"Adaptive immunity" qualifies the capacity of an organism to acquire a long-term resistance to a specific infectious agent following a first exposure to it. Whatever its biological implementation, such a system must perform three separate functions: the detection of the foreign status of the "invader", the specific memorization of this encounter, and a mecha-nism inhibiting subsequent re-infections. Adaptive immunity was thou-ght to be the privilege of vertebrates for a long time. Then came the stunn-ing discovery of the CRISPR-Cas system (Goldberg and Marraffini, 2015; Marraffini, 2015) mimicking a similar defense mechanism in prokary-otes. Levasseur et al. (2016) are now proposing that a similar system could operate in certain giant viruses in response to virophage infections. In their recent study, they claimed that 15-nt long fragments of the Zamilon virophage genome once integrated in a specific Mimivirus gene (R349) act as invader-derived "spacers" immunizing the virus against subsequent infections. They tested their hypothesis by showing that silencing the "spacer" -containing R349 gene restored the capacity of the Zamilon virophage to repli-cate in the normally resistant Mimi-virus. Here we review their evidences and conclude that MIMIVIRE is not analogous to the CRISPR-Cas system, does not function via a nucleic-acid recognition system, and is unlikely to possess all the attributes of a bona fide adaptive immune system.
The first and most important difficulty concerns the process of self-nonself discrimination at the root of any adaptive immune system. As far as we know, virophages (La Scola et al, 2008; Gaia et al, 2014) behave as absolute parasites of the virion fac-tory build by Mimivirus within the cytoplasm of the infected Acantha-moeba (Claverie and Abergel, 2009; Mutsafi et al, 2010). This virion factory contains all the necessary enzymatic equipment (most of it encoded by Mimivirus) to transcribe the Mimivirus and the virophage genes (using the same regulatory signals (Claverie and Abergel, 2009; Byrne et al, 2009; Legendre et al, 2010) and replicate their respective genomes at the very same time using a common machinery sequestered in the same compartment. Given the tight co-localization of the two replicating genomes and the absence of significant difference in their G+C contents, the CRISPR-Cas-like mechanism allegedly used by the MIMIVIRE system to discriminate the "invader" from the Mimivirus-own DNA at the initial adaptation stage remains to be conceptualized, if it exists. Leaving the selection of "protospacers" (Goldberg and Marraffini, 2015; Marraffini, 2015) to chance is not an option, as it would lead to the destruction of the progeny of Mimiviruses having selected pieces of their own DNA, regardless of the presence of virophages. To confer any fitness advantage to the Mimivirus host, the putative MIMIVIRE protospacer selection process should be strongly biased toward fragments of the virophage genome. To our knowledge the sole plausible mechanism that has been proposed so far to achieve such feat invokes the preferential selection of protospacer from the most actively replicating DNA molecules, usually corresponding to the small-est "parasitic" genome (e.g. plasmidic vs bacterial) (Wei et al, 2015; Levy et al, 2015). Without the demons-tration that a similar self/non-self discrimination process is at work in Zamilon-infected virion factories, the MIMIVIRE hypothesis and its analogy with an adaptive immune system do not hold.
Even if we admit that MIMIVIRE could preferentially select virophage-derived DNA fragments as CRISPR-Cas-like "spacers", we then run into another difficulty. Once stored within the proposed MIMIVIRE locus (i.e. the Mimivirus R349 gene) as a memory of previous virophage encounters, the spacer itself must escape its targeting at the subsequent interference stage, as such targeting would cause Mimivirus self-destruction. To be effective, the MIMIVIRE defence system must recognize and cut its target when encountered as a unique copy in the Zamilon DNA while sparing it when encountered (in 4 copies) in the Mimivirus DNA molecule. Most of the CRISPR-Cas systems discriminate between the invader-borne protospacers and the cognate host genome-stored "spacer" through the requirement for the so-called Protospacer Adjacent Motif (PAM), a short sequences next to the protospacer recognized by the Cas RNA-guided endonuclease complex (Nishimasu et al, 2015; Yamano et al, 2016). A corollary is then that the PAM short sequence signature must be strictly avoided within the CRISPR locus to prevent self-destruction (Westra et al, 2013; Marraffini and Sontheimer, 2010; Sternberg et al, 2016). This constraint is clearly not obeyed at the MIMIVIRE R349 locus (Figure 1) where 2 copies of the four 15-nt Zamilon-like spacers (highlighted in green) are flanked by adjacent sequences (highlighted in purple) identical or highly similar to those found in the Zamilon genome. This makes a nucleic acid-based discrimination of the Zamilon-borne target from the identical 15-nt spacers integrated at the R349 locus hard to conceive.
A final difficulty in comparing the MIMIVIRE process to the CRISPR-Cas system resides in the absence of a well-defined and conserved orga-nization for the storage and presentation of the selected "spacers" Levasseur et al. (2016) assign the role of invader-derived sequence presentation to the R349 gene, within which 15-nt long fragments of the Zamilon genome would have been allegedly integrated, and the silencing of which makes Mimivirus permissive to the virophage replication. However, if the genes orthologous to R349 are virtually identical in all the A-clade Mimiviruses (only 7 of which are publicly available, although 28 were reportedly sequenced) (Levasseur et al, 2016), their homologs in the available B-clade (Megaviruses) and C-clade (Moumouviruses) genomes are highly divergent ( < 35% identi-cal) or severely truncated. In contrast with all previously described prokary-otic CRISPR locus exhibiting a well-conserved organization (the Cas genes, a leader sequence, and a succession of palindromic repeats (Goldberg and Marraffini, 2015; Marraffini, 2015), the R349 locus does not exhibit the hallmarks of a functionally constrained genomic region. Thus, if short Zamilon-like sequences are indeed found in the R349 Mimivirus gene, there is yet no evi-dence that they result from a purpose-ful insertion by a well-controlled adaptive immune response system. Multiple insertions of virophage sequences not targeted to a specific location of host virus genomes have been documented previously (Desnues et al, 2012; Santini et al, 2013). The absence of conserved DNA structures (such as the regularly interspersed palindromic-repeats) presenting the virophage-derived "protospacers" in the Mimivirus ge-nome (Figure 1) and the absence of a conserved region adjacent to the R349 homologs in the other Mimivirus clades argues against MIMIVIRE to be analogous to the CRISPR-Cas system and representative of a bona fide adaptive system capable of conferring immunity to more than a single type of virophage. Additional arguments against MIMIVIRE being analogous to CRISPR-Cas have been presented elsewhere by anonymous authors (URL: https://pubpeer.com/publications/3480B9DE6C9330B0747034C330BA6A).