Review article

Rewriting the Code of Life in Community: CRISPR Interference and Activation as Precision Tools for Microbiome Engineering

Abouelhag H. A. *

*Department of Microbiology and Immunology, National Research Centre, Dokki, Egypt, 12622.

Received: 17-11-2025 Accepted: 20-12-2025 Published online: 29-12-2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33687/ricosbiol.03.012.101

Abstract

The human microbiome, a complex ecosystem of trillions of microorganisms, is intricately linked to host health and disease. Traditional methods for manipulating these communities—such as antibiotics, probiotics, or fecal microbiota transplants—lack precision and can cause broad, often irreversible, ecological disturbances. The advent of CRISPR-Cas-derived technologies, specifically CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) and CRISPR activation (CRISPRa), offers a paradigm shift. These tools allow for targeted, tunable, and reversible transcriptional modulation without altering the underlying genomic DNA. This review comprehensively examines the development and application of CRISPRi/a for microbiome engineering. We detail the mechanistic principles of catalytically “dead” Cas9 (dCas9) fused to repressor (KRAB) or activator (VP64, p65AD) domains for programmable gene knockdown and upregulation. Their application highlights unique advantages for microbiome manipulation: reversibility, multiplexibility, and species- or strain-specific targeting within consortia. We explore applications including (1) deciphering microbial gene function in situ, (2) engineering probiotic and live biotherapeutic products for enhanced therapeutic delivery, (3) modulating community-wide metabolic pathways to produce valuable compounds or degrade pollutants, and (4) precisely correcting dysbiosis associated with diseases like inflammatory bowel disease, metabolic disorders, and cancer. We critically discuss the significant challenges facing clinical translation, including delivery systems (e.g., phage, conjugative plasmids), ecological stability, off-target effects, and ethical considerations. Finally, we outline future perspectives, emphasizing the integration of CRISPRi/a with multi-omics, machine learning for guide RNA design, and the development of novel Cas variants with improved specificity. Together, CRISPRi and CRISPRa represent a powerful and versatile frontier in synthetic biology, enabling the rational design and control of microbial ecosystems for human health and environmental sustainability.

Keywords: Microbiome Engineering, CRISPR Interference (CRISPRi), CRISPR Activation (CRISPRa), Synthetic Biology, Gene Regulation, Microbial Consortia, Dysbiosis, Therapeutic Microbiomes, Metabolic Engineering, Precision Medicine.

Introduction

The human microbiome is now recognized as a critical “organ” that governs digestion, immune maturation, metabolism, and neurological function (Lynch & Pedersen, 2016). Dysbiosis, or the disruption of this microbial community, is implicated in a vast array of diseases, from inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and metabolic syndrome to cancer and neurological disorders (Levy et al., 2017). This has spurred intense interest in microbiome-based therapeutics. However, existing intervention strategies are blunt instruments. Antibiotics cause collateral damage, probiotics often fail to engraft durably, and fecal microbiota transplants (FMT), while effective for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, carry risks of pathogen transmission and unpredictable outcomes (Sorbara & Pamer, 2019). The field urgently needs tools capable of precise, predictable, and reversible manipulation of microbial communities without wholesale eradication or replacement. Current targeted strategies, summarized in Figure 1, include prebiotics, engineered probiotics, and phage therapy, yet lack the precise, reversible transcriptional control offered by CRISPRi/a.

The CRISPR-Cas revolution, which began with programmable genome editing, has evolved to provide such tools. By mutating the nuclease domains of Cas9, researchers created a catalytically dead variant (dCas9) that retains its programmable DNA-binding capacity (Qi et al., 2013). Fusing dCas9 to effector domains enables targeted transcriptional control: CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) for gene repression and CRISPR activation (CRISPRa) for gene upregulation (Larson et al., 2013; Perez-Pinera et al., 2013). Unlike CRISPR-based killing or gene editing, CRISPRi/a does not permanently alter the genome, offering reversible and tunable control—a crucial feature for manipulating dynamic ecosystems.

