We describe a robust gene replacement strategy to genetically manipulate the smut fungus Ustilago maydis. This protocol explains how to generate deletion mutants to investigate infection phenotypes. It can be extended to modify genes in any desired way, e.g., by adding a sequence encoding a fluorescent protein tag.
Gene deletion plays an important role in the analysis of gene function. One of the most efficient methods to disrupt genes in a targeted manner is the replacement of the entire gene with a selectable marker via homologous recombination. During homologous recombination, exchange of DNA takes place between sequences with high similarity. Therefore, linear genomic sequences flanking a target gene can be used to specifically direct a selectable marker to the desired integration site. Blunt ends of the deletion construct activate the cell's DNA repair systems and thereby promote integration of the construct either via homologous recombination or by non-homologous-end-joining. In organisms with efficient homologous recombination, the rate of successful gene deletion can reach more than 50% making this strategy a valuable gene disruption system. The smut fungus Ustilago maydis is a eukaryotic model microorganism showing such efficient homologous recombination. Out of its about 6,900 genes, many have been functionally characterized with the help of deletion mutants, and repeated failure of gene replacement attempts points at essential function of the gene. Subsequent characterization of the gene function by tagging with fluorescent markers or mutations of predicted domains also relies on DNA exchange via homologous recombination. Here, we present the U. maydis strain generation strategy in detail using the simplest example, the gene deletion.
Ustilago maydis is a phytopathogenic model fungus that has been studied extensively for decades 1,2. It exists in two morphologies, a yeast-like, non-pathogenic stage and a filamentous, infectious form 3. Universal breakthrough discoveries such as homologous recombination and DNA repair mechanisms were made in the yeast-like growth stage of this fungus 4. Furthermore, the morphological switch to the infectious filament and virulence factors important for infection are well-characterized 5,6. The increasing molecular knowledge about biology and virulence of this smut fungus relies on a straightforward gene replacement strategy 7-9 supported by an excellent genome annotation 10 and the ease of reverse genetics using, e.g., the well-organized plasmid collection at our institute (http://www.mikrobiologie.hhu.de/ustilago-community.html). Standardized, rapid infection assays in maize seedlings allow detailed studies of pathogenicity factors 11.
The genome of U. maydis contains about 6,900 genes 10. To study their function, they can be deleted individually or in combination due to an efficient homologous recombination system. Flanking regions of about 1 kb containing perfectly homologous ends are ideal for rates of homologous recombination greater than 50%, but already 250 bp with non-homologous ends allow some degree of correct integration of the construct 9. Currently, five different resistance cassettes, hygR, cbxR, natR, G418R, and phleoR mediating resistance against hygromycin, carboxin, nourseothricin, G418 and phleomycin, are employed to select for transformants 7,9. In addition, the hygromycin resistance has been developed into a recyclable cassette (FRT-hygR) that can be removed by the transient expression of a heterologous FLP recombinase 12. This allows removal of the resistance cassette and thereby in theory unlimited genetic modifications. Phleomycin is mutagenic 13, so that with the new cassettes, in particular the recyclable hygR cassette, the use of phleoR is decreasing. Quadruple mutants can thus be generated using the other four cassettes, but for quintuple mutants, the FRT-hygR system is recommended 14.
This general gene deletion strategy has been successfully transferred to other smut fungi such as Sporisorium reilianum 15, U. hordei 16, or U. esculenta 17 and therefore offers the potential for further applications in yet genetically intractable organisms with an efficient homologous recombination system. Moreover, organisms lacking homologous recombination can be modified to improve genetic engineering as exemplified by the deletion of genes involved in non-homologous-end-joining in Neurospora crassa 18,19.
Here we describe the published gene deletion strategy for U. maydis 7,9 in experimental detail with a focus on the rapid and accurate verification of the candidates. As an example, we use the fungal chitinases and depict the generation of single mutants as well as multiple deletion strains 20,21. Chitinases are interesting examples, because they act on chitin in the rigid cell wall. Cell wall remodeling is required for morphological changes during cell division, switch to filamentous growth, and spore formation. Hence, in deletion mutants phenotypes throughout the lifecycle can be expected.
