relatives in Opuntia, Fig and Corn (
The genome organization of CYVaV exhibits some similarities to other RNA molecules, particular PEMV2 (
CYVaV is encapsidated in virions of CVEV. CYVaV or CVEV or CYVaV+CVEV were agroinfiltrated into leaves of N. benthamiana. CYVaV was encapsidated in virions of CVEV, and virions were isolated one week later and the encapsidated RNAs subjected to PCR analysis (see
CYVaV is phloem-limited. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) imaging clearly detected plus strands of CYVaV, which was completely restricted to the sieve elements, companion cells and phloem parenchyma cells (
CYVaV does not encode a silencing suppressor. N. benthamiana 16C plants were agroinfiltrated with a construct expressing GFP (which is silenced in these plants) and either constructs expressing CYVaV p21 or p81, or constructs expressing known silencing suppressors p19 (from TBSV) or p38 (from TCV) (
Replication of CYVaV in Arabidopsis protoplasts. An infectious clone of CYVaV was generated. Wild-type RNA transcripts (CYVaV) or transcripts containing a mutation in the recoding slippery site that eliminates the synthesis of the RdRp (CYVaV-fsm), and thus does not replicate, were inoculated onto Arabidopsis protoplasts. RNA was extracted and a Northern blot performed 30 hours later. Note that inoculated transcripts of CYVaV-fsm were still present in the protoplasts at 30 hours (whereas in a traditional virus they would be undetectable after 4 hours).
Replication of CYVaV in N. benthamiana. Level of CYVaV accumulating in the infiltrated leaves of N. benthamiana was determined by Northern blot (
Symptoms of N. benthamiana systemically infected with CYVaV. Leaves 4 and 5 were agroinfiltrated with CYVaV. The first sign of a systemically infected plant is a “cupped” leaf (
CYVaV demonstrates an exceptional host range. Sap from a systemically-infected N. benthamiana plant was injected into the petiole of tomato (
CYVaV binds to a highly abundant protein extracted from the phloem of cucumber. Labelled full-length CYVaV binds to a prominent protein as demonstrated in the Northwestern blot (
Referring to
PP2 is believed to be involved with the movement or viroids but has not been reported to be involved in the coating or movement of any virus. Similarly, in the results described above, PP2 did not bind to PEMV2 in the sap of the plant. Without intending to be limited by theory, we believe that PP2 bound to CYVaV in the sap of a plant may also be responsible for the movement of CYVaV. While the early reports of CYVaV suggest that CYVaV does not move within a plant without a helper virus (CVEV) providing a movement protein, we have demonstrated that CYVaV moves systemically within a plant without a helper virus. However, a helper virus may still be required in nature for encapsidation to allow CYVaV to leave the phloem of a host plant and travel to another plant. In other experiments similar to the description above, CYVaV appears to bind to PP2 in the sap of tomato and melon plants. PP2 is found in essentially all plants and may allow iRNA-based vectors to move in, and systemically infect, a wide range of host plants.
CYVaV can express an extra protein from its 3′UTR using a TEV IRES. Location of three separate inserts of nanoluciferase downstream of the Tobacco etch virus (TEV) internal ribosome entry site (IRES) were identified (
Exemplary locations for stable hairpin inserts at positions 2250, 2301 and 2319 were evaluated. The location for each of the inserts falls within an exemplary region noted above (see
The sequences of the insertion regions (underlined below and as shown in
tccgtgccgacgccac
A. iRNA-Based or ulaRNA-Based Vector Platform
In one embodiment, an iRNA-based or ulaRNA-based vector is provided for treating disease in the citrus industry caused by CLas bacteria (HLB). An isolate of CYVaV is utilized as a vector to target both the bacteria and the psyllid insects that deliver the bacteria into the trees. As discussed above, CYVaV is limited to the phloem where it replicates and accumulates to extremely high levels comparable to the best plant viruses. In addition, its relatively small size makes it exceptionally easy to genetically engineer. Thus, consideration of the structure and biology of CYVaV aided in the development of this novel infectious agent as a vector and model system for phloem transit.
The structure of the 3′UTR of CYVaV was determined based on SHAPE RNA structure mapping (
Certain sites have been identified for potential inserts in the 3′ UTR and the RdRp ORF that can accommodate RNA hairpins, e.g., for generation of siRNAs that target feeding insects, sites that accommodate reporter ORFs and still allow for replication of an engineered CYVaV in agro-infiltrated N. benthamiana, and sites that trigger high level translation of reporter proteins in vitro. An engineered CYVaV incorporating the added ORF and siRNAs is introduced into a storage host tree, and then pieces thereof are usable for straight-forward introduction into field trees by grafting. Given the rarity of CYVaV (to date, it has only been identified in the four limequat trees by Weathers in the 1950s), there is little risk of superinfection exclusion.
