Combined transcriptomic, connectivity, and activity profiling of the medial amygdala using highly amplified multiplexed in situ hybridization (hamFISH)

  1. Mathew D Edwards
  2. Ziwei Yin
  3. Risa Sueda
  4. Alina Gubanova
  5. Chang S Xu
  6. Virág Lakner
  7. Megan Murchie
  8. Chi-Yu Lee
  9. Kristal Ng
  10. Karolina Farrell
  11. Rupert Faraway
  12. Subham Ganguly
  13. Elina Jacobs
  14. Bogdan Bintu
  15. Yoh Isogai

  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    eLife Assessment

    The study presents important findings that are highly relevant for research aiming to combine transcriptomics, connectivity studies, and activity profiling in the rodent brain and the revisions improve the study. The evidence overall remains convincing as the authors use appropriate and validated methodology in line with current state-of-the-art.

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

In situ transcriptomic technologies provide a promising avenue to link gene expression, connectivity, and physiological properties of neural cell types. Commercialized methods that allow the detection of hundreds of genes in situ, however, are expensive and therefore typically used for generating unimodal reference data rather than for resource-intensive multimodal analyses. A major bottleneck is the lack of a routine means to efficiently generate cell type data. Here, we have developed hamFISH (highly amplified multiplexed fluorescence in situ hybridization), which enables the sequential detection of 32 genes using multiplexed branched DNA amplification. We used hamFISH to profile the projection, activity, and transcriptomic diversity of the medial amygdala (MeA), a critical node for innate social and defensive behaviors in mice. In total, we profiled 643,834 cells and classified neurons into 16 inhibitory and 10 excitatory types, many of which were found to be spatially clustered. We then examined the organization of outputs of these cells and activation profiles during different social contexts. Therefore, by facilitating multiplexed detection of single molecule RNAs, hamFISH provides a streamlined and versatile platform for multimodal profiling of specific brain nuclei.

Article activity feed

  1. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    The study presents important findings that are highly relevant for research aiming to combine transcriptomics, connectivity studies, and activity profiling in the rodent brain and the revisions improve the study. The evidence overall remains convincing as the authors use appropriate and validated methodology in line with current state-of-the-art.

  2. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    In their paper entitled "Combined transcriptomic, connectivity, and activity profiling of the medial amygdala using highly amplified multiplexed in situ hybridization (hamFISH)" Edwards et al. present a new method designated as hamFISH (highly amplified multiplexed in situ hybridization) that enables sequential detection of {less than or equal to}32 genes using multiplexed branched DNA amplification. As proof-of-principle, the authors apply the new technique - in conjunction with connectivity, and activity profiling - to the medial amygdala (MeA) of the mouse, which is a critical nucleus for innate social and defensive behaviors.

    As mentioned by Edwards et al., hamFISH could prove beneficial as an affordable alternative to other in situ transcriptomic methods, including commercial platforms, that are resource-intensive and require complex analysis pipelines. Thus, the authors envision that the method they present could democratize in situ cell-type identification in individual laboratories.

    The data presented by Edwards et al. is convincing. The authors use the appropriate and validated methodology in line with the current state-of-the-art. The paper makes a strong case for the benefits of hamFISH when combining transcriptomics studies with connectivity tracing and immediate early gene-based activity profiling. Notably, the authors also discuss the caveats and limitations of their study/approach in an open and transparent manner.

    Comments on revisions:

    In their revised paper, Edwards et al. have made an effort to improve manuscript clarity. Revisions made address the non-public "recommendations for the authors." The main criticism that prevents a more enthusiastic overall assessment, i.e., absence of some more in-depth hypothesis-based analysis (though, as originally mentioned, maybe beyond the study's scope), is still valid.

  3. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    The authors describe the development and implementation of hamFISH, a sensitive multiplexed ISH method. They leverage a pre-existing scRNA-seq dataset for the MeA to design 32 probes that combinatorically represent MeA neuronal populations - ~80% of MeA neurons express at least three of these 32 markers. Using these markers to assess the spatial organization of the MeA, the authors identify a novel population of Ndnf+ projection neurons and characterize their connectivity with anterograde and retrograde labeling. They additionally combine hamFISH with CTB labeling of three principal MeA projections sites to show that 75% of MeA neurons have only a single projection target. Finally, they engage adult male mice in encounters with other adult males (aggression), females (mating), and pups (infanticide), followed with hamFISH and c-fos labeling to relate cell identity to behavior. Their overall conclusion is that hamFISH-defined cell types are broadly active to multiple sensory stimuli. However, the data presented are not sufficient to conclude that no selectivity exists.

