A single-cell atlas of the miracidium larva of the human blood fluke Schistosoma mansoni: cell types, developmental pathways and tissue architecture

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this work, the authors provide a valuable transcriptomic resource for the intermediate free-living transmission stage (miracidium larva) of the blood fluke. The single-cell transcriptome inventory is beautifully supplemented with in situ hybridization, providing spatial information and absolute cell numbers for many of the recovered transcriptomic states. The identification of sex-specific transcriptomic states within the populations of stem cells was particularly unexpected. The work comprises a rich resource to complement the biology of this complex system, however falls short in some technical aspects of the bioinformatic analyses of the generated sequence data.

(1) Four sequencing libraries were generated and then merged for analysis, however, the authors fail to document any parameters that would indicate that the clustering does not suffer from any batch effects.

(2) Additionally, the authors switch between analysis platforms without a clear motivation or explanation of what the fundamental differences between these platforms are. While in theory, any biologically robust observation should be recoverable from any permutation of analysis parameters, it has been recently documented that the two popular analysis platforms (Seurat - R and scanPy - python) indeed do things slightly differently and can give different results (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.04.588111v1). For this reason, I don't think that one can claim that Seurat fails to find clusters resolved by SAM without running a similar pipeline on the cluster alone as was done with SAM/scanPy here. The manuscript itself needs to be checked carefully for misleading statements in this regard.

(3) Similarly, the manuscript contains many statements regarding clusters being 'connected to', or forming a 'bridge' on the UMAP projection. One must be very careful about these types of statements, as the relative position of cells on a reduced-dimension cell map can be misleading (see Chari and Pachter 2023). To support these types of interpretations, the authors should provide evidence of gene expression transitions that support connectivity as well as stability estimates of such connections under different parameter conditions. Otherwise, these descriptors hold little value and should be dropped and the transcriptomic states simply defined as clusters with no reference to their positions on the UMAP.

(4) The underlying support for the clusters as transcriptomically unique identities is not well supported by the dot plots provided. The authors used very permissive parameters to generate marker lists, which hampers the identification of highly specific marker genes. This permissive approach can allow for extensive lists of upregulated genes for input into STRING/GO analyses, this is less useful for evaluating the robustness of the cluster states. Running the Seurat::FindAllMarkers with more stringent parameters would give a more selective set of genes to display and thereby increase the confidence in the reader as to the validity of profiles selected as being transcriptomically unique.

(5) Figure 5B shows a UMAP representation of cell positions with a statement that the clustering disappears. As a visual representation of this phenomenon, the UMAP is a very good tool, however, to make this statement you need to re-cluster your data after the removal of this gene set and demonstrate that the data no longer clusters into A/B and C/D. Also, as a reader, these data beg the question: which genes are removed here? Is there an over-representation of any specific 'types' of genes that could lead to any hypotheses of the function? Perhaps the STRING/GO analyses of this gene set could be informative.

(6) How do the proportions of cell types characterized via in situ here compare to the relative proportions of clusters obtained? It does not correspond to the percentages of the clusters captured (although this should be quantified in a similar manner in order to make this comparison direct: 10,686/20,478 = ~50% vs. 7%), how do you interpret this discrepancy? While this is mentioned in the discussion, there is no sufficient postulation as to why you have an overabundance of the stem cells compared to their presence in the tissue. While it is true that you could have a negative selection of some cell types, for example as stated the size of the penetration glands exceeds both that of the 10x capabilities (40uM), and the 30uM filters used in the protocol, this does not really address why over half of the captured cells represent 'stem cells'. A more realistic interpretation would be biological rather than merely technical. For example, while the composition of the muscle cells and the number of muscle transcriptomes captured are quite congruent at ~20%, the organism is composed of more than 50% of neurons, but only 15% of the transcriptomic states are assigned to neuronal. Could it be that a large fraction of the stem cells are actually neural progenitors? Are there other large inconsistencies between the cluster sizes and the fraction of expected cells? Could you look specifically at early transcription factors that are found in the neurons (or other cell types) within the various stem cell populations to help further refine the precursor/cell type relationships?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript the authors have generated a single-cell atlas of the miracidium, the first free-living stage of an important human parasite, Schistosoma mansoni. Miracidia develop from eggs produced in the mammalian (human) host and are released into freshwater, where they can infect the parasite's intermediate snail host to continue the life cycle. This study adds to the growing single-cell resources that have already been generated for other life-cycle stages and, thus, provides a useful resource for the field.

Strengths:

Beyond generating lists of genes that are differentially expressed in different cell types, the authors validated many of the cluster-defining genes using in situ hybridization chain reaction. In addition to providing the field with markers for many of the cell types in the parasite at this stage, the authors use these markers to count the total number of various cell types in the organism. Because the authors realized that their cell isolation protocols were biasing the cell types they were sequencing, they applied a second method to help them recover additional cell types.

Schistosomes have ZW sex chromosomes and the authors make the interesting observation that the stem cells at this stage are already expressing sex (i.e. W)-specific genes.

Weaknesses:

The sample sizes upon which the in situ hybridization results and cell counts are based are either not stated (in most cases) or are very small (n=3). This lack of clarity about biological replicates and sample sizes makes it difficult for the reader to assess the robustness of the results and the extremely small sample sizes (when provided) are a missed opportunity to explore the variability of the system, or lack thereof.

Although assigning transcripts to a given cell type is usually straightforward via in situ experiments, the authors fail to consider the potential difficulty of assigning the appropriate nuclei to cells with long cytoplasmic extensions, like neurons. In the absence of multiple markers and a better understanding of the nervous system, it seems likely that the authors have overestimated the number of neurons and misassigned other cell types based on their proximity to neural projections.

The conclusion that germline genes are expressed in the miracidia stem cells seems greatly overstated in the absence of any follow-up validation. The expression scales for genes like eled and boule are more than 3 orders of magnitude smaller than those used for any of the robustly expressed genes presented throughout the paper. These scales are undefined, so it isn't entirely clear what they represent, but neither of these genes is detected at levels remotely high (or statistically significant) enough to survive filters for cluster-defining genes. Given that germ cells often develop early in embryogenesis and arrest the cell cycle until later in development, and that these transcripts reveal no unspliced forms, it seems plausible that the authors are detecting some maternally supplied transcripts that have yet to be completely degraded.