Various insert locations were identified wherein replication or translation properties of the vector were not significantly reduced or eliminated. Insert locations adversely affecting such properties (likely due to disrupting the RNA structure or other important aspect of the CYVaV vector) were not pursued further. Four exemplary insert locations on the CYVaV-based vector were identified at positions 2250, 2301, 2319 and 2331. Alternatively or additionally, inserts may be located at positions 2330, 2336 and/or 2375. 50 nt hairpin inserts were successfully deployed in these locations with no disruption to translation in vitro or replication in protoplasts and CYVaV was able to move systemically in N. benthamiana.
Although CYVaV has no additional ORFs, both genomic (g)RNA and a subgenomic (sg)RNA of about 500 nt are detectable using probes to plus- and minus-strands. Investigation of the region that should contain an sgRNA promoter revealed an element with significant similarity to the highly conserved sgRNA promoter of umbraviruses and to a minimal but highly functional sgRNA promoter of carmovirus TCV. In addition, similar RNAs that also only express the RdRp and are related to Tombusviruses all generate a similar sized subgenomic RNA, and may simplify expression of peptides and proteins.
In order to determine where inserts are tolerated downstream of the sgRNA promoter in CYVaV, an evaluation of where critical elements exist in the 3′ UTR of CYVaV was conducted, so that such elements are avoided when inserting heterologous sequences. As described about, the 3′ CITE for CYVaV was identified, as well as several additional 3′ proximal hairpins that are highly conserved in umbraviruses and known to be critical for replication and translation. Using deletions/point mutations, the sequence downstream of the putative sgRNA promoter and upstream of the 3′ CITE (˜120 nt) was investigated for regions that do not impact either accumulation in protoplasts or systemic movement in N. benthamiana. A similar strategy was previously utilized by the present inventors to identify regions in the 3′ UTR of TCV that can accommodate hairpins targeted by RNase III-type enzymes (Aguado, L. C. et al. (2017). RNase III nucleases from diverse kingdoms serve as antiviral effectors. Nature 547:114-117).
After identifying suitable regions for accommodating deletions/mutations (e.g., regions not involved in critical functions), heterologous sequences of different lengths were inserted therein to evaluate CYVaV functionality with an extended 3′ UTR. Such investigation aids in determining maximal insert length to ensure that such insert will be tolerated by the CYVaV-based vector while still accumulating to robust levels and engaging in systemic movement. It is believed that the CYVaV-based vector may be able to accommodate an insert having a size of up to 2 kb. In this regard, the nearest related viruses (papaya umbra-like viruses, which like CYVaV, only encode a replicase-associated protein and the RdRp) are 1 to 2 kb larger, with all of the additional sequence length expanding their 3′ UTRs (Quito-Avila, D. F. et al. (2015), Detection and partial genome sequence of a new umbra-like virus of papaya discovered in Ecuador, Eur J Plant Pathol 143:199-204). Various size sequence fragments were evaluated, beginning at 50 nt (the size of an inserted hairpin for small RNA production), up to about 600 nt (the size of an enzybiotic ORF). Initial small RNA fragments include a reporter for knock down of phytoene desaturase, which turns tissue white. The longer size fragments include nano luciferase and GFP ORFs, which may also be used as reporters for examining expression level. Inserts are made in constructs containing the wild-type (WT) sgRNA promoter and the enhanced sgRNA promoter.
Lock and Dock Sequence for stabilizing the base of inserts. Referring to
The use of a scaffold comprising a docked tetraloop as a crystallography scaffold is provided (
A lock and dock structure in accordance with disclosed embodiments is shown in
Lock and dock elements can be inserted into iRNA to stabilize the resulting vector despite the presence of hairpins or other inserts.
Replication, movement and stability of both of the CYVaV based vectors, each with a lock and dock structure, was demonstrated by systemically infecting N. benthamiana plants CYVaV-L&D1 and CYVaV-L&D2. In other examples, L&D1 or L&D2 may be inserted at position 2250, 2319, 2330, 2336 and 2375 (see
The term “lock and dock” (L&D) is used to indicate that the structure has a highly stable locked or lockable portion and a docking portion suitable for the addition of one or more inserts. In the examples shown, the highly stable portion is provided by way of a tetraloop GNRA sequence (wherein N is A, C, G, or U; R is A or G), e.g., GAAA, and a tetraloop dock sequence (alternatively called a tetraloop lock sequence). In use, the structure folds with the tetraloop GNRA becoming associated (though not bonded in the sense of forming Watson-Crick pairs) with the tetraloop dock sequence to generate an extremely stable structure, called the “lock”. The “dock”, represented in the Figure by the fragment insert side or a portion of the lock and dock including the fragment insert site, is separated from the iRNA backbone by the lock. One or more inserts added to the dock are inhibited from interfering with folding of the iRNA backbone by the lock. Inserts (hairpins or non-hairpin sequences) may be added to the fragment insert site. In other examples, the two-way stem shown is replaced with a three-way stem to provide a lock and dock structure having a lock and two docks. The examples shown include a dividing (e.g. two-way or three-way) stem, the base and one arm of which are within a tetraloop or other locking structure, and another arm of the dividing stem having an insert site.