    A strength of the manuscript is the novel hamFISH approach, which is technically innovative and could potentially be adopted by many labs. However, a weakness is that the 32 selected hamFISH marker genes employed here are predominantly neuropeptides. These genes, such as Tac1, Cartpt, Adcyap1, Calb1, and Gal, are expressed throughout the MeA, and many other brain regions and are not selective for transcriptomic cell types or developmental lineages. The use of hamFISH probes that provide a more stringent classification of cell type or cell identity could potentially provide a different picture of sensory response selectivity within the MeA. Thus, although the data in the manuscript are exemplary, the biological insight into MeA function is more limited.

  4. eLife

    Reviewer #3 (Public review):

    Summary:

    In this manuscript, Edwards et al. describe hamFISH, a customizable and cost-efficient method for performing targeted spatial transcriptomics. hamFISH utilizes highly amplified multiplexed branched DNA amplification, and the authors extensively describe hamFISH development and its advantages over prior variants of this approach.

    The authors then used hamFISH to investigate an important circuit in the mouse brain for social behavior, the medial amygdala (MeA). To develop a hamFISH probe set capable of distinguishing MeA neurons, the authors mined published single cell RNA-sequencing datasets of the MeA, ultimately creating a panel of 32 hamFISH probes that mostly cover the identified MeA cell types. They evaluated over 600,000 MeA cells and classified neurons into 16 inhibitory and 10 excitatory types, many of which are spatially clustered.

    The authors combined hamFISH with viral and other circuit tracer injections to determine whether the identified MeA cell populations sent and/or received unique inputs from connected brain regions, finding evidence that several cell types had unique patterns of input and output. Finally, the authors performed hamFISH on the brains of male mice that were placed in behavioral conditions that elicit aggressive, infanticidal, or mating behaviors, finding that some cell populations are selectively activated (as assessed by c-fos mRNA expression) in specific social contexts.

    Strengths:

    (1) The authors developed an optimized tissue preparation protocol for hamFISH and implemented oligopools instead of individually synthesized oligonucleotides to reduce costs. The branched DNA amplification scheme improved smFISH signal compared to previous methods, and multiple variants provide additional improvements in signal intensity and specificity. Compared to other spatial transcriptomics methods, the pipeline for imaging and analysis is streamlined, and is compatible with other techniques like fluorescence-based circuit tracing. This approach is cost-effective and has several advantages that make it a valuable addition to the list of spatial transcriptomics toolkits.

    (2) Using 31 probes, hamFISH was able to detect 16 inhibitory and 10 excitatory neuron types in the MeA subregions, including the vast majority of cell types identified by other transcriptomics approaches. The authors quantified the distributions of these cell types along the anterior-posterior, dorsal-ventral, and medial-lateral axes, finding spatial segregation among some, but not all, MeA excitatory and inhibitory cell types. The authors additionally identified a class of inhibitory neurons expressing Ndnf (and a subset of these that express Chrna7) that project to multiple social chemosensory circuits.

    (3) The authors combined hamFISH with MeA input and output mapping, finding cell-type biases in the projections to the MPOA, BNST, and VMHvl, and inputs from multiple regions.

    (4) The authors identified excitatory and inhibitory cell types, and patterns of activity across cell types, that were selectively activated during various social behaviors, including aggression, mating, and infanticide, providing new insights and avenues for future research into MeA circuit function.

    Weaknesses:

    (1) Gene selection for hamFISH is likely to still be a limiting factor, even with the expanded (32-probe) capacity. This may have contributed to the lack of ability to identify sexually dimorphic cell types (Fig. S2B). This is an expected tradeoff for a method that has major advantages in terms of cost and adaptability.

    (2) Adaptation of hamFISH, for example, to adapt it to other brain regions or tissues, may require extensive optimization. This does not preclude it from being highly useful for other brain regions with extra effort.

    (3) Pairing this method with behavioral experiments is likely to require further optimization, as c-fos mRNA expression is an indirect and incomplete survey of neuronal activity (e.g. not all cell types upregulate c-fos when electrically active). As such, there is a risk of false negative results that limit its utility for understanding circuit function.

