Deterministic Genetic Barcoding for Multiplexed Behavioral and Single-Cell Transcriptomic Studies
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife assessment
This useful study presents a genetically encoded barcoding system that could not only advance transcriptomic studies but that also has potential further applications, such as in high-throughput population-scale behavioral measurements. The evidence supporting the claims of the authors are currently inadequate to demonstrate that the method is indeed greatly superior to existing approaches in behavioural and transcriptomic studies.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
- Genetics and Genomics (eLife)
Abstract
Advances in single-cell sequencing technologies have provided novel insights into the dynamics of gene expression throughout development, been used to characterize somatic variation and heterogeneity within tissues, and are currently enabling the construction of transcriptomic cell atlases. However, despite these remarkable advances, linking anatomical information to transcriptomic data and positively identifying the cell types that correspond to gene expression clusters in single-cell sequencing data sets remains a challenge. We describe a straightforward genetic barcoding approach that takes advantage of the powerful genetic tools available in Drosophila to allow in vivo tagging of defined cell populations. This method, called Ta rgeted G enetically- E ncoded M ultiplexing (TaG-EM), involves inserting a DNA barcode just upstream of the polyadenylation site in a Gal4-inducible UAS-GFP construct so that the barcode sequence can be read out during single-cell sequencing, labeling a cell population of interest. By creating many such independently barcoded fly strains, TaG-EM will enable a number of potential applications that will improve the quality and information content of single-cell transcriptomic data including positive identification of cell types in cell atlas projects, identification of multiplet droplets, and barcoding of experimental timepoints, conditions, and replicates. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the barcodes from TaG-EM fly lines can be read out using next-generation sequencing to facilitate population-scale behavioral measurements. Thus, TaG-EM has the potential to enable large-scale behavioral screens in addition to improving the ability to reliably annotate cell atlas data, expanding the scope, and improving the robustness of single-cell transcriptomic experiments.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
eLife assessment
This useful study presents a genetically encoded barcoding system that could not only advance transcriptomic studies but that also has potential further applications, such as in high-throughput population-scale behavioral measurements. The evidence supporting the claims of the authors are currently inadequate to demonstrate that the method is indeed greatly superior to existing approaches in behavioural and transcriptomic studies.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
The aim of this paper is to describe a novel method for genetic labelling of animals or cell populations, using a system of DNA/RNA barcodes.
Strengths:
• The author's attempt at providing a straightforward method for multiplexing Drosophila samples prior to scRNA-seq is commendable. The perspective of being able to load multiple samples on a 10X Chromium without antibody labelling is appealing.
• The authors are generally honest about potential issues in their method, and areas that would benefit from future improvement.
• The article reads well. Graphs and figures are clear and easy to understand.Weaknesses:
• The usefulness of TaG-EM for phototaxis, egg laying or fecundity experiments is questionable. The behaviours presented here are all easily quantifiable, either manually or using automated …Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
The aim of this paper is to describe a novel method for genetic labelling of animals or cell populations, using a system of DNA/RNA barcodes.
Strengths:
• The author's attempt at providing a straightforward method for multiplexing Drosophila samples prior to scRNA-seq is commendable. The perspective of being able to load multiple samples on a 10X Chromium without antibody labelling is appealing.
• The authors are generally honest about potential issues in their method, and areas that would benefit from future improvement.
• The article reads well. Graphs and figures are clear and easy to understand.Weaknesses:
• The usefulness of TaG-EM for phototaxis, egg laying or fecundity experiments is questionable. The behaviours presented here are all easily quantifiable, either manually or using automated image-based quantification, even when they include a relatively large number of groups and replicates. Despite their claims (e.g., L311-313), the authors do not present any real evidence about the cost- or time-effectiveness of their method in comparison to existing quantification methods.
• Behavioural assays presented in this article have clear outcomes, with large effect sizes, and therefore do not really challenge the efficiency of TaG-EM. By showing a T-maze in Fig 1B, the authors suggest that their method could be used to quantify more complex behaviours. Not exploring this possibility in this manuscript seems like a missed opportunity.
• Experiments in Figs S3 and S6 suggest that some tags have a detrimental effect on certain behaviours or on GFP expression. Whereas the authors rightly acknowledge these issues, they do not investigate their causes. Unfortunately, this question the overall suitability of TaG-EM, as other barcodes may also affect certain aspects of the animal's physiology or behaviour. Revising barcode design will be crucial to make sure that sequences with potential regulatory function are excluded.