In addition to particular iRNA constructs, the disclosed scaffolds and lock and dock structures may be utilized for attaching a heterologous segment(s) to and/or stabilizing any RNA vector, including plant or animal vectors. An RNA-based vector may be modified via the addition of one or more lock and dock structures, such as a tetraloop GNRA docking structure. Optionally, a parental or wild-type RNA molecule suitable for use as a vector may be modified by truncating a sequence non-specific hairpin located at a particular position. Generally, the hairpin is truncated by removing an upper or distal portion of the hairpin; however, a lower portion of the hairpin (e.g., 3-5 base pairs proximate to the main structure of the RNA molecule) is retained in the truncated hairpin. The resulting truncated hairpin forms or defines an insertion site. In some embodiments an insert, which may include a scaffold such as a lock and dock structure (e.g., a tetraloop sequence), is then attached to the insertion site. The lock and dock structure may comprise a heterologous segment(s), which is thereby attached to the modified RNA molecule. In some embodiments and at particular positions, a heterologous segment(s) may be attached directly to the insertion site of the truncated hairpin and without a lock and dock or other scaffold structure intermediate the insertion site and the heterologous segment(s).
In one example, a 30 base non-hairpin sequence was inserted into L&D1, which was in turn inserted into position 2301 in CYVaV to make a CYVaV based vector. The CYVaV vector was agroinfiltrated into an N. benthamiana plant and achieved systemic movement in the plant.
Stabilizing the local 3′UTR structure is detrimental; however insertion of a destabilizing insert nearby restores viability. Referring to
B. Targets for Treatment and Management
An anti-biotic insert for delivery by the disclosed vector is provided, which comprises either an enzybiotic or small peptide engineered to destroy the CLas bacterium. Enzybiotics prefer sugar rich, room temperature environments such as found in the plant phloem. The enzybiotic is translated in companion cells during the engineered CYVaV infection cycle. Proteins produced in the cytoplasm of the phloem are naturally able to exit into the sieve element (the default pathway for translated proteins), where CLas and other plant pathogenic bacteria take up residence. In the sieve element, the enzyme molecules move with the photo-assimilate up and down the trunk and lyse any bacteria upon contact. Since enzybiotics are targeted towards a specific class of bacteria, they preferably do not disturb the microbiome of the host tree. Various agents that target CLas have been developed (e.g., Hailing Jin, University of California, Riverside, CA). Thus, numerous inserts that target CLas bacterium are known in the art and may be utilized with the CYVaV vectors of the present disclosure.
As a further embodiment, it can be beneficial to target multiple pathways for destroying the disease and the disease psyllid vector. As a result, in certain embodiments the disclosed vectors include the enzybiotic and/or peptides described above, as well as inserts that trigger the production of siRNAs that interfere with either gene expression of the tree or the disease-carrying psyllid. In the case of the ACP, the RNA could kill the vector or render it wingless and thus harmless.
C. iRNA-Based or ulaRNA-Based Vector Targeting Host Gene Expression
An iRNA-based or ulaRNA-based virus-induced gene-silencing (VIGS) vector (the acronym VIGS being used herein for convenience, although the iRNA is not necessarily a virus) is provided that effectively targets host gene expression. An CYVaV-based vector was constructed that included a hairpin that targets green fluorescent protein (GFP) mRNA expressed in N. benthamiana 16C plants. The hairpin sequence (SEQ ID NO:37;
In a normal, non-infected leaf without an gene for GFP (
Leaves expressing GFP were infected with the constructed iRNA-based VIGS vector including the GFP-suppressing hairpin at position 2301 (CYVaV-GFPhp2301). The infected leaves demonstrated effective gene silencing (
Thus, gene silencing effectively spread throughout much of the entire host plant over time (see
D. CYVaV-Based Vector Targeting Expression of Callose Synthase.
A vector comprising an RNA insert is provided that triggers the reduction of callose production and build-up in a host tree. A sufficiently large amount of the gene that produces callose in the phloem in response to bacteria is silenced via insertion of an siRNA sequence that is excised by the plant.
CYVaV-based vector may be utilized as a virus-induced gene-silencing (VIGS) vector to down-regulate expression of callose synthase in the phloem. VIGS has been widely used to down-regulate gene expression in mature plants to examine plant functional genomics (Senthil-Kumar et al. (2008). Virus-induced gene silencing and its application in characterizing genes involved in water-deficit-stress tolerance. J Plant Physiol 165(13):1404-1421). A complementary sequence is inserted into CYVaV at a suitable location as identified above (either anti-sense or a RNase III-cleavable hairpin). A citrus version of the gene is known (Enrique et al. (2011). Novel demonstration of RNAi in citrus reveals importance of citrus callose synthase in defense against Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. Plant Biotech J 9:394-407).