    (4) The incompatibility of hamFISH with thicker tissue samples and minimal optical sectioning introduce additional technical limitations. For example, it would be difficult to densely sample larger neural circuits using serial 20 micron sections.

  5. eLife

    Author response:

    The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

    Reviewing Editor Comments:

    Recommendations for improvement:

    (1) Address data presentation, editing, and other issues of lack of clarity as pointed out by the reviewers.

    We have now addressed all comments from reviewers that identify editing errors and lack of clarity issues. Regarding data presentation we have made some changes, for example including a combined heatmap to show consistency between row names (Figure 2 - figure supplement 2), but also kept some stylistic features such as the balance between main and supplemental figures that we think fits more naturally with the story of the paper.

    (2) Inclusion of requested and critical details in the methodology section, an important component for broad applicability of a new methodology by other investigators.

    We have added the requested details to the methods section, specifically the RCA protocol.

    (3) More in-depth discussion of the limitations of the methodology and approach to capture important but more complex components of tissues of interest, for example, sexual dimorphism.

    We have now edited the ‘pitfalls of study’ section in the discussion to include further detail of the limitations of the number of genes that can be used to deeply profile transcriptomic types, including sexual dimorphism. Regarding its use in other tissues of interest, we have now included a reference in the discussion (Bintu et al., 2025) where a similar strategy has been used to profile cells in the olfactory epithelium and olfactory bulb. We have also used hamFISH in other brain areas (as commented in our public reviews responses) but as this is unpublished work we will refrain from mentioning it in the main text.

    Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

    The manuscript by Edwards et al. would benefit from minor revisions. Here, we outline several points that could / should be addressed:

    (1) General balance of data presentation between main and supplementary figures

    (a) quantifications were often missing from main figures and only presented in the supplements

    Thank you for raising this point. We believe that the balance of panels between the main and supplemental figures matches our story and results section well with quantifications included in the main figures where appropriate.

    (b) more informative figure legends in supplements (e.g.: Supplementary Figure I - Figure 3)

    We have now revised the figure legends and added more description where appropriate.

    (c) missing subpanel in Figure 3; figure legend describes 3H, which is missing in the figure

    We thank the reviewer for pointing this out and have now amended the subpanel.

    stand-alone figure on inhibitory neuron cluster i3 cells

    We agree that this is an important characterisation of i3 cells but decided to place this figure in the supplement as it does not fall within the main storyline (defining transcriptomic characterisation of cell types in a multimodal fashion), but rather acts as accessory information for those specifically interested in these inhibitory cell types.

    statistical tests used (e.g.: Figure 1 C -, Supplementary Figure 3 - Figure 2)/ graphs shown (Supplementary Figure 1 - 1 D)

    The statistical tests used are described in the figure legends.

    t-SNE dimensionality reduction of positional parameters

    Explanations of the t-SNE dimensionality reduction of positional parameters can be found in the materials and methods.

    (d) heatmaps similarly informative and more convincing

    We have included an extra heatmap (Figure 2 - figure supplement 2) in response to Reviewer 3’s comment (see below) in order to more easily follow genes across all the different clusters. We hope this helps to make the heatmaps more convincing and informative.

    code availability

    Code availability is described in the methods section of the manuscript.

    page 6, 3rd paragraph wrong description of PMCo abbreviation

    We thank the reviewer for identifying the mistake and we have now amended it.

    Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

    The pre-existing scRNA-seq dataset on which the manuscript is based is an older Drop-seq dataset for which minimal QC information is provided. The authors should include QC information (genes/cells and UMIs/cells) in the Methods. Moreover, the Seurat clustering of these cells and depiction of marker genes in feature plots are not shown.

    It is therefore difficult to determine how the authors selected their 31 genes for their hamFISH panel, or how selective they are to the original Drop-seq clusters.

    The QC information of this dataset can be found in the original publication (Chen et al., 2019) with our clustering methods described in the materials and methods section. We have not included individual gene names in our heatmap plots for presentation purposes (there are over 200 rows), but the data and cluster descriptions can be found in supplemental tables.

    Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

    (1) The imaging modality is not entirely clear in the methods. The microscopy technique is referenced to prior work and involves taking z-stacks, but analysis appears to be done on maximum z-projections, which seems like it would introduce the risk of false attribution of gene expression to cells that are overlapping in "z".

