Patch-walking: Coordinated multi-pipette patch clamp for efficiently finding synaptic connections

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this technical paper, the authors introduce a useful variation on the fully automated multi-electrode patch-clamp recording technique for probing synaptic connections that they term "patch-walking". The patch-walking approach involves coordinated pipette route-planning and automated pipette cleaning procedures for pipette reuse to improve recording throughput efficiency, which the authors argue can theoretically yield almost twice the number of connections to be probed by paired recordings on a multi-patch electrophysiology setup for a given number of cells compared to conventional manual patch-clamping approaches used in brain slices in vitro. The authors show solid results from recordings in mouse in vitro cortical slices, demonstrating the efficient recording of dozens of paired neurons with a two-patch pipette configuration for paired recordings and detection of synaptic connections. This approach will be of interest and valuable to neuroscientists conducting automated multi-patch in vitro electrophysiology experiments and seeking to increase the efficiency of neuron connectivity detection while avoiding the more complex recording configurations (e.g., 8-10 pipette multi-patch recording configurations) used by several laboratories that are not readily implementable by most of the neuroscience community.

Strengths:

(1) The authors introduce the theory and methods and show experimental results for a fully automated electrophysiology dual patch-clamp recording approach, which uses coordinated patch-clamp pipette route-planning and automated pipette cleaning procedures to "patch-walk" across an in vitro brain slice.

(2) The patch-walking approach improves throughput efficiency over manual patch clamp recording approaches, especially for investigators looking to utilize paired patch electrode recordings in electrophysiology experiments in vitro.

(3) Experimental results are presented from in vitro mouse cortical slices demonstrating the efficiency of recording dozens of paired neurons with a two-patch pipette configuration for paired recordings and detecting synaptic connections, demonstrating the feasibility and efficiency of the patch-walking approach.

(4) The authors suggest extensions of their technique while keeping the number of recording pipettes employed and recording rig complexity low, which are important practical technical considerations for investigators wanting to avoid the more complex recording configurations (e.g., 8-10 pipette multi-patch recording configurations) used by several laboratories that are not readily implementable by most of the neuroscience community.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors aim to combine automated whole-cell patch clamp recording simultaneously from multiple cells. Using a 2-electrode approach, they are able to sample as many cells (and connections) from one slice, as would be achieved with a more technically demanding and materially expensive 8-electrode patch clamp system. They provide data to show that this approach is able to successfully record from 52% of attempted cells, which was able to detect 3 pairs in 71 screened neurons. The authors state that this is a step forward in our ability to record from randomly connected ensembles of neurons.

Strengths:

The conceptual approach of recording multiple partner cells from another in a stepwise manner indeed increases the number of tested connections. An approach that is widely applicable to both automated and manual approaches. Such a method could be adopted for many connectivity studies using dual recording electrodes.

The implementation of automated robotic whole-cell patch-clamp techniques from multiple cells simultaneously is a useful addition to the multiple techniques available to ex vivo slice electrophysiologists.

The approach using 2 electrodes, which are washed between cells is economically favourable, as this reduces equipment costs for recording multiple cells, and limits the wastage of capillary glass that would otherwise be used once.

Weaknesses:

(1) The premise of this article is based upon the fact that even a "skilled" whole-cell electrophysiologist is only capable of recording ~10 cells per day are flawed. Many studies have shown that capable electrophysiologists can record upwards of 50 cells a day, given adequate slice quality and reliable recording conditions with multiple electrodes (e.g. Pastoll et al., 2020 eLife, Booker et al., 2014, JoVE, Peng et al., 2017); often with over 80% success rates for recording. It is not convincing that this approach is a dramatic improvement on such approaches - except when a less skilled researcher is beginning recordings.

Importantly, could the patch walk protocol not be alternatively implemented using manual recording approaches? Yes, the use of a semi-automated robotic system aids recording from many cells by a less experienced colleague, but the inferences about the number of connections tested are common to the approach, not the technique used. This seems like a crucial conceptual point to include.