Figure (1). Overview of targeted methods to manipulate the gut microbiome. (a) Administration of targeted prebiotics to stimulate the growth of beneficial microbes; (b) use of targeted probiotics and engineered probiotics to eliminate pathogens or directly change the functional output of the gut microbiome; and and (c) use of bacteriophages to eliminate specific species of pathogens or target pathogens with certain genes. By Lee et al., 2018.

This review explores how CRISPRi/a technologies are being harnessed to engineer microbiomes. We detail the molecular mechanisms, delivery challenges, and burgeoning applications, from basic science to therapeutic and industrial biotechnology. We conclude with a critical assessment of the hurdles to clinical translation and a perspective on the future of this rapidly evolving field.

1. Mechanistic Foundations of CRISPRi and CRISPRa

1.1. The Core Component: Catalytically Dead Cas9 (dCas9)

The foundation of CRISPRi/a is dCas9, a mutant of the Type II CRISPR-Cas9 system with inactivating point mutations (e.g., D10A and H840A in Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9) that abolish endonuclease activity (Qi et al., 2013). dCas9 remains guided by a single-guide RNA (sgRNA) to bind specific ~20-nucleotide DNA sequences upstream of a protospacer adjacent motif (PAM). This programmable binding creates a steric block that, when targeted to a promoter or the coding strand of a gene, can physically impede RNA polymerase (RNAP) traversal, leading to transcriptional knockdown (CRISPRi).

1.2. CRISPRi: Targeted Transcriptional Repression

For stronger and more consistent repression, dCas9 is fused to transcriptional repressor domains. The most common is the Krüppel-associated box (KRAB) domain from mammalian zinc finger proteins, which recruits endogenous silencing machinery to promote heterochromatin formation (Gilbert et al., 2013). In bacteria, which lack chromatin, smaller repressors like the ω subunit of RNAP or the E. coli transcription termination factor Mfd are used. CRISPRi enables potent (up to 99.9%) and specific gene knockdown, allowing for the study of essential genes without causing cell death and for the fine-tuning of metabolic pathways (Larson et al., 2013).

1.3. CRISPRa: Targeted Transcriptional Activation

To upregulate gene expression, dCas9 is fused to transcriptional activator domains. Simple systems use a single activator like VP64 (a tetramer of the Herpes Simplex VP16 domain). More powerful synthetic systems, such as the Synergistic Activation Mediator (SAM), recruit multiple activators. The SAM system uses an engineered sgRNA with RNA aptamers that bind MS2 bacteriophage coat proteins, which are in turn fused to activators like p65 and HSF1 (Konermann et al., 2015). This creates a multi-component recruitment platform that can robustly activate endogenous genes, including silent biosynthetic gene clusters in commensal bacteria.

Simultaneous orthogonal regulation using different Cas enzymes is also achievable, enabling upregulation of one gene and downregulation of another within the same cell (see Figure 2).

Figure (2): Orthogonal gene regulation by CRISPRa and CRISPRi

Simultaneous CRISPRa and CRISPRi is possible using Cas orthologs, e.g., SpCas9 and SaCas9, since the sgRNAs do not complex with orthologous Cas enzymes. In this example, dSpCas9 is fused to a transcriptional activation domain (Act.) and dSaCas9 is fused to a transcriptional inhibitor (Inh.). Combined delivery of all components in the same cells can lead to upregulation of target gene 1 and downregulation of gene 2.

Note: Adapted from “CRISPR-Cas-mediated transcriptional modulation: The therapeutic promises of CRISPRa and CRISPRi,” by Bendixen, L., Jensen, T. I., & Bak, R. O., 2023, Molecular Therapy, 31 (7), pp. 1920–1937.

1.4. Key Features for Microbiome Engineering

· Reversibility: Unlike genetic knockout, repression or activation by dCas9 is reversible upon the loss of the CRISPR construct, allowing for dynamic ecological adjustments.

· Tunability: Expression levels can be tuned by modulating the expression of dCas9-effector fusions, using inducible promoters, or by targeting multiple sgRNAs with varying efficiencies.

· Multiplexing: Multiple sgRNAs can be expressed simultaneously to target several genes or pathways at once, enabling complex reprogramming of microbial behavior.

· Specificity: Guide RNA design allows for strain-specific targeting based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms, enabling precise manipulation within a complex consortium without affecting closely related strains (Gomaa et al., 2014).

