Aberration correction in long GRIN lens-based microendoscopes for extended field-of-view two-photon imaging in deep brain regions

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Sattin, Nardin, and colleagues designed and evaluated corrective microlenses that increase the useable field of view of two long (>6mm) thin (500 um diameter) GRIN lenses used in deep-tissue two-photon imaging. This paper closely follows the thread of earlier work from the same group (e.g. Antonini et al, 2020; eLife), filling out the quiver of available extended-field-of-view 2P endoscopes with these longer lenses. The lenses are made by a molding process that appears practical and easy to adopt with conventional two-photon microscopes.

Simulations are used to motivate the benefits of extended field of view, demonstrating that more cells can be recorded, with less mixing of signals in extracted traces, when recorded with higher optical resolution. In vivo tests were performed in the piriform cortex, which is difficult to access, especially in chronic preparations.

The design, characterization, and simulations are clear and thorough, but not exhaustive (see below), and do not break new ground in optical design or biological application. However, the approach shows much promise, including for applications not mentioned in the present text such as miniaturized GRIN-based microscopes. Readers will largely be interested in this work for practical reasons: to apply the authors' corrected endoscopes.

Strengths:

The text is clearly written, the ex vivo analysis is thorough and well-supported, and the figures are clear. The authors achieved their aims, as evidenced by the images presented, and were able to make measurements from large numbers of cells simultaneously in vivo in a difficult preparation.

Weaknesses:

(1) The novelty of the present work over previous efforts from the same group is not well explained. What needed to be done differently to correct these longer GRIN lenses?

(2) Some strong motivations for the method are not presented. For example, the introduction (page 3) focuses on identifying neurons with different coding properties, but this can be done with electrophysiology (albeit with different strengths and weaknesses). Compared to electrophysiology, optical methods more clearly excel at genetic targeting, subcellular measurements, and molecular specificity; these could be mentioned. Another example, in comparing microfabricated lenses to other approaches, an unmentioned advantage is miniaturization and potential application to mini-2P microscopes, which use GRIN lenses.

(3) Some potentially useful information is lacking, leaving critical questions for potential adopters:

How sensitive is the assembly to decenter between the corrective optic and the GRIN lens? What is the yield of fabrication and of assembly?

Supplementary Figure 1: Is this really a good agreement between the design and measured profile? Does the figure error (~10 um in some cases on average) noticeably degrade the image? How do individual radial profiles compare to the presented means?
What is the practical effect of the strong field curvature? Are the edges of the field, which come very close to the lens surface, a practical limitation?

The lenses appear to be corrected for monochromatic light; high-performance microscopes are generally achromatic. Is the bandwidth of two-photon excitation sufficient to warrant optimization over multiple wavelengths?

GRIN lenses are often used to access a 3D volume by scanning in z (including in this study). How does the corrective lens affect imaging performance over the 3D field of view?

(4) The in vivo images (Figure 7D) have a less impressive resolution and field than the ex vivo images (Figure 4B), and the reason for this is not clear. Given the difference in performance, how does this compare to an uncorrected endoscope in the same preparation? Is the reduced performance related to uncorrected motion, field curvature, working distance, etc? Regarding Figure 7, there is no analysis of the biological significance of the calcium signals or even a description of where olfactory stimuli were presented. The timescale of jGCaMP8f signals in Figure 7E is uncharacteristically slow for this indicator (compared to Zhang et al 2023 (Nature)), though perhaps this is related to the physiology of these cells or the stimuli.

(5) The claim of unprecedented spatial resolution across the FOV (page 18) is hard to evaluate and is not supported by references to quantitative comparisons. The promises of the method for future studies (pages 18-19) could also be better supported by analysis or experiment, but these are minor and to me, do not detract from the appeal of the work.

(6) The text is lengthy and the material is repeated, especially between the introduction and conclusion. Consolidating introductory material to the introduction would avoid diluting interesting points in the discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors present an approach to correct GRIN lens aberrations, which primarily cause a decrease in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), particularly in the lateral regions of the field-of-view (FOV), thereby limiting the usable FOV. The authors propose to mitigate these aberrations by designing and fabricating aspherical corrective lenses using ray trace simulations and two-photon lithography, respectively; the corrective lenses are then mounted on the back aperture of the GRIN lens.

This approach was previously demonstrated by the same lab for GRIN lenses shorter than 4.1 mm (Antonini et al., eLife, 2020). In the current work, the authors extend their method to a new class of GRIN lenses with lengths exceeding 6 mm, enabling access to deeper brain regions as most ventral regions of the mouse brain. Specifically, they designed and characterized corrective lenses for GRIN lenses measuring 6.4 mm and 8.8 mm in length. Finally, they applied these corrected long micro-endoscopes to perform high-precision calcium signal recordings in the olfactory cortex.

Compared with alternative approaches using adaptive optics, the main strength of this method is that it does not require hardware or software modifications, nor does it limit the system's temporal resolution. The manuscript is well-written, the data are clearly presented, and the experiments convincingly demonstrate the advantages of the corrective lenses.

The implementation of these long corrected micro-endoscopes, demonstrated here for deep imaging in the mouse olfactory bulb, will also enable deep imaging in larger mammals such as rats or marmosets.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This work presents the development, characterization, and use of new thin microendoscopes (500µm diameter) whose accessible field of view has been extended by the addition of a corrective optical element glued to the entrance face. Two micro endoscopes of different lengths (6.4mm and 8.8mm) have been developed, allowing imaging of neuronal activity in brain regions >4mm deep. An alternative solution to increase the field of view could be to add an adaptive optics loop to the microscope to correct the aberrations of the GRIN lens. The solution presented in this paper does not require any modification of the optical microscope and can therefore be easily accessible to any neuroscience laboratory performing optical imaging of neuronal activity.