Callose is a β 1,3-glucan that is synthesized in various tissues during development and biotic and abiotic stress (Chen, X. Y. and Kim, J. Y. (2009). Callose synthesis in higher plants. Plant Sig Behav 4(6):489-492). Deposition of callose in the sieve plates of sieve elements inhibits photoassimilate flow in the phloem, leading to over accumulation of starch in source (young) leaves, which contributes to the death of trees during bacterial infections such as HLB. All plants contain 12-14 callose synthase genes; one member of this gene family, CalS7 (Arabidopsis nomenclature), is mostly responsible for rapid callose deposition in sieve pores of the phloem in response to wounding and various pathogens (Xie et al. (2011). CalS7 encodes a callose synthase responsible for callose deposition in the phloem. Plant J 65(1):1-14). Complete inhibition of GSL7 impacted both normal phloem transport and inflorescence development in Arabidopsis (Barratt et al. (2011). Callose Synthase GSL7 Is Necessary for Normal Phloem Transport and Inflorescence Growth in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 155(1):328-341). A CYVaV-based vector is utilized to down-regulate the N. benthamiana and orange tree orthologues of CalS7 in mature plants in order to investigate the consequences of reduced (but not eliminated) sieve plate callose deposition. Alternatively, or in addition, the vector provides for an insert that expresses a callose-degrading enzyme.
E. iRNA-Based or ulaRNA-Based Vector Targeting CTV
An iRNA-based or ulaRNA-based VIGS vector was constructed that targets CTV. As demonstrated by the data, disclosed constructs may be utilized for immunization as well as reduction of virus levels in host plants with mature infections. N. benthamiana infected with CTV-GFP (CTV expressing GFP) was used as root stock grafted to wild-type CYVaV (CYVaVwt) and CYVaV-GFPhp2301 scions (
The CYVaV-GFPhp2301 hairpin targeted the GFP ORF of CTV, thereby cleaving CTV. In contrast, the CYVaVwt scion had no effect on CTV-GFP infecting newly emerging rootstock leaves, as evidenced by green fluorescent flecks visible under UV light in the young leaves (
When WT CYVaV was present in the root stock, new leaves from the CTV-GFP scion still fluoresced green under UV light, thus showing that widespread CTV infection was continuing unabated (
As noted above, CTV is composed of two capsid proteins and with a genome of more than 19 kb. 76 CTV isolates have been characterized, which all contain regions of conserved nucleotides. Two sequence portions (18 and 6) of a CTV isolate are identified in Table 3 below, showing fully conserved polynucleotides (underlined below) as well as less-conserved nucleotides (in bold) with other nucleotides present in some isolates (listed as identified and bolded nucleotides in each sequence from left to right). For example, in the sequence portion for CTV18 shown in Table 3, the 3 non-conserved nucleotides include, from left to right: guanine (G) which position instead includes adenine (A) in 10 CTV isolates; cytosine (C) which position instead includes uracil (U) in about half of the CTV isolates; and G which position instead includes A in 6 CTV isolates. In the sequence portion for CTV6, the 6 non-conserved nucleotides include, from left to right: G which position instead includes A in 1 CTV isolate; G which position instead includes A in 3 CTV isolates; U which position instead includes C in 3 CTV isolates; A which position instead includes G in 9 CTV isolates; U which position instead includes C in 1 CTV isolate; and A which position instead includes G in 1 CTV isolate.
UCCGU
G
GACGU
C
AUGUGUAA
G
G: A in 10 isolates
C: U in ~half isolates
G: A in 6 isolates
G
GAAGU
G
A
U
GGACGA
A
A
U
U
A
AUGA
G: A in 1 isolate
G: A in 3 isolates
U: C in 3 isolates
A: G in 9 isolates
U: C in 1 isolate
A: G in 1 isolate
Fully CTV-infected N. benthamiana were agroinfiltrated with CYVaV-based vector carrying a hairpin at position 2301 that targeted a conserved sequence in the CTV genome (SEQ ID NO:38;
After four days, CTV levels in plants infected with the CYVaV-CTV18 vector were about 10-fold lower in the infiltrated tissue as compared with tissue infiltrated with CYVaV wild-type (
Leaves co-infiltrated with CTV-GFP and CYVaV wild-type or CYVaV-CTV6 containing another CTV genome-targeting hairpin (SEQ ID NO:40;
CTV levels in plants infected with the CYVaV-CTV6 vector were visibly lower in infiltrated tissue as compared with tissue infiltrated with CYVaV wt.
F. Stability of Hairpin Targeting GFP without and with L&D
The stability of a 30 nt hairpin targeting GFP (SEQ ID NO:49;
N. benthamiana 16C plant infected with CYVaV with the 30 nt hairpin insert at position 2301 (CY2301GFP30s) is shown in
N. benthamiana 16C plant infected with CYVaV with L&D1 and the 30 nt hairpin insert (SEQ ID NO:49) at position 2301 (CY2301 LD1GFP30s) is shown in
G. Stability of L&D1 and L&D1+Hairpin Targeting Callose Synthase
The stability of L&D1 inserted at position 2250 (CYm2250LD1), and of L&D1+a 30 nt hairpin (SEQ ID NO:59;
N. benthamiana plant infected by CYm2250LD1 is shown in
N. benthamiana 16C plant infected by CYm2250LD1asCa17_30as (CYVaV containing L&D1 with the 30 nt insert (SEQ ID NO:59) targeting Callose Synthase is shown in
In some examples, iRNA with a truncated hairpin (of the iRNA) and an insert have been stable over long test periods, for example over 40 days. Without intending to be limited by theory, truncating a hairpin of the iRNA (e.g., CYVaV), for example a structurally required hairpin, in combination with adding an insert to the hairpin of the iRNA results in the hairpin of the iRNA resembling its original size and/or retaining its structural integrity. It should be understood however, that the inserted hairpin or unstructured short RNA sequence need not be the same or similar size to truncated hairpin.