    Thank you for pointing out the technical limitation of the microscopy. For imaging we used epifluorescence microscopy with 14x 500 nm z-steps to collect our raw data and generate a maximum intensity projection for further analysis. Because of the thin sections (10 um) used for the imaging, the overlap between cells in z is expected to be minimal. However, we cannot completely rule out misattribution raised in the comment. The method section contains this information.

    (2) Supplemental Figure 1 - Figure Supplement 2B: RCA looks significantly different when compared to v2 smFISH from the representative image, although it is written as comparable. Additionally, there is no information about RCA mentioned in the Materials and Methods section. Supplemental Figure 1 - Figure Supplement 2B: The figure label for RCA is missing.

    By comparable we are referring to the intensity rather than pattern as mentioned in the results section. We did not analyze the number of spots. It is true that the pattern of RCA signal is much sparser due to its inherent insensitivity compared with hamFISH. We thank the reviewer for identifying the lack of a methodological RCA description and have amended the manuscript to include this. We have also now amended the missing RCA label in the figure.

    (3) Figure 2C and associated supplement: The rows (each gene) are not consistent across the subpanels (i.e. they do not line up left-to-right), this makes it difficult for the reader to follow the patterns that distinguish the cell types in each subset.

    We have done this as we believe it makes for an easier interpretation of inhibitory vs excitatory clusters for the reader. However, we agree with the reviewer that one may wish to look at the dataset as a whole with a consistent gene order, and we have now provided this in the corresponding supplemental figure.

    (4) "Consistent with previous work, most inhibitory classes are localized in the dorsal and ventral subdivisions of the MeA, whereas excitatory neurons occupy primarily the ventral MeA (Figure 2D, Figure 2 - Figure Supplement 2C, Figure 1D)". - The reference to Figure 1D seems to be an error.

    We thank the reviewer for identifying the mistake, and we have now amended it.

    (5) Supplemental Figure 2 - Figure Supplement 1, "published by Chen et al." - should have a proper reference number to be compatible with the rest of the manuscript. Also, the lack of gene info makes it difficult to understand Panel A. Finally, the text on Panel B refers to "hamMERFISH" which seems an error.

    We thank the reviewer for identifying the mistake on Panel B, it has now been amended. We have also changed the reference format. Regarding the lack of gene information in panel A, it is difficult to present all row names due to the large number of rows (>200), but this information can be found in supplemental table 2.

    (6) Supplemental Figure 2 - Figure Supplement 1: there are thin dividing lines drawn on each section, but these are not described or defined, making it difficult to understand what is being delineated.

    We thank the reviewer for identifying this omission and have now edited to figure legend to contain a description.

    (7) Page 4, "...we found 26 clusters in cells that are positive for Slc32a1 (inhibitory) or Slc17a6 (encoding Vglut2 and therefore excitatory) positive (Figure 2 - figure supplement 1A, Table S2)."

    This seems to be an error as Figure 2 - figure supplement 1A does not show this.

    We double-checked that this description describes the panel accurately.

    (8) "The clustering revealed that inhibitory and excitatory classes generally have different spatial properties (Figure 1E, left), although the salt-and-pepper, sparse nature of e10 (Nts+) cells is more similar to inhibitory cells than other excitatory classes".

    The references to Figure 1E's should be to Figure 2E.

    We thank the reviewer for identifying the mistake, and we have now amended it.

    (9) "Comparison of the proportion of all cells that are cluster X vs projection neurons labelled by CTB that are cluster X". Please explain cluster X in this context.

    We have now rephrased this sentence in the figure legend for clarity.

    (10) Figure 3 - figure supplement 3: There appears to be quite a bit of heterogeneity in the patterns of activity across clusters even within behavioral contexts (e.g. the bottom 2 animals paired with females). It might be worth commenting on (or quantifying) whether there were any evident differences in the social behaviors observed (e.g. mating or not?) in individuals demonstrating these patterns.

    We thank the reviewer for this observation. We unfortunately did not quantify the behaviors, but we agree that more work is needed to link the pattern of c-fos activity with incrementally measured behavioral variables. At least, we did not include animals that did not display the anticipated social behaviours (as described in the materials and methods) in the in situ transcriptomic profiling work.