(2) A key omission of this study is the absence of brain area, cell type, and layer recorded from. It is mentioned in Figure 2 that this is the somatosensory and visual cortices. Which were these, and how were they confirmed?

(3) A comparison of measurements shown in Figure 2 to other methods - e.g. conventional dual patch, 8-electrode patch, single electrode. How do the values obtained for cell quality measurements compare to those expected for the cell population recorded (which is unclear - see point 2)?

(4) What is the reliability of performing outside-out patch configuration to obtain sealed and biocytin-filled cells under these conditions? A key tenet of performing high-throughput paired recordings is the ability to identify the cell types involved in the local microcircuit, and if their axon has been preserved in the slice configuration (which varies between cell types). Not having confirmation of morphological identity and integrity likely leads to a dramatic underestimation of connection probability, given that main axon collaterals could be severed during acute brain slice preparation.

(5) The quality control criteria used in this manuscript require further clarification. An upper limit of 50 MΩ access resistance is extremely high (i.e. 20-30 MΩ is a more typical and stringent cut-off), which is worsened as no real information is given to the degree of resistance change that could be accepted. This is simply listed as "If the seal quality decreased during recording, the cell is excluded from analysis". Indeed, the range of access resistances plotted in Figure 2 is from 10-100 MΩ, which implies that some neurons included in this data did not meet recording criteria. Also, it is widely accepted in the field that a 10-20% change in access during recording is acceptable - within a more defined range. I would consider re-assessing the recorded cells to only include cells with access resistances <30MΩ and those that did not fluctuate by more than 20%.

Appraisal of aims:

The authors certainly established a system that is useful for interrogating synaptic connectivity in an automated manner. However, it remains unclear how widely used this would be in the field, and whether this truly represents an advancement from manual recordings or >4 electrode recordings.

Discussion of impact:

This approach, particularly the conceptual approach to paired testing, is of use to the field. However, in practice, many researchers using conventional dual-electrode paired recording likely implement similar approaches - especially when targeting specific cell types (see Booker et al., 2014 JoVE, Qi et al., 2020 Front Synaptic Neurosci.). This may pave the way for greater implementation of dual and multi-electrode recordings using robotic patch-clamp techniques.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Yip and colleagues incorporated the pipette cleaning technique into their existing dual-patch robotic system, "the PatcherBot", to allow sequential patching of more cells for synaptic connection detection in living brain slices. During dual-patching, instead of retracting all two electrodes after each recording attempt, the system cleaned just one of the electrodes and reused it to obtain another recording while maintaining the other. With one new patch clamp recording attempt, new connections can be probed. By placing one pipette in front of the other in this way, one can "walk" across the tissue, termed "patch-walking." This application could allow for probing additional neurons to test the connectivity using the same pipette in the same preparation.

Strengths:

Compared to regular dual-patch recordings, this new approach could allow for probing more possible connections in brain slices with dual-patch recordings, thus having the potential to improve the efficiency of identifying synaptic connections

Weaknesses:

While this new approach offers the potential to increase efficiency, it has several limitations that could curtail its widespread use.

Loss of Morphological Information: Unlike traditional multi-patch recording, this approach likely loses all detailed morphology of each recorded neuron. This loss is significant because morphology can be crucial for cell type verification and understanding connectivity patterns by morphological cell type.

Spatial Restrictions: The robotic system appears primarily suited to probing connections between neurons with greater spatial separation (~100µm ISD). This means it may not reliably detect connections between neurons in close proximity, a potential drawback given that the connectivity is much higher between spatially close neurons. This limitation could help explain the low connectivity rate (5%) reported in the study.

Limited Applicability: While the approach might be valuable in specific research contexts, its overall applicability seems limited. It's important to consider scenarios where the trade-off between efficiency and specific questions that are asked.

Scalability Challenges: Scaling this method beyond a two-pipette setup may be difficult. Additional pipettes would introduce significant technical and logistical complexities.