H. iRNA-Based or ulaRNA-Based Vector Containing Multiple Inserts
An iRNA-based or ulaRNA-based vector was constructed that includes an insert at position 2301 and another insert at position 2330 (CY2301LD2/2330CTV6sh). The insert at position 2330 is a hairpin targeting CTV6 (SEQ ID NO:60) and the other insert at position 2301 is an empty L&D2 structure (SEQ ID NO:43;
N. benthamiana infected with CY2301LD2/2330CTV6sh is shown in
I. Enhanced Stability Lock and Dock Structure
Extending base-pairing at the base of the disclosed lock and dock structures improved stability of larger unstructured inserts. Base-pairing was extended in L&D1 to include three additional base pairs (G-C, C-G, G-C) (
N. benthamiana plant infected with L&D3 at position 2301 (CY2301LD3) is shown in
J. iRNA-Based or ulaRNA-Based Vector Containing siRNAs
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
K. Determination of Positional Entropy and Average Positional Entropy
Determining the positional entropy of the bases in an insert starts with determining the secondary structure, i.e. the arrangement of paired and unpaired bases, of the insert. Although RNA folding software may be inaccurate for large sequences, the output of RNA folding software is typically accurate for small sequences, for example inserts of less than 300 nt or less than 200 nt. Additional methods such as SHAPE reactivity may be used to determine the secondary structure of large or difficult inserts, or to confirm the accuracy of or modify a software-produced secondary structure drawing.
Using the RNAfold software as an example, the sequence of an insert is entered into the program. The available results include a minimum free energy (MFE) prediction, an optimal secondary structure of the insert sequence in the MFE state in dot-bracket notation, and a graphical drawing of the dot-bracket notation of the MFE structure. Selecting “EPS” in the download options for the MFE structure drawing encoding positional entropy produces a file with a list of the positional entropy of each base in the insert. The positional entropy of the individual bases are added together and divided by the number of bases to produce the average positional entropy (APE).
Unless stated otherwise, the values of DG, PE and APE described herein are produced using RNAfold version 2.4.18 available from, or accessed through, the University of Vienna. The program is further described in Mathews D H, Disney M D, Childs J L, Schroeder S J, Zuker M, Turner D H. (2004) Incorporating chemical modification constraints into a dynamic programming algorithm for prediction of RNA secondary structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(19):7287-92; Gruber A R, Lorenz R, Bernhart S H, Neubock R, Hofacker I L. The Vienna RNA Websuite. Nucleic Acids Research, Volume 36, Issue suppl_2, 1 Jul. 2008, Pages W70-W74, DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkn188; and, Lorenz R, Bernhardt S. H., Honer zu Siederdissen C, Tafer H, Flamm C, Stadler P F and Hofacker I L, “ViennaRNA package 2.0”, Algorithms for Molecular Biology, 6:1 pages 26, 2011.
L. Stability Assay
Stability of the insert is determined after allowing the insert to replicate in plants for a period of time. The vector is then harvested from the plant and assayed through RT-PCR. A stable insert will show only one band indicative of the intact vector. The appearance of a second band indicates vector replicates that have deleted the insert, and the insert is not entirely stable. In an entirely stable vector, batch sequencing will show no heterogeneity.
M. Natural Hairpin-Like Structures in CYVaV1
Structures 1 to 4 in
The sequence of CY1132-1329 (structure 1, 198 nucleotides) is (SEQ ID NO:125):
The sequence of CY1493-1525 (structure 2, 33 nucleotides) is (SEQ ID NO:126):
The sequence of CY2136-2218 (structure 3, 83 nucleotides) is (SEQ ID NO:127):
The sequence of CY2220-2280 (structure 4, 61 nucleotides) is (SEQ ID NO:128):
In various examples: CY1132-1329 was inserted at 2219/2281 of CYVaV; CY1493-1525 was inserted at 2319/2320 and 2304/2305 of CYVaV (in two separate examples); CY2136-2218 was inserted at 2304/2305 of CYVaV; and, CY2220-2280 was inserted at 2304/2305 of CYVaV. In each case, the resulting vector was stable in planta at the end of a trial.
A line of best fit through these four hairpin-like structures has the formula DG in kcal/mol=−0.44× length of the structure in nt −1.89. When comparing the DG of a synthetic construct to the DG of a natural hairpin-like structure of similar length, this formula (or a different formula derived from another wild type vector) may be used when a specific natural structure of similar length does not exist. In some examples, stable hairpin-like structures of a selected length are stable when their DG is in a range of +/−10 kcal/mol, or −5 to +15 kcal/mol, of the DG determined by the formula for the selected length. A line of best fit through 58 stable synthetic inserts and the four hairpin-like like structures of CYVaV has the formula DG in kcal/mol=−0.43×length of the structure in nt+1.17. Optionally, hairpin-like structures can be made in a range of −10 to +10 kcal/mol, or −5 to +15 kcal/mol, of the DG determined by this formula for the selected length.