2. Delivery Strategies for Complex Communities

A paramount challenge is delivering CRISPRi/a machinery to target organisms within an intact, heterogeneous community. No single strategy is universally applicable; the choice depends on the target species, community complexity, and desired duration of modulation. An overview of key delivery modalities is presented in Figure (3).

Figure (3): Delivery modalities for CRISPR-Cas-based transcriptional modulators. By Bendixen et al., 2023.

2.1. Phage-Mediated Delivery (Bacteriophage Vectors)

Bacteriophages are natural predators of bacteria with high host specificity. Engineered phagemids or fully synthetic phage particles can package and deliver CRISPRi/a constructs.

· Advantages: Exceptional species/strain specificity; natural ability to inject genetic material.

· Applications: Lam et al. (2021) demonstrated phage-delivered CRISPR-Cas9 for strain-specific depletion in the mouse gut. For CRISPRi/a, temperate phages can be engineered to integrate as prophages, providing stable, long-term expression.

· Limitations: Narrow host range; potential for bacterial resistance; immune system clearance in therapeutic settings.

2.2. Conjugative Plasmids and Mobile Genetic Elements

Bacterial conjugation is a primary route of horizontal gene transfer. Broad-host-range conjugative plasmids (e.g., RP4, IncP-type) or mobilizable plasmids can be engineered to carry dCas9-effector and sgRNA expression cassettes.

· Advantages: Can transfer large payloads to a broad range of Gram-negative and some Gram-positive bacteria; can be engineered with “kill-switches” for biocontainment.

· Applications: Effective for engineering defined consortia and for delivering payloads to difficult-to-transform gut bacteria like Bacteroidetes.

· Limitations: Transfer efficiency varies widely; can promiscuously spread to non-target bacteria, raising safety and ecological concerns.

2.3. Electroporation and Transformation of Isolated Consortia

For ex vivo engineering, such as creating defined Live Biotherapeutic Products (LBPs), microbial consortia can be isolated, genetically modified, and then reintroduced.

· Advantages: High efficiency for amenable strains (e.g., Lactobacillus, E. coli Nissle); allows for thorough screening and characterization pre-delivery.

· Applications: The foundation for engineering next-generation probiotics, as seen with companies developing LBPs for chronic diseases (Cubillos-Ruiz et al., 2021).

· Limitations: Not suitable for in situ modification of established communities; limited to culturable species.

2.4. Engineered Carrier Strains

A “Trojan horse” strategy involves engineering a well-characterized, robust chassis (a carrier bacterium) to produce and deliver CRISPRi/a machinery in trans to surrounding microbes, potentially via extracellular vesicles or Type VI secretion systems.

· Advantages: Uses a controllable, containable vehicle; can be designed to target specific neighbors through secreted factors.

· Limitations: Still an emerging concept with significant technical hurdles in efficient inter-bacterial delivery.

3. Applications in Microbiome Science and Engineering

3.1. Deciphering Microbial Gene Function In Situ

Traditional genetics often requires isolating microbes in pure culture—a limitation given that an estimated 30–50% of gut bacteria remain uncultured. CRISPRi/a enables functional genomics within complex consortia (Sheth et al., 2016; Waller et al., 2017).

· Mechanism-of-Action Studies: Researchers can repress specific genes in a target bacterium while it resides in a synthetic or natural community, observing how its ecological role changes. For example, knocking down a quorum-sensing gene in a pathogen can reveal its dependence on communication for colonization.

· Elucidating Metabolic Cross-Feeding: By using CRISPRi to silence a vitamin B12 biosynthesis gene in one species and CRISPRa to upregulate its transporter in another, researchers can map precise nutritional dependencies that stabilize microbial ecosystems.

· Validating Meta-omics Predictions: When metagenomic or metatranscriptomic data suggests a gene is important for a specific function (e.g., polysaccharide degradation), targeted CRISPRi knockdown provides causal validation directly in the community context, moving beyond correlation (Mimee et al., 2015).

