Rabies virus-based barcoded neuroanatomy resolved by single-cell RNA and in situ sequencing

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this preprint, Zhang et al. describe a new tool for mapping the connectivity of mouse neurons. Essentially, the tool leverages the known peculiar infection capabilities of Rabies virus: once injected into a specific site in the brain, this virus has the capability to "walk upstream" the neural circuits, both within cells and across cells: on one hand, the virus can enter from a nerve terminal and infect retrogradely the cell body of the same cell (retrograde transport). On the other hand, the virus can also spread to the presynaptic partners of the initial target cells, via retrograde viral transmission.

Similarly to previously published approaches with other viruses, the authors engineer a complex library of viral variants, each carrying a unique sequence ('barcode'), so they can uniquely label and distinguish independent infection events and their specific presynaptic connections, and show that it is possible to read these barcodes in-situ, producing spatial connectivity maps. They also show that it is possible to read these barcodes together with endogenous mRNAs, and that this allows spatial mapping of cell types together with anatomical connectivity.

The main novelty of this work lies in the combined use of rabies virus for retrograde labeling together with barcoding and in-situ readout. Previous studies had used rabies virus for retrograde labeling, albeit with low multiplexing capabilities, so only a handful of circuits could be traced at the same time. Other studies had instead used barcoded viral libraries for connectivity mapping, but mostly focused on the use of different viruses for labeling individual projections (anterograde tracing) and never used a retrograde-infective virus.

The authors creatively merge these two bits of technology into a powerful genetic tool, and extensively and convincingly validate its performance against known anatomical knowledge. The authors also do a very good job at highlighting and discussing potential points of failure in the methods.

Unresolved questions, which more broadly affect also other viral-labeling methods, are for example how to deal with uneven tropism (ie. if the virus is unable or inefficient in infecting some specific parts of the brain), or how to prevent the cytotoxicity induced by the high levels of viral replication and expression, which will tend to produce "no source networks", neural circuits whose initial cell can't be identified because it's dead. This last point is particularly relevant for in-situ based approaches: while high expression levels are desirable for the particular barcode detection chemistry the authors chose to use (gap-filling), they are also potentially detrimental for cell survival, and risk producing extensive cell death (which indeed the authors single out as a detectable pitfall in their analysis). This is likely to be one of the major optimisation challenges for future implementations of these types of barcoding approaches.

Overall the paper is well balanced, the data are well presented and the conclusions are strongly supported by the data. Impact-wise, the method is definitely going to be useful for the neurobiology research community.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Although the trans-synaptic tracing method mediated by the rabies virus (RV) has been widely utilized to infer input connectivity across the brain to a genetically defined population in mice, the analysis of labeled pre-synaptic neurons in terms of cell-type has been primarily reliant on classical low-throughput histochemical techniques. In this study, the authors made a significant advance toward high-throughput transcriptomic (TC) cell typing by both dissociated single-cell RNAseq and the spatial TC method known as BARseq to decode a vast array of molecularly-labeled ("barcoded") RV vector library. First, they demonstrated that a barcoded-RV vector can be employed as a simple retrograde tracer akin to AAVretro. Second, they provided a theoretical classification of neural networks at the single-cell resolution that can be attained through barcoded-RV and concluded that the identification of the vast majority (ideally 100%) of starter cells (the origin of RV-based trans-synaptic tracing) is essential for the inference of single-cell resolution neural connectivity. Taking this into consideration, the authors opted for the BARseq-based spatial TC that could, in principle, capture all the starter cells. Finally, they demonstrated the proof-of-concept in the somatosensory cortex, including infrared connectivity from 381 putative pre-synaptic partners to 31 uniquely barcoded-starter cells, as well as many insightful estimations of input convergence at the cell-type resolution in vivo. While the manuscript encompasses significant technical and theoretical advances, it may be challenging for the general readers of eLife to comprehend. The following comments are offered to enhance the manuscript's clarity and readability.

Major points:
1. I find it difficult to comprehend the rationale behind labeling inhibitory neurons in the VISp through long-distance retrograde labeling from the VISal or Thalamus (Fig. 2F, I and Fig. S3) since long-distance projectors in the cortex are nearly 100% excitatory neurons. It is also unclear why such a large number of inhibitory neurons was labeled at a long distance through RV vector injections into the RSP/SC or VISal (Fig. 3K). Furthermore, a significant number of inhibitory starter cells in the somatosensory cortex was generated based on their projection to the striatum (Fig. 5H), which is unexpected given our current understanding of the cortico-striatum projections.

2. It is unclear as to why the authors did not perform an analysis of the barcodes in Fig. 2. Given that the primary objective of this manuscript is to evaluate the effectiveness of multiplexing barcoded technology in RV vectors, I would strongly recommend that the authors provide a detailed description of the barcode data here, including any technical difficulties or limitations encountered, which will be of great value in the future design of RV-barcode technologies. In case the barcode data are not included in Fig. 2, I would suggest that the authors consider excluding Fig. 2 and Fig. S1-S3 in their entirety from the manuscript to enhance its readability for general readers.