• For their single-cell experiments, the authors have used the 10X Genomics method, which relies on sequencing just a short segment of each transcript (usually 50-250bp - unknown for this study as read length information was not provided) to enable its identification, with the matching paired-end read providing cell barcode and UMI information (Macosko et al., 2015). With average fragment length after tagmentation usually ranging from 300-700bp, a large number of GFP reads will likely not include the 14bp TaG-EM barcode. When a given cell barcode is not associated with any TaG-EM barcode, then demultiplexing is impossible. This is a major problem, which is particularly visible in Figs 5 and S13. In 5F, BC4 is only detected in a couple of dozen cells, even though the Jon99Ciii marker of enterocytes is present in a much larger population (Fig 5C). Therefore, in this particular case, TaG-EM fails to detect most of the GFP-expressing cells. Similarly, in S13, most cells should express one of the four barcodes, however many of them (maybe up to half - this should be quantified) do not. Therefore, the claim (L277-278) that "the pan-midgut driver were broadly distributed across the cell clusters" is misleading. Moreover, the hypothesis that "low expressing driver lines may result in particularly sparse labelling" (L331-333) is at least partially wrong, as Fig S13 shows that the same Gal4 driver can lead to very different levels of barcode coverage.
• Comparisons between TaG-EM and other, simpler methods for labelling individual cell populations are missing. For example, how would TaG-EM compare with expression of different fluorescent reporters, or a strategy based on the brainbow/flybow principle?
• FACS data is missing throughout the paper. The authors should include data from their comparative flow cytometry experiment of TaG-EM cells with or without additional hexameric GFP, as well as FSC/SSC and fluorescence scatter plots for the FACS steps that they performed prior to scRNA-seq, at least in supplementary figures.
• The authors should show the whole data described in L229, including the cluster that they chose to delete. At least, they should provide more information about how many cells were removed. In any case, the fact that their data still contains a large number of debris and dead cells despite sorting out PI negative cells with FACS and filtering low abundance barcodes with Cellranger is concerning.Overall, although a method for genetic tagging cell populations prior to multiplexing in single-cell experiments would be extremely useful, the method presented here is inadequate. However, despite all the weaknesses listed above, the idea of barcodes expressed specifically in cells of interest deserves more consideration. If the authors manage to improve their design to resolve the major issues and demonstrate the benefits of their method more clearly, then TaG-EM could become an interesting option for certain applications.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
In this manuscript, Mendana et al developed a multiplexing method - Targeted Genetically-Encoded Multiplexing or TaG-EM - by inserting a DNA barcode upstream of the polyadenylation site in a Gal4-inducible UAS-GFP construct. This Multiplexing method can be used for population-scale behavioral measurements or can potentially be used in single-cell sequencing experiments to pool flies from different populations. The authors created 20 distinctly barcoded fly lines. First, TaG-EM was used to measure phototaxis and oviposition behaviors. Then, TaG-EM was applied to the fly gut cell types to demonstrate its applications in single-cell RNA-seq for cell type annotation and cell origin retrieving.
This TaG-EM system can be useful for multiplexed behavioral studies from next-generation sequencing (NGS) of pooled …
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
In this manuscript, Mendana et al developed a multiplexing method - Targeted Genetically-Encoded Multiplexing or TaG-EM - by inserting a DNA barcode upstream of the polyadenylation site in a Gal4-inducible UAS-GFP construct. This Multiplexing method can be used for population-scale behavioral measurements or can potentially be used in single-cell sequencing experiments to pool flies from different populations. The authors created 20 distinctly barcoded fly lines. First, TaG-EM was used to measure phototaxis and oviposition behaviors. Then, TaG-EM was applied to the fly gut cell types to demonstrate its applications in single-cell RNA-seq for cell type annotation and cell origin retrieving.
This TaG-EM system can be useful for multiplexed behavioral studies from next-generation sequencing (NGS) of pooled samples and for Transcriptomic Studies. I don't have major concerns for the first application, but I think the scRNA-seq part has several major issues and needs to be further optimized.
Major concerns:
1. It seems the barcode detection rate is low according to Fig S9 and Fig 5F, J and N. Could the authors evaluate the detection rate? If the detection rate is too low, it can cause problems when it is used to decode cell types.
2. Unsuccessful amplification of TaG-EM barcodes: The authors attempted to amplify the TaG-EM barcodes in parallel to the gene expression library preparation but encountered difficulties, as the resulting sequencing reads were predominantly off-target. This unsuccessful amplification raises concerns about the reliability and feasibility of this amplification approach, which could affect the detection and analysis of the TaG-EM barcodes in future experiments.
3. For Fig 5, the singe-cell clusters are not annotated. It is not clear what cell types are corresponding to which clusters. So, it is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of the assignment of barcodes.
4. The scRNA-seq UMAP in Fig 5 is a bit strange to me. The fly gut epithelium contains only a few major cell types, including ISC, EB, EC, and EE. However, the authors showed 38 clusters in fig 5B. It is true that some cell types, like EE (Guo et al., 2019, Cell Reports), have sub-populations, but I don't expect they will form these many sub-types. There are many peripheral small clusters that are not shown in other gut scRNA-seq studies (Hung et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022 Fly Cell Atlas; Lu et al., 2023 Aging Fly Cell Atlas). I suggest the authors try different data-processing methods to validate their clustering result.