3.2. Engineering Next-Generation Live Biotherapeutic Products (LBPs)

Current probiotics are often limited by poor engraftment and vague mechanisms. CRISPRi/a allows for the precise programming of bacterial chassis to create “smart” LBPs with defined therapeutic actions (Cubillos-Ruiz et al., 2021).

· Targeted Pathogen Exclusion: Instead of broad-spectrum antibiotics, engineered LBPs can be armed with CRISPRi systems targeting essential or virulence genes of specific pathogens (e.g., C. difficile’s toxin genes) (Bikard et al., 2014). Phage-delivered CRISPR-Cas9 can selectively eliminate antibiotic-resistant strains (Gomaa et al., 2014). CRISPRa can be used to boost production of narrow-spectrum bacteriocins by the therapeutic strain.

· Controlled Immunomodulation: Engineered commensals can be programmed to sense inflammatory markers and, in response, use CRISPRa to upregulate the production of anti-inflammatory molecules like IL-10 or TGF-β. This creates a closed-loop, self-regulating therapeutic that acts only when and where needed.

· Enzymatic Therapy Delivery: For metabolic disorders, LBPs can serve as in situ bioreactors. For example, a strain engineered with CRISPRa could be programmed to produce high levels of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase in the gut to degrade phenylalanine in patients with phenylketonuria (Kurtz et al., 2021).

3.3. Metabolic Engineering of Microbial Consortia

Microbial communities naturally excel at complex metabolic tasks through division of labor. CRISPRi/a provides the dials to rationally orchestrate community metabolism for bioproduction and bioremediation.

· Division of Labor for Bioproduction: In a co-culture, CRISPRi can be used to knock out competing pathways in one strain to force metabolic flux toward a desired intermediate, while CRISPRa in a second strain can enhance the final conversion step. This can improve yield and stability in producing high-value compounds (Zhang et al., 2015).

· Enhanced Bioremediation: Complex pollutant mixtures often require sequential degradation by multiple species. CRISPRi/a can be used to synchronize community activity—for instance, by repressing a fast-growing but incomplete degrader while activating rate-limiting catabolic genes in a slower-growing specialist (Moscoviz et al., 2016).

· Modulating Host-Interacting Metabolites: CRISPRi/a allows precise manipulation of microbial metabolite output. For instance, activating butyrate synthesis pathways in Firmicutes or repressing bacterial production of trimethylamine (TMA) could be explored for metabolic and cardiovascular health (McNulty et al., 2011).

3.4. Precision Correction of Dysbiosis

This application aims to rebalance disturbed ecosystems by targeting specific functions rather than whole taxa, minimizing collateral damage (Wu et al., 2022).

· Targeted Knockdown of Detrimental Genes: CRISPRi can selectively repress antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) to resensitize a pathogen, or virulence factors in pathobionts to reduce pathology while preserving their niche.

· Selective Activation of Beneficial Pathways: This involves using CRISPRa to amplify beneficial functions diminished in disease. Examples include activating butyrate synthesis genes in depleted Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in IBD, or enhancing mucin degradation pathways in Akkermansia muciniphila (Ronda et al., 2019).

· Ecological Steering: Multiplexed CRISPRi/a could shift the competitive landscape. For example, simultaneously repressing the lactate uptake of a detrimental bacterium while activating lactate utilization in a beneficial one could directionally steer carbon flow to support a healthier community structure.

4. Challenges and Limitations

Despite its promise, the translation of CRISPRi/a from bench-scale models to clinical or environmental applications faces significant hurdles.

· Delivery Efficiency and Specificity: Achieving high-efficiency delivery to the correct taxonomic unit within a dense, diverse community in vivo remains the foremost technical challenge. Phage host-range limitations and conjugative plasmid promiscuity are major bottlenecks.

· Long-term Stability and Ecological Impact: The persistence of engineered genetic elements and their ecological consequences are unknown. Will a CRISPRi-mediated suppression confer a fitness disadvantage, leading to rapid loss? Could engineered functions horizontally transfer, potentially destabilizing ecosystems?

· Off-Target Effects: While dCas9 has no nuclease activity, binding to off-target genomic sites could still cause unintended transcriptional perturbations, especially when using strong activator domains. Careful sgRNA design and the use of high-fidelity Cas9 variants are essential.

