$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
One of the most important values of live imaging is the possibility to perform accurate lineage tracing, elucidating critical aspects of lineage progression in a neural population. Lineage tracing is defined as the identification and monitoring of all the progeny of a single progenitor, from the founder of the clone to the subsequent clone formed21. Remarkably, alternative methods employed for lineage tracing (e.g., viral transduction or multicolor reporter constructs21) have a critical drawback, whereby the final outcome is based on still pictures and it does not necessarily constitute the whole sequence. This means that cell death, heterogeneity in the behavior of the cell population, dilution, spreading or poor efficiency of the markers, along with other important handicaps, lead to incomplete or incorrect read-outs of the results2. Furthermore, live imaging enables the researcher to analyze important features of the biology of neural populations, such as the mode and timing of cell division, cell growth, migration, proliferation versus differentiation, cell cycle length, neurite formation, complexity and length, cell fate selection (differentiation), or conversion (reprogramming).
In addition, live imaging can be easily complemented with other analysis intended to obtain data from single cells such as, for example, RNA sequencing. However, to achieve combined benefit from both live imaging and other techniques requires that those cells previously monitored in the movies are later re-identified and individually collected for the secondary analysis. This can be achieved by using microscopes that include positional coordinates, by applying fluorescent reporters for specific cells or analyzing the distribution of groups of cells as references. Indeed, the combination of the transcriptome profile and behavior of individual cells may represent a powerful route to elucidate new molecular cues involved in the biology of cells.
One of the main problems that can compromise a live imaging experiment is an inadequate cell culture density. As indicated previously, at high density the excess of debris or poor dissociation (clump formation) may affect the quality and spatial resolution of the images, making single cell tracking unfeasible. Therefore, the conditions of the distinct cell populations under study should be adjusted to the lowest number of cells possible without compromising the viability of the cell culture.
The frequency of image acquisition is also crucial and should be carefully adjusted, especially when fluorescence illumination is used. Over-exposure to transmitted and especially fluorescence light may compromise cell viability. Alternatively, an excessive delay between the capture of the images may interfere with the temporal resolution of the analysis.
Another critical step during the live imaging experiment is the periodic adjustment of focusing. Failure in the correct setting/re-setting of the focal distance may hinder single cell tracking. Moreover, it is necessary to carefully check that the incubation chamber preserves the adequate temperature, humidity, and CO2 levels, amending undesired variations that may induce cell death.
Finally, once the PICC has been performed, it is important to properly retrieve the xyz zero position prior to the last round of image acquisition. Incorrect re-setting of the xyz zero position will make it difficult to match the phase-contrast and immunofluorescence images, impeding the identification of the cell progeny.
Although this approach has many positive facets, some limitations to the live imaging of neural populations still persist. For instance, the low cell density required to perform successful single cell tracking of aNSCs makes it impossible to employ biochemical assays, such as Western blotting14. Additionally, monitoring fast dividing populations like cerebellar astrocytes or N2a cells is temporally restricted as it is often too difficult to track cells as the cultures near confluence. Furthermore, many culture methods, as well as the inherent biological restrictions associated with the isolation of cells, often compromise cell viability over long periods, limiting the duration of the live imaging experiments. Finally, isolating cells from their natural environment has both positive and negative effects. Cells isolated from their physiological niche may fail to receive important signals that modulate their behavior, while at the same time, it represents a powerful means to test the effect of those signals individually in the lineage progression of specific neural populations.
Given the limitations described above, it is clear that the perfect methodological scenario would be to perform live imaging and single cell tracking experiments under normal physiological conditions in vivo. However, current techniques are unable to follow single cells for long periods of time in deep regions of the brain2. Therefore, the future of live imaging should focus on overcoming this limitation, aiming to fully analyze the cell biology of single cells in vivo with the most minor interference possible of the physiological environment3.