  6. Version published to 10.7554/elife.105388.2 on eLife
  7. Version published to 10.7554/elife.105388 on eLife
  8. Version published to 10.7554/elife.105388.1 on eLife
  9. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    Overall, this is an important work: the new methodology of hamFISH is a key additional tool for the assessment of the expression of multiple genes simultaneously. The authors provide convincing evidence of the utility of this approach on Medial Amygdala (MeA) tissue leveraging previous a transcriptomic dataset for gene selection. The authors also present a deeper dive into putative relationships between the on-tissue expression of subsets of genes and connectivity and behavioral regulation. The putative biological insights are intriguing, although preliminary, but notably they set up questions for future studies.

  10. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    In their paper entitled "Combined transcriptomic, connectivity, and activity profiling of the medial amygdala using highly amplified multiplexed in situ hybridization (hamFISH)" Edwards et al. present a new method designated as hamFISH (highly amplified multiplexed in situ hybridization) that enables sequential detection of {less than or equal to}32 genes using multiplexed branched DNA amplification. As proof-of-principle, the authors apply the new technique - in conjunction with connectivity, and activity profiling - to the medial amygdala (MeA) of the mouse, which is a critical nucleus for innate social and defensive behaviors.

    As mentioned by Edwards et al., hamFISH could prove beneficial as an affordable alternative to other in situ transcriptomic methods, including commercial platforms, that are resource-intensive and require complex analysis pipelines. Thus, the authors envision that the method they present could democratize in situ cell-type identification in individual laboratories.

    The data presented by Edwards et al. is convincing. The authors use the appropriate and validated methodology in line with the current state-of-the-art. The paper makes a strong case for the benefits of hamFISH when combining transcriptomics studies with connectivity tracing and immediate early gene-based activity profiling. Notably, the authors also discuss the caveats and limitations of their study/approach in an open and transparent manner.

    In its current state, the manuscript touches upon a number of most intriguing, yet rather preliminary findings. For example, the roles of inhibitory neuron cluster i3 or of the selective and apparently MeA neuron-specific projections (Figure 3 - Figure Supplement 2D) remain elusive. As it is the authors' prime intent to provide "a proof-of-principle example of overlaying transcriptomic types, projection, and activity in a behaviorally relevant manner and demonstrates the usefulness of hamFISH in multiplexed in situ gene expression profiling", such studies might be beyond the scope of the present manuscript. The absence of such more in-depth hypothesis-based analysis, however, prevents an even more enthusiastic overall assessment.

  11. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Summary:

    The authors describe the development and implementation of hamFISH, a sensitive multiplexed ISH method. They leverage a pre-existing scRNA-seq dataset for the MeA to design 32 probes that combinatorically represent MeA neuronal populations - ~80% of MeA neurons express three of these markers. Using these markers to assess the spatial organization of the MeA, the authors identify a novel population of Ndnf+ projection neurons and characterize their connectivity with anterograde and retrograde labeling. They additionally combine hamFISH with CTB labeling of three principal MeA projection sites to show that 75% of MeA neurons have only a single projection target. Finally, they engage adult male mice in encounters with other adult males (aggression), females (mating), and pups (infanticide), followed by hamFISH and c-fos labeling to relate cell identity to behavior. Their overall conclusion is that hamFISH-defined cell types are broadly active to multiple sensory stimuli. However, the data presented are not sufficient to conclude that no selectivity exists within the MeA. A weakness of the study is that the selected hamFISH genes contain only Lhx6 as a lineage-marking transcription factor. Instead, the authors predominately use neuropeptides as markers. Genes such as Tac1, Cartpt, Adcyap1, Calb1, and Gal are expressed throughout the MeA, and many other brain regions; they are not restricted to a single transcriptomic cell type and they do not denote any developmental origins. By design, the panel has low cell type specificity as all MeA neurons express at least three of the genes. Therefore, the authors' conclusions may not hold with a more stringent classification of cell type or cell identity.

  12. eLife

    Reviewer #3 (Public review):

    Summary:

    In this manuscript, Edwards et al. describe hamFISH, a customizable and cost-efficient method for performing targeted spatial transcriptomics. hamFISH utilizes highly amplified multiplexed branched DNA amplification, and the authors extensively describe hamFISH development and its advantages over prior variants of this approach.