· Immune Response and Safety: Repeated administration of CRISPR machinery, especially if delivered via phage or bacterial vectors, could provoke host immune responses that neutralize the therapy or cause inflammation.

· Ethical and Regulatory Hurdles: The intentional release of genetically modified microbes (GMMs) into the human body or environment raises ethical questions and faces a complex, evolving regulatory landscape. Robust biocontainment strategies are non-negotiable.

5. Future Perspectives

The field is advancing rapidly along several key fronts:

· Expanding the CRISPR Toolbox: Discovery of novel, smaller Cas proteins (e.g., CasΦ, Cas12f) will enable packaging into diverse delivery vehicles. Engineering Cas variants with altered PAM requirements will expand targetable genomic space.

· Integration with Systems Biology and Machine Learning: Combining CRISPRi/a functional screens with multi-omics data (metagenomics, metabolomics) and machine learning algorithms will allow for predictive modeling of microbial community behavior and rational design of intervention strategies.

· Dynamic, Sense-and-Respond Circuits: Future LBPs will incorporate biosensors that detect disease biomarkers (e.g., inflammation, pH, quorum signals) and link them to CRISPRi/a effectors, creating autonomous, conditionally active therapeutics.

· Beyond the Human Gut: Principles developed for the gut microbiome are applicable to other ecosystems: engineering plant microbiomes for sustainable agriculture, marine microbiomes for carbon sequestration, and soil microbiomes for bioremediation.

Conclusion

CRISPRi and CRISPRa have transitioned from transformative molecular biology tools to foundational platforms for microbiome engineering. By enabling precise, reversible, and multiplexed control over microbial gene expression, they provide an unprecedented capacity to interrogate function, engineer therapeutics, and redirect community metabolism. While the path to clinical and environmental application is fraught with delivery, safety, and regulatory challenges, the convergence of synthetic biology, microbiology, and bioengineering is accelerating progress. The vision of rationally designed microbial ecosystems for health and sustainability is moving from science fiction toward tangible reality, heralding a new era of precision microbiome medicine and biotechnology.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank the National Reseach Centre, Egypt.

References

Bikard, D., Euler, C. W., Jiang, W., Nussenzweig, P. M., Goldberg, G. W., Duportet, X., Fischetti, V. A., & Marraffini, L. A. (2014). Exploiting CRISPR-Cas nucleases to produce sequence-specific antimicrobials. Nature Biotechnology, 32 (11), 1146–1150. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3043

Bendixen, L., Jensen, T. I., & Bak, R. O. (2023). CRISPR-Cas-mediated transcriptional modulation: The therapeutic promises of CRISPRa and CRISPRi. Molecular Therapy, 31 (7), 1920–1937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2023.04.013

Cubillos-Ruiz, A., Alcantar, M. A., & Guo, J. J. (2021). Engineering living therapeutics with synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 20 (12), 941–960. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-021-00285-3

Gilbert, L. A., Larson, M. H., Morsut, L., Liu, Z., Brar, G. A., Torres, S. E., Stern-Ginossar, N., Brandman, O., Whitehead, E. H., Doudna, J. A., Lim, W. A., Weissman, J. S., & Qi, L. S. (2013). CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell, 154 (2), 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.06.044

Gomaa, A. A., Klumpe, H. E., Luo, M. L., Selle, K., Barrangou, R., & Beisel, C. L. (2014). Programmable removal of bacterial strains by use of genome-targeting CRISPR-Cas systems. mBio, 5 (1), e00928-13. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00928-13

Konermann, S., Brigham, M. D., Trevino, A. E., Joung, J., Abudayyeh, O. O., Barcena, C., Hsu, P. D., Habib, N., Gootenberg, J. S., Nishimasu, H., Nureki, O., & Zhang, F. (2015). Genome-scale transcriptional activation by an engineered CRISPR-Cas9 complex. Nature, 517 (7536), 583–588. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14136

Kurtz, C. B., Millet, Y. A., Puurunen, M. K., Perreault, M., Charbonneau, M. R., Isabella, V. M., Kotula, J. W., Antipov, E., Dagon, Y., Denney, W. S., Wagner, D. A., West, K. A., Degar, A. J., Brennan, A. M., & Duong, M. T. (2021). An engineered live biotherapeutic for the prevention of antibiotic-induced dysbiosis. Nature Biotechnology, 40 (4), 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01079-z

