Spatially resolved transcriptomics and its applications in cancer

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2020.12.002Get rights and content

Spatially resolved transcriptomics (SRT) offers the promise of understanding cells and their modes of dysfunction in the context of intact tissues. Technologies for SRT have advanced rapidly with a large number being published in recent years. Diverse methods for SRT produce data at widely varying depth, throughput, accessibility and cost. Many published SRT methods have been demonstrated only in their labs of origin, while others have matured to the point of commercialization and widespread availability. Here we review technologies for SRT, and their application in studies of tumor heterogeneity.

Introduction

Recent technological advances provide the ability to interrogate tissues and even whole organisms at ‘omics’ scale and with cellular resolution. Single cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) studies of hematologic malignancies have yielded an unprecedented view of cellular dynamics driving these diseases and their responses to therapy [1, 2, 3]. However, application of scRNAseq methods to solid tumors requires tissue dissociation and therefore loss of spatial context [4, 5, 6]. As reviewed, spatial heterogeneity in tumors is driven not only by genotypic diversity that arises during clonal expansion but also by interactions between cancer cells and the immune and stromal cells that comprise the local tumor microenvironment, leading to distinct phenotypes in different regions of a tumor [7]. Understanding the spatial heterogeneity of tumors is clinically consequential, especially in instances where limited physical sampling of tumors is used to guide treatment [8].

SRT encompasses a diverse set of technologies that encode gene expression measurements with information about where in the sample each observation occurred. How this spatial encoding is achieved dictates the capabilities of each technology, including spatial resolution, depth of data per measurement, throughput, cost, and complexity. SRT technologies can require preselection of a panel of transcripts to be profiled, or sample the entire polyadenylated transcriptome. Some SRT methods require costly bespoke equipment and substantial technical support, while others are available as commercial kits requiring almost no specialized equipment. Careful consideration of these properties is required for selection of SRT technologies.

Although this domain of technologies is diverse and rapidly growing, major themes have emerged. Here, we survey currently available SRT technologies for studies of tumor samples, dividing them into 3 major categories-based upon how each technology encodes spatial information: 1) In microdissection, light microscopy is used to select the location and shape of each tissue region collected for subsequent ex situ processing; 2) in situ barcoding-based methods attach specific DNA barcode sequences to known regions of intact tissue samples and use codetection of those barcodes with tissue derived RNAs during subsequent ex situ sequencing to computationally assign spatial information to expression data; 3) Imaging-based methods simultaneously acquire spatial and gene expression information through iterative cycles of fluorescent nucleic acid imaging in intact tissue samples. The resulting images are assembled into a spatially aligned dataset that spans all cycles, and expression data is decoded based on the presence or absence of signal in each pixel for each cycle. Here we describe SRT technologies from each category, summarize their application to cancer research to date, and anticipate future developments (Figure 1, Table 1).

Section snippets

Microdissection-based methods

Microdissection and capture of tissue regions or cells of interest is a well-established and robust method for preservation of spatial information during sample acquisition. In laser capture microdissection (LCM), tissue is sectioned onto specially prepared glass slides, stained and imaged for morphology, and regions of interest as small as single cells are dissected using a microscope-guided laser [9]. LCM is compatible with cryopreserved as well as formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE)

In situ barcoding-based methods

Several methods for spatial RNA quantification using DNA barcoding have been developed. These can be subcategorized broadly based on how barcoding is performed. In one group of technologies, referred to here as solid phase-based capture (SPBC) methods, tissue is delivered to a substrate bearing a pre-arranged set of DNA barcodes. In the second group of technologies, termed selective barcoding (SB) methods, DNA barcodes are either delivered to or collected from selected tissue locations. In situ

Imaging-based methods

Imaging-based SRT methods enable acquisition of data with submicron resolution and are thus particularly well suited for studies of processes occurring at subcellular scales. This resolution comes at the expense of complexity, time, and equipment cost. The sensitivity of imaging-based methods is limited by the ability of optical microscopy to resolve densely packed RNAs in situ. Methodological advancements to overcome this challenge result in decreased throughput [24, 25, 26]. In general,

Conflict of interest statement

Nothing declared.

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • • of special interest

  • •• of outstanding interest

References (60)

  • J.-R. Lin et al.

    Highly multiplexed immunofluorescence imaging of human tissues and tumors using t-CyCIF and conventional optical microscopes

    eLife

    (2018)
  • A. Giustacchini et al.

    Single-cell transcriptomics uncovers distinct molecular signatures of stem cells in chronic myeloid leukemia

    Nat Med

    (2017)
  • J.S. Jang et al.

    Molecular signatures of multiple myeloma progression through single cell RNA-Seq

    Blood Cancer J

    (2019)
  • M.D. Young et al.

    Single-cell transcriptomes from human kidneys reveal the cellular identity of renal tumors

    Science

    (2018)
  • M. Janiszewska

    The microcosmos of intratumor heterogeneity: the space-time of cancer evolution

    Oncogene

    (2020)
  • N. Andor et al.

    Pan-cancer analysis of the extent and consequences of intratumor heterogeneity

    Nat Med

    (2016)
  • V. Espina et al.

    Laser-capture microdissection

    Nat Protoc

    (2006)
  • P.L. Ståhl et al.

    Visualization and analysis of gene expression in tissue sections by spatial transcriptomics

    Science

    (2016)
  • F. Salmén et al.

    Barcoded solid-phase RNA capture for Spatial Transcriptomics profiling in mammalian tissue sections

    Nat Protoc

    (2018)
  • L. Bergenstråhle et al.

    Super-resolved spatial transcriptomics by deep data fusion

    bioRxiv

    (2020)
  • E.G. Villacampa et al.

    Genome-wide spatial expression profiling in FFPE Tissues

    bioRxiv

    (2020)
  • S. Maniatis et al.

    Spatiotemporal dynamics of molecular pathology in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

    Science

    (2019)
  • C. Ortiz et al.

    Molecular atlas of the adult mouse brain

    Sci Adv

    (2020)
  • S.G. Rodriques et al.

    Slide-seq: A scalable technology for measuring genome-wide expression at high spatial resolution

    Science

    (2019)
  • R.R. Stickels et al.

    Sensitive spatial genome wide expression profiling at cellular resolution

    bioRxiv

    (2020)
  • S. Vickovic et al.

    High-definition spatial transcriptomics for in situ tissue profiling

    Nat Methods

    (2019)
  • C.R. Merritt et al.

    Multiplex digital spatial profiling of proteins and RNA in fixed tissue

    Nat Biotechnol

    (2020)
  • T.M. Van et al.

    A user’s perspective on GeoMxTM digital spatial profiling

    Immuno-Oncol Technol

    (2019)
  • K.H. Hu et al.

    ZipSeq: barcoding for real-time mapping of single cell transcriptomes

    Nat Methods

    (2020)
  • G. Wang et al.

    Multiplexed imaging of high-density libraries of RNAs with MERFISH and expansion microscopy

    Sci Rep

    (2018)
  • Cited by (0)

    3

    These authors contributed equally to this work.

    View full text