$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
ATAC requires successful implementation of several techniques for successful neuromodulation of specific neural circuits, including accurate MRI-guided targeting, FUS-BBBO, and histological evaluation of gene expression. 3D-printable components were developed to simplify targeting of small brain structures with imaging-guided FUS-BBBO.
MRI-guided focused ultrasound (MRIgFUS) administration poses a number of challenges. First, typical MRI coil has limited space that is designed to only accommodate a specimen and not the ultrasound hardware. The larger bores of MRIs increase the cost of equipment and decrease image quality, as the signal is related to the fill factor of a coil32. Consequently, any FUS hardware placed on the top of an animal image in MRI will compromise imaging quality. Second, designing MRI-compatible devices is difficult and expensive. MRI compatible materials need to be diamagnetic, have low propensity of creating eddy currents during radiofrequency irradiation, and have low magnetic susceptibility in high magnetic fields. In any conductive material, the creation of eddy currents or its magnetic susceptibility will also negatively affect imaging quality. Finally, the available MRI-compatible materials have lower Young’s moduli and durability than the metals typically used in production of precise targeting machines e.g., stereotaxic frames. The motors used for positional adjustments need to be MRI-compatible and placed outside of the MRI bore due to their size. These motors have to be connected at a distance to the transducer inside an MRI bore using MRI-compatible materials. Issues of plastic warping, lack of sufficient space inside the bore to implement robustly sized components, and insufficient room for changing targeting positions across the entire brain have affected targeting accuracy in previous work.
To resolve these problems, a decision was made to perform imaging in MRI and FUS-BBBO administration outside of the scanner. To allow for MRI-guidance, mice were placed inside a 3D-printed restraint that had an MRI-visible targeting guide that could be used to localize the mouse brain structures both in the MRI and in the stereotax coordinate space. Since both the mouse skull and the targeting guide are firmly attached to ear bar holders (Figure 1a,b), a targeting guide can be used to correlate spatial coordinates within MRI image and zero the stereotaxic instruments. The restraint does not have moving parts and does not contain a transducer, which allowed us to make it both robust and sufficiently small to fit inside an MRI and removed signal interference from transducer’s electronics. The space inside the targeting guide has been hollowed as the 3D-printed support for some materials is visible in MRI (Figure 1c). Holes in the assembly were introduced to enable stereotax calibration (Figure 3). The ultrasound transducer was attached to an electrode holder of a stereotax, and targeting was performed as described in section 4 (Figure 1d). The transducer should be supported along its length by housing of ear bars, preventing any deviation from the level plane. The targeting in the dorso-ventral direction can be achieved using phase-shifts in an annular array.
The practical targeting precision is determined by ultrasound focusing and skull attenuation. FUS-BBBO procedure has been described in detail for rats11 and has been implemented in a number of other model organisms23,33,34 and in humans16,17. The relationship between ultrasound focus size inversely proportional to frequency, where higher frequencies can result in more precise delivery. However, the attenuation of the skull increases with frequencies35 which may lead to skull heating and damage to the cortical areas. The exact targeting strategy will depend on the brain site. The sites where a full-width half maximum pressure fits within the brain tissue allow for predictable and safe BBB opening in many brain structures such as the striatum, midbrain, and hippocampus. Regions near the base of the brain pose a specific challenge in mice. Mouse brain measures approximately 8-10 mm in dorso-ventral direction, which is comparable to the full-width half maximum size of many commercially available transducers. Consequently, targeting at the bottom of the skull can lead to ultrasound reflection from the bones and air present in ear canals, mouth, or windpipe which can lead to unpredictable patterns of high and low pressures36. Some of these pressures can cross an inertial cavitation threshold which has been shown to cause bleeding and tissue damage37. To target regions which are located near the base of the skull, it may be preferable to use intersectional ATAC7, where intersectional genetics38 is used to restrict gene expression to a smaller area then the one targeted with FUS beam. In the published example of intersectional ATAC, a transgenic animal expressing a gene editing enzyme (Cre38) in dopaminergic cells has been targeted with ultrasound in the subsection of the region containing dopaminergic cells. Finally, the cortical regions can be targeted with FUS, but the diffraction and reflection of ultrasound may occur leading to uneven pressure profiles. This protocol does not cover the targeting of cortical regions as it will be highly dependent on the used species; however, some targeting of the cortex above hippocampus7 (e.g., Figure 7) has been observed indicating that at, least in mice, it is possible.
The choice of a chemogenetic activator and dosing will depend on the specific experimental needs. A number of studies, including one of the authors’ studies7, showed no significant non-specific response39,40, while higher doses (e.g., 10 mg/kg) can produce side effects, at least in some cases41. However, as with all behavioral experiments, proper controls31 are essential due to potential off-targeted activity of CNO and its metabolites42. Such controls could include administration of CNO and saline controls to animals expressing DREADDs and administration of CNO to wild-type animals or in some specific cases a comparison of ipsi- and contralateral sites of the brain that respectively do and do not express chemogenetic receptors. Additionally, recent research revealed a number of new DREADD agonists with improved specificity28,29,43. Other chemogenetic receptors5,25,44 can also be used in conjunction with ATAC procedure.
Histological evaluation of gene expression is necessary post-mortem for every animal. A small fraction of animals show poor gene expression following FUS-BBBO7. Additionally, it is necessary to show the spatial accuracy and specificity of gene expression since mis-targeting is possible. Of note, some AAVs may show retrograde or anterograde tracing capability45 and can cause transfection far from the site targeted with ultrasound despite accurate ultrasound targeting. If the expressed chemogenetic receptor is fused to or co-expresses a fluorophore, imaging of the fluorophore in tissue sections may be sufficient to evaluate localization and intensity of expression. However, many fluorescent proteins are damaged by the tissue fixation process, and immunostaining for mCherry protein that is frequently used with DREADDs yielded better signal in previous studies7. Finally, due to the density of neurons in certain parts of the brain (e.g., granular cell layer in hippocampus), using nuclearly-localized fluorophores expressed under IRES, as opposed to fusions, to perform cell-counts may be beneficial since nuclei can be easily segmented and counterstained with nuclear stains, such as DAPI or TO-PRO-3. To evaluate neuromodulation by c-Fos staining, performing nuclear counterstaining and counting c-Fos positive nuclei, rather than any fluorescence signal, is imperative. In some cases, cellular debris can show fluorescence and confound the measurements of positive cells.
Limitations of the drug and gene delivery with FUS-BBBO include lower resolution than delivery with invasive intracranial injections and the need for larger amounts of injected drugs or viral vectors. Additionally, while a direct injection into the brain results in exclusive delivery to an injected site, FUS-BBBO uses an intravenous route resulting in possible delivery to peripheral tissues. Limitations of using chemogenetics for neuromodulation include a slow timescale, which may be inadequate to some behavioral protocols which require rapid changes in intensity of neuromodulation.