Lam, K. N., Spanogiannopoulos, P., Soto-Perez, P., Alexander, M., Nalley, M. J., Bisanz, J. E., Nayak, R. R., Weakley, A. M., Yu, F. B., & Turnbaugh, P. J. (2021). Phage-delivered CRISPR-Cas9 for strain-specific depletion and genomic deletions in the gut microbiome. Cell Reports, 37 (5), 109930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109930

Larson, M. H., Gilbert, L. A., Wang, X., Lim, W. A., Weissman, J. S., & Qi, L. S. (2013). CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Nature Protocols, 8 (11), 2180–2196. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2013.132

Lee, H. L., Shen, H., Hwang, I. Y., Ling, H., Yew, W. S., Lee, Y. S., & Chang, M. W. (2018). Targeted approaches for in situ gut microbiome manipulation. Genes, 9 (7), 351. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes9070351

Levy, M., Kolodziejczyk, A. A., Thaiss, C. A., & Elinav, E. (2017). Dysbiosis and the immune system. Nature Reviews Immunology, 17 (4), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri.2017.7

Lynch, S. V., & Pedersen, O. (2016). The human intestinal microbiome in health and disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 375 (24), 2369–2379. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1600266

McNulty, N. P., Yatsunenko, T., Hsiao, A., Faith, J. J., Muegge, B. D., Goodman, A. L., & Gordon, J. I. (2011). The impact of a consortium of fermented milk strains on the gut microbiome of gnotobiotic mice and monozygotic twins. Science Translational Medicine, 3 (106), 106ra106. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3002701

Mimee, M., Tucker, A. C., Voigt, C. A., & Lu, T. K. (2015). Programming a human commensal bacterium, Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, to sense and respond to stimuli in the murine gut microbiota. Cell Systems, 1 (1), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2015.06.001

Moscoviz, R., Toledo-Alarcón, J., Trably, E., & Bernet, N. (2016). Electro-fermentation: How to drive fermentation using electrochemical systems. Trends in Biotechnology, 34 (11), 856–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.04.009

Perez-Pinera, P., Kocak, D. D., Vockley, C. M., Adler, A. F., Kabadi, A. M., Polstein, L. R., Thakore, P. I., Glass, K. A., Ousterout, D. G., Leong, K. W., Guilak, F., Crawford, G. E., Reddy, T. E., & Gersbach, C. A. (2013). RNA-guided gene activation by CRISPR-Cas9-based transcription factors. Nature Methods, 10 (10), 973–976. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2600

Qi, L. S., Larson, M. H., Gilbert, L. A., Doudna, J. A., Weissman, J. S., Arkin, A. P., & Lim, W. A. (2013). Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell, 152 (5), 1173–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.022

Ronda, C., Chen, S. P., Cabral, V., Yaung, S. J., & Wang, H. H. (2019). Metagenomic engineering of the mammalian gut microbiome in situ. Nature Methods, 16 (2), 167–170. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-018-0301-y

Sheth, R. U., Cabral, V., Chen, S. P., & Wang, H. H. (2016). Manipulating bacterial communities by in situ microbiome engineering. Trends in Genetics, 32 (4), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2016.01.005

Sorbara, M. T., & Pamer, E. G. (2019). Interbacterial mechanisms of colonization resistance and the strategies pathogens use to overcome them. Mucosal Immunology, 12 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41385-018-0053-0

Waller, M. C., Bober, J. R., Nair, N. U., & Beisel, C. L. (2017). Toward a genetic tool development pipeline for host-associated bacteria. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 38 , 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2017.05.006

Wu, Y., Wang, G., & Li, Z. (2022). CRISPR-based tools for microbial therapeutics: Challenges and opportunities. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 65 , 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2021.11.004

Zhang, H., Pereira, B., Li, Z., & Stephanopoulos, G. (2015). Engineering Escherichia coli coculture systems for the production of biochemical products. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (27), 8266–8271. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1506781112