5. Different gut drivers, PMC-, PC-, EB-, EC-, and EE-GAL4, were used. The authors should carefully characterize these GAL4 expression in larval guts and validate sequencing data. For example, does the ratio of each cell type in Fig 5B reflect the in vivo cell type ratio? The authors used cell-type markers mostly based on the knowledge from adult guts, but there are significant morphological and cell ratio differences between larval and adult guts (e.g., Mathur...Ohlstein, 2010 Science).
6. Doublets are removed based on the co-expression of two barcodes in Fig 5A. However, there are also other possible doublets, for example, from the same barcode cells or when one cell doesn't have detectable barcode. Did the authors try other computational approaches to remove doublets, like DoubleFinder (McGinnis et al., 2019) and Scrublet (Wolock et al., 2019)?
7. Did the authors remove ambient RNA which is a common issue for scRNA-seq experiments?
8. Why does TaG-EM barcode #4, driven by EC-GAL4, not label other classes of enterocyte cells such as betaTry+ positive ECs (Figures 5D-E)? similarly, why does TaG-EM barcode #9, driven by EE-GAL4, not label all EEs? Again, it is difficult to evaluate this part without proper data processing and accurate cell type annotation.
9. For Figure 2, when the authors tested different combinations of groups with various numbers of barcodes. They found remarkable consistency for the even groups. Once the numbers start to increase to 64, barcode abundance becomes highly variable (range of 12-18% for both male and female). I think this would be problematic because the differences seen in two groups for example may be due to the barcode selection rather than an actual biologically meaningful difference.
10. Barcode #14 cannot be reliably detected in oviposition experiment. This suggests that the BC 14 fly line might have additional mutations in the attp2 chromosome arm that affects this behavior. Perhaps other barcode lines also have unknown mutations and would cause issues for other untested behaviors. One possible solution is to back-cross all 20 lines with the same genetic background wild-type flies for >7 generations to make all these lines to have the same (or very similar) genetic background. This strategy is common for aging and behavior assays. -
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
The work addresses challenges in linking anatomical information to transcriptomic data in single-cell sequencing. It proposes a method called Targeted Genetically-Encoded Multiplexing (TaG-EM), which uses genetic barcoding in Drosophila to label specific cell populations in vivo. By inserting a DNA barcode near the polyadenylation site in a UAS-GFP construct, cells of interest can be identified during single-cell sequencing. TaG-EM enables various applications, including cell type identification, multiplet droplet detection, and barcoding experimental parameters. The study demonstrates that TaG-EM barcodes can be decoded using next-generation sequencing for large-scale behavioral measurements. Overall, the results are solid in supporting the claims and will be useful for a broader fly community. I have only …
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
The work addresses challenges in linking anatomical information to transcriptomic data in single-cell sequencing. It proposes a method called Targeted Genetically-Encoded Multiplexing (TaG-EM), which uses genetic barcoding in Drosophila to label specific cell populations in vivo. By inserting a DNA barcode near the polyadenylation site in a UAS-GFP construct, cells of interest can be identified during single-cell sequencing. TaG-EM enables various applications, including cell type identification, multiplet droplet detection, and barcoding experimental parameters. The study demonstrates that TaG-EM barcodes can be decoded using next-generation sequencing for large-scale behavioral measurements. Overall, the results are solid in supporting the claims and will be useful for a broader fly community. I have only a few comments below:
Specific comments:
1. The authors mentioned that the results of structure pool tests in Fig. 2 showed a high level of quantitative accuracy in detecting the TaG-EM barcode abundance. Although the data were generally consistent with the input values in most cases, there were some obvious exceptions such as barcode 1 (under-represented) and barcodes 15, 20 (over-represented). It would be great if the authors could comment on these and provide a guideline for choosing the appropriate barcode lines when implementing this TaG-EM method.
2. In Supplemental Figure 6, the authors showed GFP antibody staining data with 20 different TaG-EM barcode lines. The variability in GFP antibody staining results among these different TaG-EM barcode lines concerns the use of these TaG-EM barcode lines for sequencing followed by FACS sorting of native GFP. I expected the native GFP expression would be weaker and much more variable than the GFP antibody staining results shown in Supplemental Figure 6. If this is the case, variation of tissue-specific expression of TaG-EM barcode lines will likely be a confounding factor.
3. As the authors mentioned in the manuscript, multiple barcodes for one experimental condition would be a better experimental design. Could the authors suggest a recommended number of barcodes for each experiential condition? 3? 4? Or more? Also, it would be great if the authors could provide a short discussion on the cost of such TaG-EM method. For example, for the phototaxis assay, if it is much more expensive to perform TaG-EM as compared to manually scoring the preference index by videotaping, what would be the practical considerations or benefits of doing TaG-EM over manual scoring?
-