Strengths:

(1) The paper is generally clear and well-written. The scientific approach is well structured and numerous experiments and simulations are presented to evaluate the performance of corrected microendoscopes. In particular, we can highlight several consistent and convincing pieces of evidence for the improved performance of corrected micro endoscopes:
a) PSFs measured with corrected micro endoscopes 75µm from the centre of the FOV show a significant reduction in optical aberrations compared to PSFs measured with uncorrected micro endoscopes.
b) Morphological imaging of fixed brain slices shows that optical resolution is maintained over a larger field of view with corrected micro endoscopes compared to uncorrected ones, allowing neuronal processes to be revealed even close to the edge of the FOV.
c) Using synthetic calcium data, the authors showed that the signals obtained with the corrected microendoscopes have a significantly stronger correlation with the ground truth signals than those obtained with uncorrected microendoscopes.

(2) There is a strong need for high-quality micro endoscopes to image deep brain regions in vivo. The solution proposed by the authors is simple, efficient, and potentially easy to disseminate within the neuroscience community.

Weaknesses:

(1) Many points need to be clarified/discussed. Here are a few examples:

a) It is written in the methods: « The uncorrected microendoscopes were assembled either using different optical elements compared to the corrected ones or were obtained from the corrected probes after the mechanical removal of the corrective lens. »
This is not very clear: the uncorrected microendoscopes are not simply the unmodified GRIN lenses?

b) In the results of the simulation of neuronal activity (Figure 5A, for example), the neurons in the center of the FOV have a very large diameter (of about 30µm). This should be discussed. Also, why is the optical resolution so low on these images?

c) It seems that we can't see the same neurons on the left and right panels of Figure 5D. This should be discussed.

d) It is not very clear to me why in Figure 6A, F the fraction of adjacent cell pairs that are more correlated than expected increases as a function of the threshold on peak SNR. The authors showed in Supplementary Figure 3B that the mean purity index increases as a function of the threshold on peak SNR for all micro endoscopes. Therefore, I would have expected the correlation between adjacent cells to decrease as a function of the threshold on peak SNR. Similarly, the mean purity index for the corrected short microendoscope is close to 1 for high thresholds on peak SNR: therefore, I would have expected the fraction of adjacent cell pairs that are more correlated than expected to be close to 0 under these conditions. It would be interesting to clarify these points.

e) Figures 6C, H: I think it would be fairer to compare the uncorrected and corrected endomicroscopes using the same effective FOV.

f) Figure 7E: Many calcium transients have a strange shape, with a very fast decay following a plateau or a slower decay. Is this the result of motion artefacts or analysis artefacts? Also, the duration of many calcium transients seems to be long (several seconds) for GCaMP8f. These points should be discussed.

g) The authors do not mention the influence of the neuropil on their data. Did they subtract the neuropil's contribution to the signals from the somata? It is known from the literature that the presence of the neuropil creates artificial correlations between neurons, which decrease with the distance between the neurons (Grødem, S., Nymoen, I., Vatne, G.H. et al. An updated suite of viral vectors for in vivo calcium imaging using intracerebral and retro-orbital injections in male mice. Nat Commun 14, 608 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36324-3; Keemink SW, Lowe SC, Pakan JMP, Dylda E, van Rossum MCW, Rochefort NL. FISSA: A neuropil decontamination toolbox for calcium imaging signals. Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 22;8(1):3493. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21640-2. PMID: 29472547; PMCID: PMC5823956)
This point should be addressed.

h) Also, what are the expected correlations between neurons in the pyriform cortex? Are there measurements in the literature with which the authors could compare their data?

(2) The way the data is presented doesn't always make it easy to compare the performance of corrected and uncorrected lenses. Here are two examples:

a) In Figures 4 to 6, it would be easier to compare the FOVs of corrected and uncorrected lenses if the scale bars (at the centre of the FOV) were identical. In this way, the neurons at the centre of the FOV would appear the same size in the two images, and the distances between the neurons at the centre of the FOV would appear similar. Here, the scale bar is significantly larger for the corrected lenses, which may give the illusion of a larger effective FOV.

b) In Figures 3A-D it would be more informative to plot the distances in microns rather than pixels. This would also allow a better comparison of the micro endoscopes (as the pixel sizes seem to be different for the corrected and uncorrected micro endoscopes).

(3) There seems to be a discrepancy between the performance of the long lenses (8.8mm) in the different experiments, which should be discussed in the article. For example, the results in Figure 4 show a considerable enlargement of the FOV, whereas the results in Figure 6 show a very moderate enlargement of the distance at which the person's correlation with the first ground truth emitter starts to drop.

a) There is also a significant discrepancy between measured and simulated optical performance, which is not discussed. Optical simulations (Figure 1) show that the useful FOV (defined as the radius for which the size of the PSF along the optical axis remains below 10µm) should be at least 90µm for the corrected microendoscopes of both lengths. However, for the long microendoscopes, Figure 3J shows that the axial resolution at 90µm is 17µm. It would be interesting to discuss the origin of this discrepancy: does it depend on the microendoscope used? Are there inaccuracies in the construction of the aspheric corrective lens or in the assembly with the GRIN lens? If there is variability between different lenses, how are the lenses selected for imaging experiments?