Human Brain Barcodes

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Shibata describes a method to assess rapidly fluctuating CpG sites (fCpGs) from single-cell methylation sequencing (sc-MeSeq) data. Assuming that fCpGs are largely consistent over time with changes induced by inheritable events during replication, the author infers lineage relationships in available brain-derived sc-MeSeq. Supplementing current lineage tracing through genomic and mitochondrial mosaic variants is an interesting concept that could supplement current work or allow additional lineage analysis in existing data.

However, the author failed to convincingly show the power of fCpG analysis to determine lineages in the human brain. While the correlation with cellular division and distinction of cell types appears plausible and strong, the application to detect specific lineages is less convincing. Aspects of this might be due to a lack of clarity in presentation and erroneous use of developmental concepts. However, without addressing these problems it is challenging for a reader to come to the same conclusions as the author.

On the flip side, this novel application of fCpGs will allow the re-use of existing sc-MeSeq to infer additional features that were previously unavailable, once the biological relevance has been further elucidated.

Strengths:

(1) Novel re-analysis application of methylation data to infer the status of fCpGs and the use as a lineage marker.

(2) Application of this method to an innovative existing data set to benchmark this framework against existing developmental knowledge.

Weaknesses:

(1) Insufficient clarity when presenting results (this includes an incredible shortness of the methods section making an informed assessment very difficult). This makes it hard to fully grasp and evaluate the presented results.

(2) Inconsistent or erroneous use of neurodevelopmental concepts which hinders appropriate interpretation of the results.

(3) Lack of consideration for alternative explanations for the observed data (i.e., considering fCpGs as a cellular division clock that diverges over 'time').

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The manuscript by Shibata proposed a potentially interesting idea that variation in methylcytosine across cells can inform cellular lineage in a way similar to single nucleotide variants (SNVs). The work builds on the hypothesis that the "replication" of methylcytosine, presumably by DNMT1, is inaccurate and produces stochastic methylation variants that are inherited in a cellular lineage. Although this notion can be correct to some extent, it does not account for other mechanisms that modulate methylcytosines, such as active gain of methylation mediated by DNMT3A/B activity and activity demethylation mediated by TET activity. In some cases, it is known that the modulation of methylation is targeted by sequence-specific transcription factors. In other words, inaccurate DNMT1 activity is only one of the many potential ways that can lead to methylation variants, which fundamentally weakens the hypothesis that methylation variants can serve as a reliable lineage marker. With that being said (being skeptical of the fundamental hypothesis), I want to be as open-minded as possible and try to propose some specific analyses that might better convince me that the author is correct. However, I suspect that the concept of methylation-based lineage tracing cannot be validated without some kind of lineage tracing experiment, which has been successfully demonstrated for scRNA-seq profiling but not yet for methylation profiling (one example is Delgado et al., nature. 2022).

(1) The manuscript reported that fCpG sites are predominantly intergenic. The author should also score the overlap between fCpG sites and putative regulatory elements and report p-values. If fCpG sites commonly overlap with regulatory elements, that would increase the possibility that these sites being actively regulated by enhancer mechanisms other than maintenance methyltransferase activity.

(2) The overlap between fCpG and regulatory sequence is a major alternative explanation for many of the observations regarding the effectiveness of using fCpG sites to classify cell types correctly. One would expect the methylation level of thousands of enhancers to be quite effective in distinguishing cell types based on the published single-cell brain methylome works.

(3) The methylation level of fCpG sites is higher in hindbrain structures and lower in forebrain regions. This observation was interpreted as the hindbrain being the "root" of the methylation barcodes and, through "progressive demethylation" produced the methylation states in the forebrain. This interpretation does not match what is known about methylation dynamics in mammalian brains, in particular, there is no data supporting the process of "progressive demethylation". In fact, it is known that with the activation of DNMT3A during early postnatal development in mice or humans (Lister et al., 2013. Science), there is a global gain of methylation in both CH and CG contexts. This is part of the broader issue I see in this manuscript, which is that the model might be correct if "inaccurate mC replication" is the only force that drives methylation dynamics. But in reality, active enzymatic processes such as the activation of DNMT3A have a global impact on the methylome, and it is unclear if any signature for "inaccurate mC replication" survives the de novo methylation wave caused by DNMT3A activity.