N. Example of a Stable Insert Targeted Against CVEV
Two inserts were prepared including siRNA sequences targeted against regions of the CVEV genome. Insert mmck15 (
The sequence of the wt structure is (SEQ ID NO:99):
The sequence of mmck15 is (SEQ ID NO:100):
gtcgcaatcaaagacgaagaaatcgtcca
taactggacatttccttcgt
The sequence of mmck8 is (SEQ ID NO:101):
ggttgcttggaacccatacgaatgttgc
ttaacagcaaattcgctatgg
Wild type structure 4 (
N. benthamiana plants were agroinfiltrated with CYVaVCVEV. After 21 days, the plants were agroinfiltrated with CVEV. After 10 days, the CVEV levels in the CYVaVCVEV treated plants were 17.6 and 29.5 relative to an untreated control (100).
Although CYVaV has been found in nature only four times, it naturally infects limequat trees and potential other citrus trees. CYVaV has not coat protein and therefore likely requires a helper virus to travel from tree to tree. The helper virus is believed to be citrus vein enation virus (CVEV). Even though CVEV does not produce significant symptoms in plants, and CYVaV introduced into a citrus tree is unlikely to travel from tree to tree, the safety of a CYVaV derived RNA vector may be increased by adding an insert to the vector that targets CVEV. With a reduced population of CVEV, the likelihood of a CYVaV traveling to another tree is reduced. A second inset in the RNA vector may target a pathogen or gene expression in the plant. For example, in case of citrus greening, the plant is harmed by overproduction of callose in response to the infection. Excess callose, in combination with phloem protein 2 (PP2) clogs citrus sieve elements, thereby damaging the plant. CYVaV de-polymerizes the PP2 and reduces clogging of the citrus sieve elements. Thus wild type CYVaV may be used to treat citrus trees against citrus greening. Alternatively, an RNA vector may be derived from CYVaV and further contain inserts targeted against one or more of CVEV, the production of callose, or the L. asiaticus bacteria.
O. Further Examples of Inserts Mimicking Structure 4
Referring to
The sequence of mmckpsvD (SEQ ID NO:102) is shown below. The first 29 nucleotides are the targeting sequence.
gggtgaagtcatgaaagaagctgccttct
taacagaagcagctctcttt
The sequence of mmckpsvE (SEQ ID NO:103) is shown below. The first 29 nucleotides are the targeting sequence.
ccgtaggtaagacaccattgacaagttct
taacagaactgtcacatggt
Referring to
The sequence of PRSVmmck1 (SEQ ID NO:104) is shown below. The first 29 nucleotides are the targeting sequence.
atggtctgaatgataatgaaatgcaagtg
taaccacttcatttccatta
The sequence of PRSVmmck2 (SEQ ID NO:105) is shown below. The first 29 nucleotides are the targeting sequence.
gcagaagcatatattgcaaagagaaatgc
taacgcattctcttctgcaa
P. Examples of Inserts Mimicking Structure 1
The sequence of the wt structure is (SEQ ID NO:106):
The sequence of the PDS-198mmck-1 insert (SEQ ID NO:107) is shown below (target sequence shown in bold):
cacgaaacagaagtacttggcttcaatggaaggtgctgtcttatcagga
aagctttgtgcacaagctattgtacaggattacgagttacttcttggc
t
The sequence of the PDS-198mmck-2 insert (SEQ ID NO:108) is shown below (target sequence shown in bold):
gttgctcagtgtgtacgctgacatgtctgttacatgtaaggaatattac
aaccccaatcagtctatgttggaattggtatttgcacccgcagaagag
t
The sequence of the LcrGyrA-mmck5 insert (SEQ ID NO:109) is shown below (target sequence shown in bold):
acctggtactgttcggcgaaataaattatctgattttgtgcatgtgaac
cgtaatggtaagattgcaatgaaattggaggaaaatgatgagattgtt
t
The sequence of the LcrGyrA-mmck3 insert (SEQ ID NO:110) is shown below (target sequence shown in bold):
atgatgagattgtttcagtagaaacttgtactgaggaccatgatgtttt
gctaacaacagaatttggtcagtgtattcgattcccagtttctaatgt
t
The sequence of the Clas-GyrAmmck-5′ insert (SEQ ID NO:111) is shown below (target sequence shown in bold):
gcatggcaatgtacggcgtaataaactttctgattttattcaaatcaat
cgtagtggtaagattgcgatgaaattagattcaagagatgagattctt
t
The sequence of the Clas-GyrAmmck-3′ insert (SEQ ID NO:112) is shown below (target sequence shown in bold):
gagatgagattctttccgttgaaacctgtacacaagaaaatgatatatt
gttgactactaaacttggacaatgtgtccgctttccgatttctgctat
t
The sequence of the CS7 insert (SEQ ID NO:113) is shown below:
The sequence of the Erwinia GyrA insert (SEQ ID NO:114) is shown below (target sequence shown in bold):
ccgaccgcgcagcgccggtattattgccgtcaatctgcgtgatgacgat
gaactgatcggcgtgtcgctgacgaacggtagtgatgaagcgatgctg
t
All of the inserts mimicking structure 1 described in this section were inserted between 2219 and 2281 of CYVaV after removal of 2220-2280 of CYVaV. The inserts were stable in N. benthamiana after four months (the entire duration of the experiment) except that the trial for Erwinia GyrA has not reached four months yet. Erwinia GyrA was stable after 1 month and the trial was ongoing.
