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

  • 3,192
    Page views
  • 374
    Downloads
  • 5
    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

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Jayashree Kumar et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Splicing is highly regulated and is modulated by numerous factors. Quantitative predictions for how a mutation will affect precursor mRNA (pre-mRNA) structure and downstream function are particularly challenging. Here, we use a novel chemical probing strategy to visualize endogenous precursor and mature MAPT mRNA structures in cells. We used these data to estimate Boltzmann suboptimal structural ensembles, which were then analyzed to predict consequences of mutations on pre-mRNA structure. Further analysis of recent cryo-EM structures of the spliceosome at different stages of the splicing cycle revealed that the footprint of the Bact complex with pre-mRNA best predicted alternative splicing outcomes for exon 10 inclusion of the alternatively spliced MAPT gene, achieving 74% accuracy. We further developed a β-regression weighting framework that incorporates splice site strength, RNA structure, and exonic/intronic splicing regulatory elements capable of predicting, with 90% accuracy, the effects of 47 known and 6 newly discovered mutations on inclusion of exon 10 of MAPT. This combined experimental and computational framework represents a path forward for accurate prediction of splicing-related disease-causing variants.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Heyun Guo et al.
    Research Article

    In the first meiotic cell division, proper segregation of chromosomes in most organisms depends on chiasmata, exchanges of continuity between homologous chromosomes that originate from the repair of programmed double-strand breaks (DSBs) catalyzed by the Spo11 endonuclease. Since DSBs can lead to irreparable damage in germ cells, while chromosomes lacking DSBs also lack chiasmata, the number of DSBs must be carefully regulated to be neither too high nor too low. Here, we show that in Caenorhabditis elegans, meiotic DSB levels are controlled by the phosphoregulation of DSB-1, a homolog of the yeast Spo11 cofactor Rec114, by the opposing activities of PP4PPH-4.1 phosphatase and ATRATL-1 kinase. Increased DSB-1 phosphorylation in pph-4.1 mutants correlates with reduction in DSB formation, while prevention of DSB-1 phosphorylation drastically increases the number of meiotic DSBs both in pph-4.1 mutants as well as in the wild type background. C. elegans and its close relatives also possess a diverged paralog of DSB-1, called DSB-2, and loss of dsb-2 is known to reduce DSB formation in oocytes with increasing age. We show that the proportion of the phosphorylated, and thus inactivated, form of DSB-1 increases with age and upon loss of DSB-2, while non-phosphorylatable DSB-1 rescues the age-dependent decrease in DSBs in dsb-2 mutants. These results suggest that DSB-2 evolved in part to compensate for the inactivation of DSB-1 through phosphorylation, to maintain levels of DSBs in older animals. Our work shows that PP4PPH-4.1, ATRATL-1, and DSB-2 act in concert with DSB-1 to promote optimal DSB levels throughout the reproductive lifespan.