(3) Perhaps one way the author could address comment 3 is to analyze methylome data across several developmental stages in the same brain region, to first establish that the signal of "inaccurate mC replication" is robust and does not get erased during early postnatal development when DNMT3A deposits a large amount of de novo methylation.

(4) The hypothesis that methylation barcodes are homogeneous among progenitor cells and more polymorphic in derived cells is an interesting one. However, in this study, the observation was likely an artifact caused by the more granular cell types in the brain stem, intermediate granularity in inhibitory cells, and highly continuous cell types in cortical excitatory cells. So, in other words, single-cell studies typically classify hindbrain cell types that are more homogenous, and cortical excitatory cells that are much more heterogeneous. The difference in cell type granularity across brain structures is documented in several whole-brain atlas papers such as Yao et al. 2023 Nature part of the BICCN paper package.

(5) As discussed in comment 2, the author needs to assess whether the successful classification of cell types (brain lineage) using fCpG was, in fact, driven by fCpG sites overlapping with cell-type specific regulatory elements.

(6) In Figure 5E, the author tried to address the question of whether methylation barcodes inform lineage or post-mitotic methylation remodeling. The Y-axis corresponds to distances in tSNE. However, tSNE involves non-linear scaling, and the distances cannot be interpreted as biological distances. PCA distances or other types of distances computed from high-dimensional data would be more appropriate.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript entitled "Human Brain Barcodes", the author sought to use single-cell CpG methylation information to trace cell lineages in the human brain.

Strengths:

Tracing cell lineages in the human brain is important but technically challenging. Lineage tracing with single-cell CpG methylation would be interesting if convincing evidence exists.

Weaknesses:

As the author noted, "DNA methylation patterns are usually copied between cell division, but the replication errors are much higher compared to base replication". This unstable nature of CpG methylation would introduce significant problems in inferring the true cell lineage. The unreliable CpG methylation status also raises the question of what the "Barcodes" refer to in the title and across this study. Barcodes should be stable in principle and not dynamic across cell generations, as defined in Reference#1. It is not convincing that the "dynamic" CpG methylation fits the "barcodes" terminology. This problem is even more concerning in the last section of results, where CpG would fluctuate in post-mitotic cells.

Author response:

I thank the Senior Editor and the three reviewers for their consideration and careful assessments, which I find fair and justified. I agree the evidence is inadequate that single cell fluctuating CpG DNA methylation allows for human neuron lineage tracing. I agree with Reviewer #1 that fCpGs essentially function as “a cellular division clock that diverges over time”, but that fCpG methylation also records ancestry because cells with more similar patterns should be more related than cells with different patterns. However, as noted, there are alternative explanations that could explain fCpG DNA methylation pattern neuronal differences, or potentially obscure ancestry recorded by replication errors. Lineage tracing with fCpG methylation previously appeared possible in human intestines, endometrium, and blood, and potentially a similar approach could be used to reconstruct human brain cell ancestries.

I intend to revise the manuscript in a few weeks to address points raised by reviewers. These include a) editing to improve clarity and correct neurodevelopmental concepts, and b) adding a supplement that explains in much more detail how fCpG methylation may record cell divisions and ancestries. As recommended, additional “experiments” will be added including a) an analysis of single cell zygote to inner cell mass data to illustrate how fCpG brain barcode methylation changes between cell divisions very early in development before neurogenesis, and b) an analysis of newly released single cell brain aging data (Chien et al., 2024, Neuron 112, 2524–2539, August 7, 2024) that should help address issues of reproducibility and barcode stability over time. The evidence for lineage tracing will still be incomplete, but the modifications should help support the idea that fCpG methylation can record somatic cell ancestries.