3. Regarding the trans-synaptic tracing utilizing a barcoded RV vector in conjunction with BARseq decoding (Fig. 5), which is the core of this manuscript, I have a few specific questions/comments. First, the rationale behind defining cells with only two rolonies counts of rabies glycoprotein (RG) as starter cells is unclear. Why did the authors not analyze the sample based on the colocalization of GFP (from the AAV) and mCherry (from the RV) proteins, which is a conventional method to define starter cells? If this approach is technically difficult, the authors could provide an independent histochemical assessment of the detection stringency of GFP positive cells based on two or more colonies of RG. Second, it is difficult to interpret the proportion of the 2,914 barcoded cells that were linked to barcoded starter cells (single-source, double-labeled, or connected-source) and those that remained orphan (no-source or lost-source). A simple table or bar graph representation would be helpful. The abundance of the no-source network (resulting from Cre-independent initial infection of the RV vector) can be estimated in independent negative control experiments that omit either Cre injection or AAV-RG injection. The latter, if combined with BARseq decoding, can provide an experimental prediction of the frequency of double-labeled events since connected-source networks are not labeled in the absence of RG. Third, I would appreciate more quantitative data on the putative single-source network (Fig. 5I and S6) in terms of the distribution of pre- and post-synaptic TC cell types. The majority of labeling appeared to occur locally, with only two thalamic neurons observed in sample 25311842 (Fig. S6). How many instances of long-distance labeling (for example, > 500 microns away from the injection site) were observed in total? Is this low efficiency of long-distance labeling expected based on the utilized combinations of AAVs and RV vectors? A simple independent RV tracing solely detecting mCherry would be useful for evaluating the labeling efficiency of the method. I have experienced similar "less jump" RV tracing when RV particles were prepared in a single step, as this study did, rather than multiple rounds of amplification in traditional protocols, such as Osakada F et al Nat Protocol 2013.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Zhang and colleagues attempts to combine genetically barcoded rabies viruses with spatial transcriptomics in order to genetically identify connected pairs. The major shortcoming with the application of a barcoded rabies virus, as reported by 2 groups prior, is that with the high dropout rate inherent in single cell procedures, it is difficult to definitively identify connected pairs. By combining the two methods, they are able to establish a platform for doing that, and provide insight into connectivity, as well as pros and cons of their method, which is well thought out and balanced.

Overall the manuscript is well-done, but I have a few minor considerations about tone and accuracy of statements, as well as some limitations in how experiments were done. First, the idea of using rabies to obtain broader tropism than AAVs isn't really accurate - each virus has its own set of tropisms, and it isn't clear that rabies is broader (or can be made to be broader). Second, rabies does not label all neurons that project to a target site - it labels some fraction of them. Third, the high rate of rabies virus mutation should be considered - if it is, or is not a problem in detecting barcodes with high fidelity, this should be noted. Fourth, there are a number of implicit assumptions in this manuscript, not all of which are equally backed up by data. For example, it is not clear that all rabies virus transmission is synaptic-specific; in fact, quite a few studies argue that it is not (e.g., detection of rabies transcripts in glial cells). Thus, arguments about lost-source networks and the idea that if a cell is lost from the network, that will stop synaptic transmission, is not clear. There is also the very real propensity that, the sicker a starter cell gets, the more non-specific spread of virus (e.g., via necrosis) occurs. Fifth, in the experiments performed in Figure 5, the authors used a FLEx-TVA expressed via a retrograde Cre, and followed this by injection of their rabies virus library. The issue here is that there will be many (potentially thousands) of local infection events near the injection site that TVA-mediated but are Cre-dependent (=off-target expression of TVA in the absence of Cre). This is a major confound in interpreting the labeling of these cells. They may express very low levels of TVA, but still have infection be mediated by TVA. The authors did not clearly explore how expression of TVA related to rabies virus infection of cells near the rabies injection site. A modified version of TVA, such as 66T, should have been used to mitigate this issue. Otherwise, it is impossible to determine connectivity locally. The authors do not go to great lengths to interpret the findings of these observations, so I am not sure this is a critical issue, but it should be pointed out by the authors as a caveat to their dataset. Sixth, the authors are making estimates of rabies spread by comparison to a set of experiments that was performed quite differently. In the two studies cited (Liu et al., done the standard way, and Wertz et al., tracing from a single cell), the authors were likely infecting with a rabies virus using a high multiplicity of infection, which likely yields higher rates of viral expression in these starter cells and higher levels of input labeling. However, in these experiments, the authors need to infect with a low MOI, and explicitly exclude cells with >1 barcode. Having only a single virion trigger infection of starter cells will likely reduce the #s of inputs relative to starter neurons. Thus, the stringent criteria for excluding small networks may not be entirely warranted. If the authors wish to only explore larger networks, this caveat should be explicitly noted.

Overall, if the caveats above are noted and more nuance is added to some of the interpretation and discussion of results, this would greatly help the manuscript, as readers will be looking to the authors as the authority on how to use this technology.