1. Generation of Deletion Constructs
2. Preparation of Protoplasts
NOTE: Keep sterile conditions during all times of the experiment. The cell wall is a strong protective barrier that limits access of molecules to the plasma membrane. To allow uptake of the DNA containing the deletion construct, the cell wall needs to be removed by cell wall degrading enzymes in a protoplasting reaction. Critical steps in protoplast preparation are 1) osmotic stabilization of the medium and 2) avoiding mechanical stress on the protoplasts.
3. Transformation of U. maydis
NOTE: The transformation of U. maydis protoplasts relies on the polyethylene glycol (PEG)-mediated transformation method, which is technically simple and opposed to electroporation or biolistic transformation does not require specialized equipment.
4. Verification of Correct Deletion Events
NOTE: The mutations are verified in a three-step procedure (Figure 1). First, candidates that contain the wildtype copy of the gene are excluded by PCR. Second, the integration of the resistance cassette into the locus is verified by PCR. Third, the integration of the resistance cassette only into the desired locus is verified by Southern blot analysis. Careful strain verification is essential, so that mutant phenotypes truly correlate with the deletion.
5. Microscopic Phenotypes
6. Infection Assay
NOTE: The seedling infection assay has been visualized previously in this journal 11. It can either be carried out using a haploid, solopathogenic strain background such as SG200 10 or by mixing compatible mating partners which both carry the mutation.
The deletion constructs for all four chitinolytic genes encoded in the U. maydis genome were generated by Golden Gate cloning using the hygR cassette for deletion of cts1, the natR for deletion of cts2, the G418R cassette for deletion of cts3 and the cbxR for deletion of cts4 20. A general overview of the gene replacement strategy is exemplified by the deletion of cts3 (Figure 1). Single and double mutants of cts1 with a second chitinolytic gene were generated sequentially with the same constructs in two different genetic backgrounds for analysis of the role of chitinases in virulence. Two different strain backgrounds were employed: AB33 allows induction of filamentous growth, the first step towards pathogenicity 23, SG200 is a solo-pathogenic strain that enables rapid disease scoring 10. After transformation of the cts3-deletion construct into the appropriate strain background, single colonies of the second selection plate were tested for the correct deletion by diagnostic PCRs (Table 1) and Southern blot (Figure 3). Interestingly, for cts3 the homologous recombination rate was much higher in SG200 than in AB33, but this difference was not consistently observed in deletions of the other chitinases.
The stringent strain verification ensures a single insertion of the deletion construct at the desired position. However, additional modification such as point mutations can remain undetected, which might mislead the interpretation of phenotypes. Therefore, at least two independent transformants are phenotyped.
Figure 1. Overview of the deletion strategy exemplified by cts3. This schematic overview includes the deletion construct with upstream flank (UF), downstream flank (DF), and the geneticin resistance cassette (G418R), the genomic locus of wildtype (WT) and cts3 deletion mutant and all primers as well as the restriction sites used in the strain verification. The first diagnostic PCR results in a product only if the wildtype gene copy is present, the two second diagnostic PCRs result in products if the resistance cassette has been correctly integrated. For the Southern blot the genomic DNA is digested with PstI, the probes span the UF and DF (red bars) leading to detection of a 6.7 kb band in wildtype and two bands of 5.6 kb and 2.0 kb in the mutant. In addition, the DF probe weakly recognizes a 2.6 kb product. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2. Microscopic verification of protoplasting reaction. (A) Untreated wildtype cells (FB2) appear cigar shaped. (B) Upon treatment with cell wall degrading enzymes (here for for 30 min), the appearance of round spheres at one end (s) and bar-bell like structures (b) indicates that the cell wall degradation has started. Finally the protoplasts are completely round (r), which is due to the lack of cell wall. Scale bar = 10 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3. Southern blot for cts3 deletion. Genomic DNA was digested with PstI. Both flanks were labelled, mixed in equimolar ratios and used as a single probe. In the wildtype SG200 and deletions of the chitinases cts1 and cts2, a single band of 6.7 kb is detected. In cts3 deletions (g and k), two bands of 5.6 kb and 2.0 kb are visible indicative of the correct deletion of cts3. An additional band of 2.6 kb can be visualized by massive overexposure. This corresponds to a fragment that is recognized by an overlap of only 100 bp of the downstream flank probe. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Some mutations lead to obvious growth defects that can be detected microscopically. In the chitinase deletions, single mutants did not display any obvious defect, while cts1/2 double mutants showed a pronounced cell separation defect 20. Staining of septa showed that cytokinesis was completed but the cells remained connected likely via residual chitin (Figure 4 from Langner et al. 2015). A similar microscopic growth phenotype is known for the deletion of khd4 24, a gene encoding an RNA-binding protein mediating post-transcriptional RNA turnover of genes involved in morphology and pathogenicity 25.