Q. Example of a Stable Insert Targeted Against CTV
The sequence of mmck6.2 is (SEQ ID NO:129):
To investigate the stability of mmck6.2 in CYVaV1, we inserted mmck6.2 into the CYVaV1 genome by replacing the original viral sequence between 2220 to 2280 with mmck6.2. We then inoculated the resulting recombinant CYVaV1 into Mexican lime citrus plants by vacuum-infiltration. Three months post-inoculation, we performed RT-PCR analysis of the systemic leaves of the inoculated plants to identify recombinant CYVaV1 positive plants. We have monitored the viral fitness and the stability of the insert in the positive plants over a long period of time (17 months at the time of writing). The experiment is ongoing.
After one year post-inoculation, we performed RT-PCR analysis and Sanger sequencing of the systemic leaves of the positive plants. The results (
gacgaaauuaaugaaacc
agttaatg
auggacgaaauuaaugaaacc
agttaatgta
R. APE of Exemplary Inserts
APE values for various hairpin-like structures (and some additional non-hairpin-like structures) inserted into CYVaV are shown in Panel B. Sorted positional entropy is shown for each insert (dark grey to lightest grey). The first four hairpin-like structures (boxed) were duplicates of naturally occurring hairpin-like structures 1 through 4 of CYVaV (see
S. Example of a Stable Hairpin-Like Structure (GFPmmck59)
This insert is stable. The minimum free energy (MFE) is −30.20 kcal/mol. GFPmmck59 has 0 (0%) bases with positional entropy (PE) greater than 1.0. The APE is 0.07 and the highest PE of any base is 0.995. The standard deviation of PE is 0.21.
The sequence of GFPmmck59 is shown below (SEQ ID NO:116). The first 27 bases of the sequence are the targeting sequence.
tgaagcggcacgacttcttcaagagcg
ataactcgccttgacagaagtc
T. Example of an Unstable Hairpin-Like Structure with Low APE (GFPmmck63)
One region of this insert has 5 consecutive G-C pairs. A variant with fewer G-C pairs had a higher APE, but was stable. This example suggests that a large number (e.g. more than 4) consecutive G-C pairs leads to instability, even in a hairpin-like insert meeting other guidelines.
The sequence of GFPmmck63 is shown below (SEQ ID NO:117). The first 30 bases of the sequence are the targeting sequence.
tgaagcggcacgacttcttcaagagcgcca
taactggcgccttgacaga
U. Second Example of an Unstable Hairpin-Like Structure (M2250GFP30ext)
The sequence of M2250GFP30ext is shown below (SEQ ID NO:115):
V. Third Example of an Unstable Hairpin-Like Structure with Low APE
The sequence of BBLv2-1 is shown below (SEQ ID NO:132):
The sequence of BBLv2-1 after deletion is shown below (SEQ ID NO:133):
An analysis of BBLv2-1 indicated that modification of the vector in an infected plant involved removal of a region having a bulge (no bases on one side, 1 base on the other side), 5 A-T base pairs (A-U base pairs are included as A-T base pairs), an asymmetric loop with 7 bases (counting both sides) and 3 more A-T base pairs. The DG of the asymmetric loop was positive (2.7 kcal/mol) and the DG of the region from the bulge to the asymmetric loop (including both the bulge and the asymmetric loop) had a positive DG of 0.4 kcal/mol. Without intending to be limited by theory, instability of this inert may have been caused by the locally positive DG of this region.
This example suggests a number of potential design parameters such as that the number of consecutive A-U base pairs should be less than 5 or that the DG of a region including two loops and the stack between them should not be positive.
W. Example of a Hairpin-Like Structure of CTV.
The stability of hairpin-like structures that mimic hairpin-like structures in the CYVaV1 and OULV genomes has been previously demonstrated by their ability to remain stable, for example when inserted to replace the sequence between 2220 to 2280 (i.e. inserted at 2219/2281) or inserted at 2304/2305, 2319/2320 or 2330/2331 of CYVaV1. To investigate whether this rule also applies to hairpins that originate from an unrelated virus, we subjected every 2 kb of the CTV genome to secondary RNA structure prediction using mfold software obtained from the “UNAFold Web Server” (http://www.unafold.org/mfold/applications/rna-folding-form-v2.php) in search of hairpins that resemble a naturally-occurring hairpin of CYVaV1 in terms of size and shape. As a result, we identified a 128 nt hairpin-like structure, CTV-insert-natural-V2.2, which forms a stack-loop structure with internal asymmetrical loops. The overall structure of this hairpin resembles a smaller version of a hairpin-like structure 1 of CYVaV1. CTV-insert-natural-V2.2 has a ΔG of −43.6 kcal/mol (mfold) or −46.96 (RNAfold) and APE of 0.359.
