Data_Sheet_2_Assessing Transcriptome Quality in Patch-Seq Datasets.docx
Patch-seq, combining patch-clamp electrophysiology with single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNAseq), enables unprecedented access to a neuron's transcriptomic, electrophysiological, and morphological features. Here, we present a re-analysis of five patch-seq datasets, representing cells from ex vivo mouse brain slices and in vitro human stem-cell derived neurons. Our objective was to develop simple criteria to assess the quality of patch-seq derived single-cell transcriptomes. We evaluated patch-seq transcriptomes for the expression of marker genes of multiple cell types, benchmarking these against analogous profiles from cellular-dissociation based scRNAseq. We found an increased likelihood of off-target cell-type mRNA contamination in patch-seq cells from acute brain slices, likely due to the passage of the patch-pipette through the processes of adjacent cells. We also observed that patch-seq samples varied considerably in the amount of mRNA that could be extracted from each cell, strongly biasing the numbers of detectable genes. We developed a marker gene-based approach for scoring single-cell transcriptome quality post-hoc. Incorporating our quality metrics into downstream analyses improved the correspondence between gene expression and electrophysiological features. Our analysis suggests that technical confounds likely limit the interpretability of patch-seq based single-cell transcriptomes. However, we provide concrete recommendations for quality control steps that can be performed prior to costly RNA-sequencing to optimize the yield of high-quality samples.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1038/mp.2016.158
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nbt.3445
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s12915-017-0396-0
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nprot.2017.120
- https://doi.org//10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-10-03894.1997
- https://doi.org//10.1073/pnas.97.11.6144
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s13238-016-0247-8
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41467-018-03282-0
- https://doi.org//10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635
- https://doi.org//10.1073/pnas.89.7.3010
- https://doi.org//10.1073/pnas.1610155113
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nbt.3443
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.conb.2017.05.005
- https://doi.org//10.1101/368456
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.celrep.2018.06.115
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s13059-016-0888-1
- https://doi.org//10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0543-12.2012
- https://doi.org//10.1186/1471-2105-12-323
- https://doi.org//10.1101/gr.222877.117
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nn.2467
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neuron.2017.12.002
- https://doi.org//10.1523/ENEURO.0212-17.2017
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.celrep.2018.07.053
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0016493
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fncel.2017.00376
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nn.3446
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nn.4366
- https://doi.org//10.1038/mp.2014.162
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nn1639
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fnmol.2010.00010
- https://doi.org//10.1016/0896-6273(95)90257-0
- https://doi.org//10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3929-04.2005
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nn.4216
- https://doi.org//10.1152/jn.00604.2017
- https://doi.org//10.1093/cercor/bhh092
- https://doi.org//10.1007/978-1-4939-1096-0_8
- https://doi.org//10.1101/298133
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005814
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nmeth.4292
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fnmol.2018.00261
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neuron.2017.09.026
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cell.2018.06.021
- https://doi.org//10.1126/science.aaa1934
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neuron.2015.11.013