Figure 4. Microscopic analysis of deletion mutants. Cell morphology and septum formation of the chitinase deletion strains. cts1/2Δ strains exhibit a cell separation defect and form large aggregates, which is not due to a lack of septum formation. Primary and secondary septa (see 5x enlargement in insets) were stained with Calcofluor White (CW) prior to microscopy. Scale bars = 10 µm. This figure is reprinted with permission from Langner et al. 2015 Eukaryotic Cell 20. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
To test the contribution of chitinases to virulence, seedling infection assays were carried out using the mutants in the SG200 strain background. While mutants in khd4 were reduced in virulence, deletion of the chitinases did not affect infection of maize seedlings (Figure 5) 20,25.
Figure 5. Infection assay of deletion mutants. Disease rating of maize seedlings 9 days after infection with the respective U. maydis strains. (A) Macroscopic symptoms that are used for disease scoring. (B) Two independent transformants were tested for each strain (N >100). All chitinase-deficient mutants (1/2/3Δ: triple mutant endochitinases, 4Δ: single mutant N-acetylglucosaminidase, 1/2/3/4Δ: quadruple mutant) infected the host plant leading to heavy tumor formation as observed in wildtype infections with the solopathogenic strain SG200. By contrast, a strain carrying a deletion of the gene encoding the RNA-binding protein Khd4 was reduced in virulence as reported previously 24. Error bars indicate standard deviation of three independent experiments. This figure is modified with permission from Langner et al. 2015 Eukaryotic Cell 20. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Genetic background | 1st diagn. PCR (excluded/tested) |
2nd diagn. PCR (confirmed/tested) |
Southern (confirmed/tested) |
% recomb. |
AB33 | 7/22 | – | 7/15 | 32 |
AB33 cts1Δ | 19/24 | – | 5/5 | 21 |
SG200 | 0/10 | 8/10 | 7/8 | 70 |
SG200 cts1Δ | 0/20 | 19/20 | 14/19 | 70 |
Table 1: Strain verification for cts3 deletions. The chitinase gene cts3 was deleted in four different genetic backgrounds to allow studies of filamentous growth (AB33) and infection (SG200) in single and multiple deletions.
This protocol describes how to generate deletion mutants for reverse genetic studies in U. maydis. The starting point is a deletion construct that contains flanking sequences of the gene-of-interest containing sequences of about 1 kb upstream of the start and downstream of the stop-codon as well as an appropriate resistance cassette as it was previously optimized 7,9. The constructs have to be individually generated for each gene and carefully verified for sequence errors prior to deleting the gene. Point mutations in the flanks can cause unwanted alterations in the genomic sequence, in particular if the flanks reach into the neighboring gene or the mutation modifies regulatory elements. This would affect all transformants and can cause phenotypes and side-effects unrelated to the desired gene deletion.
When planning the deletion strategy, the expected phenotype has to be considered to choose the genetic background. In the present case, AB33 23 and SG200 10 were chosen to allow for testing phenotypes in the morphological switch and plant infection. Similarly, many other read-outs may be of interest, e.g. fusions with cts1 are employed in export of heterologous proteins 14,26, and a strain background with fluorescently tagged rrm4 allows analysis of RNA transport on endosomes 27,28.
