Image-based identification and isolation of micronucleated cells to dissect cellular consequences

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

DiPeso et al. develop two tools to (i) classify micronucleated (MN) cells, which they call VCS MN, and (ii) segment micronuclei and nuclei with MMFinder. They then use these tools to identify transcriptional changes in MN cells.

The strengths of this study are:

(1) Developing highly specialized tools to speed up the analysis of specific cellular phenomena such as MN formation and rupture is likely valuable to the community and neglected by developers of more generalist methods.

(2) A lot of work and ideas have gone into this manuscript. It is clearly a valuable contribution.

(3) Combining automated analysis, single-cell labeling, and cell sorting is an exciting approach to enrich phenotypes of interest, which the authors demonstrate here.

Weaknesses:

(1) Images and ground truth labels are not shared for others to develop potentially better analysis methods.

(2) Evaluations of the methods are often not fully explained in the text.

(3) To my mind, the various metrics used to evaluate VCS MN reveal it not to be terribly reliable. Recall and PPV hover in the 70-80% range except for the PPV for MN+. It is what it is - but do the authors think one has to spend time manually correcting the output or do they suggest one uses it as is?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Micronuclei are aberrant nuclear structures frequently seen following the missegregation of chromosomes. The authors present two image analysis methods, one robust and another rapid, to identify micronuclei (MN) bearing cells. The authors induce chromosome missegregation using an MPS1 inhibitor to check their software outcomes. In missegregation-induced cells, the authors do not distinguish cells that have MN from those that have MN with additional segregation defects. The authors use RNAseq to assess the outcomes of their MN-identifying methods: they do not observe a transcriptomic signature specific to MN but find changes that correlate with aneuploidy status. Overall, this work offers new tools to identify MN-presenting cells, and it sets the stage with clear benchmarks for further software development.

Strengths:

Currently, there are no robust MN classifiers with a clear quantification of their efficiency across cell lines (mIoU score). The software presented here tries to address this gap. GitHub material (tools, protocols, etc) provided is a great asset to naive and experienced computational biologists. The method has been tested in more than one cell line. This method can help integrate cell biology and 'omics' studies.

Weaknesses:

Although the classifier outperforms available tools for MN segmentation by providing mIOU, it's not yet at a point where it can be reliably applied to functional genomics assays where we expect a range of phenotypic penetrance.

Spindle checkpoint loss (e.g., MPS1 inhibition) is expected to cause a variety of nuclear atypia: misshapen, multinucleated, and micronucleated cells. It may be difficult to obtain a pure MN population following MPS1 inhibitor treatment, as many cells are likely to present MN among multinucleated or misshapen nuclear compartments. Given this situation, the transcriptomic impact of MN is unlikely to be retrieved using this experimental design, but this does not negate the significance of the work. The discussion will have to consider the nature, origin, and proportion of MN/rupture-only states - for example, lagging chromatids and unaligned chromosomes can result in different states of micronuclei and also distinct cell fates.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors develop a method to visually analyze micronuclei using automated methods. The authors then use these methods to isolate MN post-photoactivation and analyze transcriptional changes in cells with and without micronuclei of RPE-1 cells. The authors observe in RPE-1 cells that MN-containing cells show similar transcriptomic changes as aneuploidy, and that MN rupture does not lead to vast changes in the transcriptome.

Strengths:

The authors develop a method that allows for automating measurements and analysis of micronuclei. This has been something that the field has been missing for a long time. Using such a method has the potential to advance micronuclei biology. The authors also develop a method to identify cells with micronuclei in real time and mark them using photoconversion and then isolate them via FACS. The authors use this method to study the transcriptome. This method is very powerful as it allows for the sorting of a heterogenous population and subsequent analysis with a much higher sample number than could be previously done.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness of this paper is that the results from the RNA-seq analysis are difficult to interpret as very few changes are found to begin with between cells with MN and cells without. The authors have to use a 1.5-fold cut-off to detect any changes in general. This is most likely due to the sequencing read depth used by the authors. Moreover, there are large variances between replicates in experiments looking at cells with ruptured versus intact micronuclei. This limits our ability to assess if the lack of changes is due to truly not having changes between these populations or experimental limitations. Moreover, the authors use RPE-1 cells which lack cGAS, which may contribute to the lack of changes observed. Thus, it is possible that these results are not consistent with what would occur in primary tissues or just in general in cells with a proficient cGAS/STING pathway.