    The authors then used hamFISH to investigate an important circuit in the mouse brain for social behavior, the medial amygdala (MeA). To develop a hamFISH probe set capable of distinguishing MeA neurons, the authors mined published single-cell RNA-sequencing datasets of the MeA, ultimately creating a panel of 32 hamFISH probes that mostly cover the identified MeA cell types. They evaluated over 600,000 MeA cells and classified neurons into 16 inhibitory and 10 excitatory types, many of which are spatially clustered. The authors combined hamFISH with viral and other circuit tracer injections to determine whether the identified MeA cell populations sent and/or received unique inputs from connected brain regions, finding evidence that several cell types had unique patterns of input and output. Finally, the authors performed hamFISH on the brains of male mice that were placed in behavioral conditions that elicit aggressive, infanticidal, or mating behaviors, finding that some cell populations are selectively activated (as assessed by c-fos mRNA expression) in specific social contexts.

    Strengths:

    (1) The authors developed an optimized tissue preparation protocol for hamFISH and implemented oligopools instead of individually synthesized oligonucleotides to reduce costs. The branched DNA amplification scheme improved smFISH signal compared to previous methods, and multiple variants provide additional improvements in signal intensity and specificity. Compared to other spatial transcriptomics methods, the pipeline for imaging and analysis is streamlined and is compatible with other techniques like fluorescence-based circuit tracing. This approach is cost-effective and has several advantages that make it a valuable addition to the list of spatial transcriptomics toolkits.

    (2) Using 31 probes, hamFISH was able to detect 16 inhibitory and 10 excitatory neuron types in the MeA subregions, including the vast majority of cell types identified by other transcriptomics approaches. The authors quantified the distributions of these cell types along the anterior-posterior, dorsal-ventral, and medial-lateral axes, finding spatial segregation among some, but not all, MeA excitatory and inhibitory cell types. The authors additionally identified a class of inhibitory neurons expressing Ndnf (and a subset of these that express Chrna7) that project multiple social chemosensory circuits.

    (3) The authors combined hamFISH with MeA input and output mapping, finding cell-type biases in the projections to the MPOA, BNST, and VMHvl, and inputs from multiple regions.

    (4) The authors identified excitatory and inhibitory cell types, and patterns of activity across cell types, that were selectively activated during various social behaviors, including aggression, mating, and infanticide, providing new insights and avenues for future research into MeA circuit function.

    Weaknesses:

    (1) Gene selection for hamFISH is likely to still be a limiting factor, even with the expanded (32-probe) capacity. This may have contributed to the lack of ability to identify sexually dimorphic cell types (Figure S2B). This is an expected tradeoff for a method that has major advantages in terms of cost and adaptability.

    (2) Adaptation of hamFISH, for example, to adapt it to other brain regions or tissues, may require extensive optimization.

    (3) Pairing this method with behavioral experiments is likely to require further optimization, as c-fos mRNA expression is an indirect and incomplete survey of neuronal activity (e.g. not all cell types upregulate c-fos when electrically active). As such, there is a risk of false negative results that limit its utility for understanding circuit function.

    (4) The limited compatibility of hamFISH with thicker tissue samples and lack of optical sectioning introduce additional technical limitations. For example, it would be difficult to densely sample larger neural circuits using serial 20 micron sections. Also, because the imaging modality is not clear from the methods, it is difficult to know whether the analysis methods introduce the risk of misattributing gene expression to overlapping cells.

  13. eLife

    Author response:

    Reviewer #1:

    In their paper entitled "Combined transcriptomic, connectivity, and activity profiling of the medial amygdala using highly amplified multiplexed in situ hybridization (hamFISH)" Edwards et al. present a new method designated as hamFISH (highly amplified multiplexed in situ hybridization) that enables sequential detection of {less than or equal to}32 genes using multiplexed branched DNA amplification. As proof-of-principle, the authors apply the new technique - in conjunction with connectivity, and activity profiling - to the medial amygdala (MeA) of the mouse, which is a critical nucleus for innate social and defensive behaviors.

    As mentioned by Edwards et al., hamFISH could prove beneficial as an affordable alternative to other in situ transcriptomic methods, including commercial platforms, that are resource-intensive and require complex analysis pipelines. Thus, the authors envision that the method they present could democratize in situ cell-type identification in individual laboratories.

    The data presented by Edwards et al. is convincing. The authors use the appropriate and validated methodology in line with the current state-of-the-art. The paper makes a strong case for the benefits of hamFISH when combining transcriptomics studies with connectivity tracing and immediate early gene-based activity profiling. Notably, the authors also discuss the caveats and limitations of their study/approach in an open and transparent manner.