During strain verification, the high-throughput diagnostic PCRs allow a rapid reduction of the number of candidates to be tested in the rather laborious Southern blot. In particular, the first diagnostic PCR allows exclusion of candidates still containing the wildtype copy of the gene and thereby prevents the massive use of toxic phenol in gDNA preparations. In a standard case with a non-essential gene, approximately half of the colonies may contain the wildtype gene. This pre-screening can be of great interest for genes with potentially detrimental growth phenotypes. Hundreds of candidates can rapidly be screened.
If all candidates contain the wildtype copy, the gene deletion is most likely lethal. This can be confirmed by deleting one copy in a diploid strain background (e.g. d132) and analysis of the segregation after teliospore germination 29. Alternatively, a conditional deletion strategy using an inducible promoter can be chosen to follow the mutant phenotype. However, also contamination resulting from the crude NaOH-based method for gDNA preparation can interfere with the PCR and lead to false-negatives i.e. candidates do not show a band and therefore are kept even though they contain the gene. This can be excluded by testing a control gene with a comparable size product in an independent PCR reaction or by multiplex-PCR with the two gene-specific primers and primers for a control gene that result in a bigger fragment.
If a mutant is already available, e.g., cts1Δ30 or rrm4Δ, strain generation of tagged versions can be accelerated by replacing the gene deletion resistance cassette (e.g. hygR) in the genome with a novel construct containing, e.g., the fluorescently labelled rrm4 and a different resistance marker (e.g. natR). In this case, transformants can be screened by loss of the initial resistance marker 9. Correct candidates are resistant only against the new antibiotic (nourseothricin) and have lost their initial resistance (hygromycin). Additionally, complementation of the mutant phenotype in trans can be carried out to verify functionality of tagged constructs 30,31.
The here described gene deletion and modification strategy offers a reliable and exact tool in genetic analysis of U. maydis. For multiple deletions however, the strain generation can get time-consuming, since the alterations have to be carried out sequentially. Therefore, as a complementary tool, last year the CRISPR-Cas system has been established for U. maydis 32. It offers the possibility to disrupt several genes simultaneously and is an excellent addition to the genetic toolbox of U. maydis.
In summary, the protocol for genetic manipulation and U. maydis strain generation described here is a robust method that has been widely used in the community for years. Together with the comprehensive collection of respective resistance cassette modules it allows all sorts of genetic engineering in this fungus, addressing diverse questions ranging from basic to applied research.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
Special thanks to Dr. Benedikt Steuten for critical reading of the manuscript. The original work on the chitinases was carried out by Dr. Thorsten Langner. The laboratory of VG is supported by the Cluster of Excellence in Plant Sciences (CEPLAS, DFG EXC 1028) and BioSC, the laboratory of KS is supported by BioSC. KB is supported by BioSC. The scientific activities of the Bioeconomy Science Center (BioSC) were financially supported by the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Research within the framework of the NRW Strategieprojekt BioSC (No. 313/323-400-00213). LF is supported by a doctoral fellowship of the DFG International Research Training Group 1525 iGRADplant.