The sequence of CTV-insert-natural-V2.2 is (SEQ ID NO:118):
To test the stability of CTV-insert-natural-V2.2 in CYVaV1, we inserted this hairpin-like structure into the CYVaV1 genome by replacing the original viral sequence between 2220 to 2280 of CYVaV1 with CTV-insert-natural-V2.2. We then inoculated the resulting recombinant CYVaV1 into N. benthamiana plants by syringe infiltration and monitored viral fitness as well as the stability of the insert over a period of time. Three weeks post-inoculation, we performed RT-PCR analysis and Sanger sequencing of the systemic leaves of all symptomatic plants. The results (
In some embodiments, an insert is provided that targets one or more viral and/or fungal and/or bacterial pathogens. In some embodiments, a hairpin or short RNA sequence (about 100 nt or less, e.g. between about 20 nt and about 80 nt, or between about 30 nt and about 60 nt, or about 30 nt) insert is provided that generates an siRNA that directly targets CVEV, since CVEV is known to slightly intensify the yellowing impacts of CYVaV and to enable transport of CYVaV between trees. In some embodiments, a hairpin insert is provided that targets CTV, since CTV is a highly destructive viral pathogen of citrus (second only to CLas). In other embodiments, an insert is provided that targets another citrus (or other) virus. In some embodiments, an insert is provided that targets a fungal pathogen(s), given that such pathogen(s) are able to take up siRNAs from the phloem. In some embodiments, an insert is provided that targets a bacterial pathogen, given that such pathogen(s) are able to take up siRNAs from the phloem.
In some embodiments, the CYVaV-based (or other iRNA) vector includes an insert(s) engineered to modify a phenotypic property of a plant that emanates from gene expression in companion cells. In one implantation, an insert is provided that triggers dwarfism, so that the fruit is easier to harvest and growth space requirements are reduced. Additional and/or other traits may also be targeted as desired. The iRNA vectors of the present disclosure comprising 1, 2, 3 or more inserts demonstrate stability and functionality.
In some embodiments, an RNA vector is the same as, essentially the same as, or substantially similar to, an RNA vector that is produced by a method described herein but made differently, for example, by a synthetic manufacturing method that might or might not pass through an equivalent of a wild type or parental form. For example, rather than actually truncating or stabilizing a wild type RNA vector, an RNA may be manufactured synthetically that has the same nucleic acid sequence as a truncated or stabilized wild type RNA vector. In this case, it may not be necessary to manufacture the full wild type vector and then truncate or stabilize it but rather the truncated or stabilized structure can be manufactured directly. Similarly, it is not necessary to produce an RNA backbone and then add a heterologous insert to the RNA backbone. Instead, an RNA vector may be manufactured directly with the insert present. Thus descriptions of actions or states based on verbs such as to insert, to truncate, or to stabilize, or referring to starting from parental or wild type structures, should be interpreted notionally so as to include a resulting nucleic acid sequence whether that action was actually performed or not and whether the specified starting material was actually used or not. For example, an optionally truncated or stabilized parental structure with an added heterologous element may instead be made by determining its nucleic acid sequence and synthetically manufacturing an equivalent or similar molecule was created by some other sequence of steps or method.
International Publication Number WO 2021/097086 A1, Plant Vectors, Compositions and Uses Relating Thereto, published on May 20, 2021, is incorporated herein by reference. As described therein, an RNA vector may be derived from citrus yellow vein associated virus (CYVaV) or one of its relatives. Relatives of CYVaV include other umbravirus-like associated RNAs (ulaRNA) as described in Liu J. et al. (2021), Structural Analysis and Whole Genome Mapping of a New Type of Plant Virus Subviral RNA: Umbravirus-Like Associated RNAs, Viruses 13:646, which is incorporated herein by reference.
All identified publications and references mentioned herein are hereby incorporated by reference to the same extent as if each such publication was specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference in its entirety. While the disclosure has been described in connection with exemplary embodiments, it will be understood that it is capable of further modifications and this application covers any variations, uses, or adaptations following, in general, the principles of the disclosure and including such departures as come within known or customary practice within the art to which the disclosure pertains and as may be applied to the features hereinbefore set forth.
RNA sequences presented in this specification or the figures may use either “t” or “u” to denote uracil. Sequences may be presented in upper case or lower case letters. There is no significance attached to the case (upper case or lower case) of the sequence unless noted in the description of the sequence.
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Appln. Ser. No. 63/338,290 (filed on May 4, 2022; pending), which application is hereby incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.
This invention was made with government support under 20207002933198 awarded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and under MCB2034359 awarded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The United States government has certain rights in this invention.
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 63338290 | May 2022 | US |