    In its current state, the manuscript touches upon a number of most intriguing, yet rather preliminary findings. For example, the roles of inhibitory neuron cluster i3 or of the selective and apparently MeA neuron-specific projections (Figure 3 - Figure Supplement 2D) remain elusive. As it is the authors' prime intent to provide "a proof-of-principle example of overlaying transcriptomic types, projection, and activity in a behaviorally relevant manner and demonstrates the usefulness of hamFISH in multiplexed in situ gene expression profiling", such studies might be beyond the scope of the present manuscript. The absence of such more in-depth hypothesis-based analysis, however, prevents an even more enthusiastic overall assessment.

    We thank the reviewer for their positive assessment and agree that further studies are needed to explore and understand the MeA circuit further.

    Reviewer #2:

    The authors describe the development and implementation of hamFISH, a sensitive multiplexed ISH method. They leverage a pre-existing scRNA-seq dataset for the MeA to design 32 probes that combinatorically represent MeA neuronal populations - ~80% of MeA neurons express three of these markers. Using these markers to assess the spatial organization of the MeA, the authors identify a novel population of Ndnf+ projection neurons and characterize their connectivity with anterograde and retrograde labeling. They additionally combine hamFISH with CTB labeling of three principal MeA projection sites to show that 75% of MeA neurons have only a single projection target. Finally, they engage adult male mice in encounters with other adult males (aggression), females (mating), and pups (infanticide), followed by hamFISH and c-fos labeling to relate cell identity to behavior. Their overall conclusion is that hamFISH-defined cell types are broadly active to multiple sensory stimuli. However, the data presented are not sufficient to conclude that no selectivity exists within the MeA. A weakness of the study is that the selected hamFISH genes contain only Lhx6 as a lineage-marking transcription factor. Instead, the authors predominately use neuropeptides as markers. Genes such as Tac1, Cartpt, Adcyap1, Calb1, and Gal are expressed throughout the MeA, and many other brain regions; they are not restricted to a single transcriptomic cell type and they do not denote any developmental origins. By design, the panel has low cell type specificity as all MeA neurons express at least three of the genes. Therefore, the authors' conclusions may not hold with a more stringent classification of cell type or cell identity.

    We agree with the reviewer that a deeper level of cell type classification may reveal the selectivity of cell types that may have been missed. The design of our hamFISH bridge-readout probes allows modification to be compatible with a barcoded readout system such as MERFISH, which would substantially increase the number of genes that can be included in the gene panel. This would, however, increase the complexity of the analysis pipeline and reduce throughput, but would be a potential avenue to explore to define MeA cell types at a deeper level. An advantage of hamFISH is the ease of including and reading out alternative gene panels. For example, one panel could examine developmental-lineage-specific genes. Overall, our panel captures the highest hierarchical level (similar to the subclass level of the Allen taxonomy) of MeA transcriptomic types, based on published data available at the time of our gene panel design. Genes including Tac1, Cartpt, Adcyap1, Calb1, and Gal are expressed in specific patterns within the MeA and are useful for classification. In the original manuscript, we also included our rationale for dropping Foxp2, a lineage-specific marker gene in the MeA.

    Reviewer #3:

    In this manuscript, Edwards et al. describe hamFISH, a customizable and cost-efficient method for performing targeted spatial transcriptomics. hamFISH utilizes highly amplified multiplexed branched DNA amplification, and the authors extensively describe hamFISH development and its advantages over prior variants of this approach.

    The authors then used hamFISH to investigate an important circuit in the mouse brain for social behavior, the medial amygdala (MeA). To develop a hamFISH probe set capable of distinguishing MeA neurons, the authors mined published single-cell RNA-sequencing datasets of the MeA, ultimately creating a panel of 32 hamFISH probes that mostly cover the identified MeA cell types. They evaluated over 600,000 MeA cells and classified neurons into 16 inhibitory and 10 excitatory types, many of which are spatially clustered. The authors combined hamFISH with viral and other circuit tracer injections to determine whether the identified MeA cell populations sent and/or received unique inputs from connected brain regions, finding evidence that several cell types had unique patterns of input and output. Finally, the authors performed hamFISH on the brains of male mice that were placed in behavioral conditions that elicit aggressive, infanticidal, or mating behaviors, finding that some cell populations are selectively activated (as assessed by c-fos mRNA expression) in specific social contexts.