Aminobenzoeic acid (Free Acid) | Sigma Aldrich | A-9878 | |
Bacto Agar | BD | 214010 | alternatively use local supplier |
Bacto Peptone | BD | 211677 | alternatively use local supplier |
Bacto Yeast Extract | BD | 212750 | alternatively use local supplier |
CaCl2*2H2O | Grüssing GmbH | 10234 | alternatively use local supplier |
Ca-pantothenat (Hemi-Ca. salt) | Sigma Aldrich | P-2250 | |
Carboxin | Sigma Aldrich | 45371 | |
Casamino acids | BD | 223050 | |
Cholinchlorid | Sigma Aldrich | C-1879 | |
Citric acid | ChemSolute | 24,321,000 | alternatively use local supplier |
CuSO4*5H2O | Fluka | 61240 | alternatively use local supplier |
D(+)Sucrose | Roth | 4621.1 | alternatively use local supplier |
DNA degr. free acid | Sigma-Aldrich | D-3159 | |
EDTA | Sigma Aldrich | E4378 | |
FeCl3*6H2O | Grüssing GmbH | 10288 | alternatively use local supplier |
Geneticin (G418) disulfate salt | Sigma Aldrich | A1720 | |
Trichoderma lysing enzymes | Sigma Aldrich | L1412 | |
Glucose | Caelo | 2580 | alternatively use local supplier |
Glycerin | Fisher Chemical | G065015 | alternatively use local supplier |
H3BO3 | AppliChem | A2940 | Dangerous substance. Please check manufacturer's safety instructions. |
Heparin sodium salt | Sigma Aldrich | H3393-50KU | |
Hygromycin B-solution | Roth | 1287.2 | Dangerous substance. |
KCl | VWR | 26764298 | alternatively use local supplier |
KH2PO4 | AppliChem | A3620 | alternatively use local supplier |
MgSO4 waterfree | Merck | 7487-88-9 | Water free is critical. Alternatively use local supplier |
MnCl2*4H2O | AppliChem | A2087 | alternatively use local supplier |
myo-Inositol | Sigma Aldrich | I-5125 | |
Na2-EDTA*2H2O | AppliChem | A2937 | alternatively use local supplier |
Na2MoO4*2H2O | Roth | 0274.2 | alternatively use local supplier |
Na2SO4 | Grüssing GmbH | 12174 | alternatively use local supplier |
NaCl | Fisher Chemical | S316060 | alternatively use local supplier |
NaOH | ChemSolute | 13,751,000 | alternatively use local supplier |
NH4NO3 | Roth | K299.1 | alternatively use local supplier |
Nicotinic acid (Free Acid) | Sigma Aldrich | N-4126 | |
Nourseothricin dihydrogen sulfate | Werner BioAgents | 5,001,000 | |
Nutrient broth | Difco | local suppliers | |
Phenol:Chloroform:Isoamyl Alcohol (25:24:1) pH 6.7 | Sigma Aldrich | P3803 | Dangerous substance. Please check manufacturer's safety instructions. |
polyethylene glycol (PEG) | Sigma Aldrich | P-3640 | |
Potassium acetate | AppliChem | 121479 | alternatively use local supplier |
Pyridoxin (Monohydrochlorid) | Sigma Aldrich | P-9755 | |
Riboflavin | Sigma Aldrich | R4500 | |
RNaseA | Sigma Aldrich | R5503 | |
SDS | Roth | Cn30.3 | alternatively use local supplier |
small syringe | BD | 300300 | alternatively use local supplier |
sterile filter, 22 µm | VWR | 28145-477 | alternatively use local supplier |
Sorbitol | Roth | 6213.1 | alternatively use local supplier |
Thiamin-Hydrochloride | Serva | 36020.02 | alternatively use local supplier |
tri-Na-Citrate | Fisher Chemical | S332060 | alternatively use local supplier |
Tris- (hydroxymethyl) aminomethane | VWR | 103156X | alternatively use local supplier |
Tris hydrochloride | Roth | 9090.4 | alternatively use local supplier |
Triton X-100 | Serva | 37240 | alternatively use local supplier |
