Abstract

The Patch-seq approach is a powerful variation of the patch-clamp technique that allows for the combined electrophysiological, morphological, and transcriptomic characterization of individual neurons. To generate Patch-seq datasets at scale, we identified and refined key factors that contribute to the efficient collection of high-quality data. We developed patch-clamp electrophysiology software with analysis functions specifically designed to automate acquisition with online quality control. We recognized the importance of extracting the nucleus for transcriptomic success and maximizing membrane integrity during nucleus extraction for morphology success. The protocol is generalizable to different species and brain regions, as demonstrated by capturing multimodal data from human and macaque brain slices. The protocol, analysis and acquisition software are compiled at https://github.com/AllenInstitute/patchseqtools. This resource can be used by individual labs to generate data across diverse mammalian species and that is compatible with large publicly available Patch-seq datasets.

Data availability

The data used in this manuscript, the software packages, the detailed protocol, and online resources are freely available to the public and have been consolidated at https://github.com/AllenInstitute/patchseqtools.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Brian R Lee

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    brianle@alleninstitute.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3210-5638
  2. Agata Budzillo

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    agatab@alleninstitute.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Kristen Hadley

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jeremy A Miller

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4549-588X
  5. Tim Jarsky

    Synaptic Physiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4399-539X
  6. Katherine Baker

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. DiJon Hill

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Lisa Kim

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Rusty Mann

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0226-2069
  10. Lindsay Ng

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Aaron Oldre

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Ramkumar Rajanbabu

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Jessica Trinh

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Sara Vargas

    Synaptic Physiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Thomas Braun

    Headquarter, Byte Physics e. K., Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1416-2065
  16. Rachel A Dalley

    ---, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Nathan W Gouwens

    MAT, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8429-4090
  18. Brian E Kalmbach

    Human Cell Types, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Tae Kyung Kim

    Molecular Genetics, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Kimberly A Smith

    ---, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Gilberto Soler-Llavina

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Staci Sorensen

    Neuroanatomy, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Bosiljka Tasic

    Molecular Genetics, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6861-4506
  24. Jonathan T Ting

    Cell Types Program, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Ed Lein

    Cell Types Program, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. Hongkui Zeng

    Cell Types Program, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0326-5878
  27. Gabe J Murphy

    Cell Types Program, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Jim Berg

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

NIH Office of the Director (P51OD010425)

  • Brian E Kalmbach
  • Jonathan T Ting

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR000423)

  • Brian E Kalmbach
  • Jonathan T Ting

National Institute of Mental Health (U01 MH114812-02)

  • Ed Lein

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: The animal research in this study was performed in accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals in compliance with National Institutes of Health policy. All housing, handling, and experimental use of the animals occurred with the oversight and approval of the Allen Institute Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol 1809). All surgeries and retro-orbital injections were performed under isoflurane anesthesia with perioperative analgesics and fluid support.

Human subjects: De-identified human brain tissue and data used in this research was collected by local hospitals during clinically necessary surgery. Study participants gave informed consent to share their de-identified tissue and data either with the Allen Institute specifically or more broadly with collaborators of the study PIs prior to surgery. Participants consented to share their de-identified genomic data in controlled access in compliance with National Institutes of Health Genomic Data Sharing policy. The study participants were informed that the resulting data might be broadly shared, through publications, presentations, or scientific repositories and of the potential risks of sharing these data. Samples obtained from the Swedish Neuroscience Institute were collected under approved Western Institutional Review Board protocols (#1111798 and #1068035) in collaboration with Drs. Charles Cobb and Ryder Gwinn respectively. Samples obtained from Harborview Medical Center were obtained under approval of the University of Washington Institutional Review Board protocol (#HSD No. 49119) in collaboration with Dr. Jeffrey Ojemann.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Sacha B Nelson, Brandeis University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: December 6, 2020
  2. Preprint posted: May 24, 2021 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: August 12, 2021
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: August 13, 2021 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: September 9, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Lee et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,227
    Page views
  • 569
    Downloads
  • 10
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Brian R Lee
  2. Agata Budzillo
  3. Kristen Hadley
  4. Jeremy A Miller
  5. Tim Jarsky
  6. Katherine Baker
  7. DiJon Hill
  8. Lisa Kim
  9. Rusty Mann
  10. Lindsay Ng
  11. Aaron Oldre
  12. Ramkumar Rajanbabu
  13. Jessica Trinh
  14. Sara Vargas
  15. Thomas Braun
  16. Rachel A Dalley
  17. Nathan W Gouwens
  18. Brian E Kalmbach
  19. Tae Kyung Kim
  20. Kimberly A Smith
  21. Gilberto Soler-Llavina
  22. Staci Sorensen
  23. Bosiljka Tasic
  24. Jonathan T Ting
  25. Ed Lein
  26. Hongkui Zeng
  27. Gabe J Murphy
  28. Jim Berg
(2021)
Scaled, high fidelity electrophysiological, morphological, and transcriptomic cell characterization
eLife 10:e65482.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65482
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Plant Biology
    Simon Snoeck, Bradley W Abramson ... Adam D Steinbrenner
    Research Article Updated