    Strengths:

    (1) The authors developed an optimized tissue preparation protocol for hamFISH and implemented oligopools instead of individually synthesized oligonucleotides to reduce costs. The branched DNA amplification scheme improved smFISH signal compared to previous methods, and multiple variants provide additional improvements in signal intensity and specificity. Compared to other spatial transcriptomics methods, the pipeline for imaging and analysis is streamlined and is compatible with other techniques like fluorescence-based circuit tracing. This approach is cost-effective and has several advantages that make it a valuable addition to the list of spatial transcriptomics toolkits.

    (2) Using 31 probes, hamFISH was able to detect 16 inhibitory and 10 excitatory neuron types in the MeA subregions, including the vast majority of cell types identified by other transcriptomics approaches. The authors quantified the distributions of these cell types along the anterior-posterior, dorsal-ventral, and medial-lateral axes, finding spatial segregation among some, but not all, MeA excitatory and inhibitory cell types. The authors additionally identified a class of inhibitory neurons expressing Ndnf (and a subset of these that express Chrna7) that project multiple social chemosensory circuits.

    (3) The authors combined hamFISH with MeA input and output mapping, finding cell-type biases in the projections to the MPOA, BNST, and VMHvl, and inputs from multiple regions.

    (4) The authors identified excitatory and inhibitory cell types, and patterns of activity across cell types, that were selectively activated during various social behaviors, including aggression, mating, and infanticide, providing new insights and avenues for future research into MeA circuit function.

    Weaknesses:

    (1) Gene selection for hamFISH is likely to still be a limiting factor, even with the expanded (32-probe) capacity. This may have contributed to the lack of ability to identify sexually dimorphic cell types (Figure S2B). This is an expected tradeoff for a method that has major advantages in terms of cost and adaptability.

    We recognise that the 32-plex gene detection might not be sufficient to address key questions in the transcriptomic organization of innate social behavior circuits, and that the study fell short of addressing more quantitative gene expression differences between sexes. Detecting sexually dimorphic gene expression likely requires a more targeted approach as the dimorphism is expression differences rather than binary expression of marker genes, and the gene panel needs to be specifically configured for this purpose.

    (2) Adaptation of hamFISH, for example, to adapt it to other brain regions or tissues, may require extensive optimization.

    We have successfully performed hamFISH on at least two other mouse brain regions without needing to optimize further, suggesting that compatibility with other mouse brain regions is not an issue. We recognise, however, that optimization of hamFISH may be required for its application in other types of tissue or species. Human brain tissue, for example, typically suffers from high autofluorescence and different tissue preparation methods may need to be employed. We note that the amplification by hamFISH signal boost with v2 amplifiers may be useful to this end.

    (3) Pairing this method with behavioral experiments is likely to require further optimization, as c-fos mRNA expression is an indirect and incomplete survey of neuronal activity (e.g. not all cell types upregulate c-fos when electrically active). As such, there is a risk of false negative results that limit its utility for understanding circuit function.

    We acknowledge that c-fos is not the only readout of neuronal activity and that a panel of immediate early genes would allow a more comprehensive readout of activity-dependent gene expression. We fully agree that immediate early gene induction is an indirect readout of neural activity, and alternative methods such as in vivo physiology would provide a complementary insight into the selectivity of MeA neuron responses.

    (4) The limited compatibility of hamFISH with thicker tissue samples and lack of optical sectioning introduce additional technical limitations. For example, it would be difficult to densely sample larger neural circuits using serial 20 micron sections. Also, because the imaging modality is not clear from the methods, it is difficult to know whether the analysis methods introduce the risk of misattributing gene expression to overlapping cells.

    We agree that the use of hamFISH as described here is restricted to thin (<20 um) sections. We have shown, however, that our encoding probe and bridge-readout probe design are compatible with HCR-based mRNA detection, which is compatible with thicker sections. Regarding the misattribution of gene expression to overlapping cells in the z-axis, we used epifluorescence microscopy with 14x 500 nm z-steps to collect our raw data and generate maximum intensity projections for further analysis. Because of the thin sections (10 um) used for the imaging, the overlap between cells in z is expected to be minimal. Regarding throughput, we agree that hamFISH is likely not suitable for brain-wide questions that require large volume coverage, but its major advantage is that it allows routine use of low-level multiplexing for targeted brain areas.

  14. Version published to 10.1101/2024.09.14.613026 on bioRxiv