ZnCl2 | Fluka | 96470 | alternatively use local supplier |
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Composition of solutions/preparation of material | Composition of solutions | ||
Carboxin | Stock: 5 mg/ml in methanol, final concentration: 2 µg/ml | ||
CM plates | 0.25 % (w/v) Casamino acids, 0.1 % (w/v) Yeast Extract, 1.0 % (v/v) Holliday vitamin solution, 6.25 % (v/v); Holliday salt solution, 0.05 % (w/v) DNA degr. free acid, 0.15 % (w/v) NH4NO3, 2.0 % (w/v) Bacto Agar; adjust to pH 7.0 using 5 M NaOH; after autoclaving add 1 % glucose | ||
Geneticin (G418) | Stock: 50 mg/ml in H2O, final concentration: 500 µg/ml | ||
HCl-washed glass beads (0,35-0,45 mm) | Cover glass beads with concentrated HCl (25 %, 7.8 M) and incubate for 60 min. Sway several times. Decant HCl (keep decanted liquid) and wash glass beads with 3 M HCl (keep decanted liquid). Wash glass beads several times with double distilled H2O until the pH is 7 (the liquid should not be yellow-green anymore). Aliquot the glass beads and dry them at 180 °C. The decanted HCl has to be neutralized before disposal. | ||
Heparin | Stock: 15 mg/ml | ||
Holliday salt solution | 16.0 ‰ (w/v) KH2PO4, 4.0 ‰ (w/v) Na2SO4, 8.0 ‰ (w/v) KCl, 1.32 ‰ (w/v) CaCl2*2H2O, 8.0 ‰ (v/v) trace elements, 2.0 ‰ (w/v) MgSO4; sterile filtrate | ||
Holliday vitamin solution | 0.1‰ (w/v) Thiamin, 0.05‰ (w/v) Riboflavin, 0.05‰ (w/v) Pyridoxin, 0.2‰ (w/v) Ca-Pantothenat, (0.05‰ (w/v) Aminobenzoeic acid, 0.2‰ (w/v) Nicotinic acid, 0.2‰ (w/v) Cholinchlorid, 1.0‰ (w/v) myo-Inositol; may be stored at -20 °C | ||
Hygromycin | Stock: 50 mg/ml in PBS, final concentration: 200 µg/ml | ||
Nourseothricin | Stock: 200 mg/ml in H2O, final concentration: 150 µg/ml | ||
NSY-glycerol-medium | 0.8 % (w/v) Nutrient Broth, 0.1 % (w/v) Yeast Extract, 0.5 % (w/v) Sucrose, 80.0 % (v/v) 87% Glycerin (f.c. 69.6%) | ||
RegLight | 1.0% (w/v) Yeast Extract 0.4 % (w/v) Bacto Peptone, 0.4 % (w/v) Sucrose, 18.22 % (w/v) Sorbitol, 1.5 % (w/v) Agar | ||
SCS, pH 5.8 | Solution 1: 20 mM tri-Na-citrate, 1 M Sorbitol; colution 2: 20 mM Citric acid, 1 M Sorbitol, add solution 2 into solution 1 until pH 5.8 is reached; autoclave | ||
STC, pH 8 | 1 M Sorbitol, 10 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 100 mM CaCl2; filter sterile | ||
STC/PEG | 40 % (v/v) PEG in STC-buffer | ||
TE buffer, pH 8 | 1.31 mM Tris-Base, 8.69 mM Tris-HCl, 10 mM Na2-EDTA*2H2O | ||
TE/RNase | 10 µg/ml RNaseA in TE buffer | ||
Trace elements | 0.06‰ (w/v) H3BO3, 0.14‰ (w/v) MnCl*4H2O, 0.4 ‰ (w/v) ZnCl2, 0.4 ‰ (w/v) Na2MoO4*2H2O, 0.1 ‰ (w/v) FeCl3*6H2O, 0.04‰ (w/v) CuSO4*5H2O | ||
Trichoderma lysing enzymes solution | 12.5 mg/ml SCS; filter sterile; prepare shortly before use | ||
Tris-HCl pH 7.5 | 806 mM Tris-HCl, 194 mM Tris-Base; check the pH and if necessary adjust with HCl; autoclave | ||
Usti-lysis buffer 1, pH 8 | 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 10 mM NaCl, 1 % (w/v) SDS, 2 % (v/v) TritonX-100, 1 mM EDTA. Do not measure pH using pH meter. | ||
Usti-lysis buffer 2 | mix Usti lysis buffer 1 with 1 x TE in a 1:1 ratio | ||
YEPS-Light medium | 1.0% (w/v) Yeast Extract, 0.4% (w/v) Bacto Peptone, 0.4% (w/v) Sucrose, for plates: 1.5% (w/v) Bacto Agar |