    As a first step in innate immunity, pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) recognize the distinct pathogen and herbivore-associated molecular patterns and mediate activation of immune responses, but specific steps in the evolution of new PRR sensing functions are not well understood. We employed comparative genomic and functional analyses to define evolutionary events leading to the sensing of the herbivore-associated peptide inceptin (In11) by the PRR inceptin receptor (INR) in legume plant species. Existing and de novo genome assemblies revealed that the presence of a functional INR gene corresponded with ability to respond to In11 across ~53 million years (my) of evolution. In11 recognition is unique to the clade of Phaseoloid legumes, and only a single clade of INR homologs from Phaseoloids was functional in a heterologous model. The syntenic loci of several non-Phaseoloid outgroup species nonetheless contain non-functional INR-like homologs, suggesting that an ancestral gene insertion event and diversification preceded the evolution of a specific INR receptor function ~28 my ago. Chimeric and ancestrally reconstructed receptors indicated that 16 amino acid differences in the C1 leucine-rich repeat domain and C2 intervening motif mediate gain of In11 recognition. Thus, high PRR diversity was likely followed by a small number of mutations to expand innate immune recognition to a novel peptide elicitor. Analysis of INR evolution provides a model for functional diversification of other germline-encoded PRRs.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Evgeniya N Andreyeva, Alexander V Emelyanov ... Dmitry V Fyodorov
    Research Article

    Asynchronous replication of chromosome domains during S phase is essential for eukaryotic genome function, but the mechanisms establishing which domains replicate early versus late in different cell types remain incompletely understood. Intercalary heterochromatin domains replicate very late in both diploid chromosomes of dividing cells and in endoreplicating polytene chromosomes where they are also underrelicated. Drosophila SNF2-related factor SUUR imparts locus-specific underreplication of polytene chromosomes. SUUR negatively regulates DNA replication fork progression; however, its mechanism of action remains obscure. Here we developed a novel method termed MS-Enabled Rapid protein Complex Identification (MERCI) to isolate a stable stoichiometric native complex SUMM4 that comprises SUUR and a chromatin boundary protein Mod(Mdg4)-67.2. Mod(Mdg4) stimulates SUUR ATPase activity and is required for a normal spatiotemporal distribution of SUUR in vivo. SUUR and Mod(Mdg4)-67.2 together mediate the activities of gypsy insulator that prevent certain enhancer-promoter interactions and establish euchromatin-heterochromatin barriers in the genome. Furthermore, SuUR or mod(mdg4) mutations reverse underreplication of intercalary heterochromatin. Thus, SUMM4 can impart late replication of intercalary heterochromatin by attenuating the progression of replication forks through euchromatin/heterochromatin boundaries. Our findings implicate a SNF2 family ATP-dependent motor protein SUUR in the insulator function, reveal that DNA replication can be delayed by a chromatin barrier and uncover a critical role for architectural proteins in replication control. They suggest a mechanism for the establishment of late replication that does not depend on an asynchronous firing of late replication origins.