$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Fluorescence microscopy is one of the most essential imaging techniques in the life sciences, especially in cell and developmental biology. In confocal fluorescence microscopes1, which are state-of-the-art for three-dimensional fluorescence imaging since the mid-1990s, the same lens is used for fluorophore excitation and emission light detection. The illumination laser beam excites all fluorophores along the illumination/detection axis and the respective out-of-focus signal is discriminated prior to detection by a pinhole. Hence, for each two-dimensional image, the entire specimen is illuminated. Consequently, for each three-dimensional image, i.e., a stack of spatially consecutive two-dimensional images, the entire specimen is illuminated several dozen to a few hundred times2, which promotes photobleaching and phototoxicity3.
Almost twenty years ago, light sheet-based technology4 emerged as a promising alternative for three-dimensional fluorescence imaging and thus became a valuable tool in developmental biology5. In this approach, illumination and detection are decoupled. The illumination lens is used to generate a light sheet with a depth of only a few micrometers within the focal plane of the perpendicularly arranged detection lens. Hence, for each two-dimensional image, only a thin planar volume around the focal plane is illuminated. Consequently, for each three-dimensional image, the entire specimen is illuminated only once, which strongly decreases photobleaching and phototoxicity6. For this reason, light sheet fluorescence microscopes (LSFMs) offer efficient solutions to study complex processes on multiple biologically relevant scales and are, therefore, of particular value in developmental biology, where specimens as large as several millimeters have to be analyzed at the subcellular level.
Historically, LSFMs have been sample chamber-based7,8. In these setups, the illumination (x) and detection (z) axes are usually arranged perpendicularly to the gravity axis (y). Sample chambers offer ample experimental freedom. Firstly, they provide large imaging buffer capacities, which in turn eases the use of a perfusion system to control the environment, e.g., to maintain a specific temperature9 or to apply biochemical stressors. Further, they support customized mounting methods10 that are tailored to the respective experimental needs while preserving the three-dimensional, in some instances dynamic11, integrity of the specimen. Additionally, sample chamber-based setups are usually equipped with a rotation function that is used to revolve the specimens around the y axis and thus image them along two, four or even more directions. Since embryos of commonly used model organisms are, in the context of microscopy, relatively large, successive imaging along the ventral-dorsal, lateral, and/or anterior-posterior body axes provides a more comprehensive representation. This allows e.g., long-term tracking of cells that move along complex three-dimensional migration paths12,13.
Light sheet-based fluorescence microscopy has been applied extensively to study the embryonic morphogenesis of Drosophila melanogaster, both systematically14,15 as well as with a specific focus on the biophysical aspects of development. For instance, it was used to gather high-resolution morphogenetic data in order to detect a biomechanical link between endoderm invagination and axis extension during germband elongation16 and further to relate the complex cellular flow with force generation patterns during gastrulation17. It has also been combined with other state-of-the-art techniques, e.g., optogenetics to investigate the regulation of Wnt signaling during anterior-posterior patterning in the epidermis18.
However, studying only one species does not provide insights into the evolution of development. To understand embryogenesis within the phylogenetic context, intensive research has been conducted with alternative insect model organisms. One of the most comprehensively investigated species is the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum, an economically relevant stored grain pest19, whose embryonic morphogenesis has also already been systematically imaged with LSFM20. The embryonic morphogenesis of these two species differs remarkably in several aspects, e.g., the segmentation mode21, as well as the formation and degradation of extra-embryonic membranes22. The latter aspect has already been extensively analyzed using LSFMs. For instance, it has been shown that the serosa, an extra-embryonic tissue that envelops and protects the Tribolium embryo from various hazards for the better part of its embryogenesis23,24, also acts as the morphogenetic “driver” for its own withdrawal process during dorsal closure25. Further, it has been demonstrated that during gastrulation, a particular region of the blastoderm remains anchored to the vitelline membrane in order to create asymmetric tissue movements26 and, following this observation, that regionalized tissue fluidization allows cells to sequentially leave the serosa edge during serosa window closure27.
In all Drosophila- and Tribolium-associated studies cited above, sample chamber-based LSFMs have been used. In most, the embryos were recorded along multiple directions using the sample rotation function. Although not stated explicitly, it can be assumed that they have been recorded individually and thus independent of each other in sequential live imaging assays, similar to our previous work on Tribolium20,28. In certain scenarios, such an approach is acceptable, but especially in quantitative comparative approaches, ambient variance can distort the results. For instance, it has long been known that the developmental speed of insects is temperature-dependent29, but a more recent study further suggests that in Drosophila, temperature may also affect the concentration of morphogens30. Consequently, if certain characteristics of embryogenesis, e.g., the dynamic proportions, division rates and migration velocities of cells, should be precisely quantified, sufficient repetitions without ambient variance are required. This minimizes standard deviations and standard errors, which in turn facilitates juxtaposition with other, even just marginally divergent experimental conditions.
However, sample chamber-based LSFMs are primarily designed for high content rather than high throughput assays. Unlike confocal microscopes, which are typically equipped with standardized clamp mechanisms for microscopy slides, Petri dishes and well plates, nearly all sample chamber-based LSFMs use cylinder-based clamp mechanisms. These mechanisms are intended for custom-made sample holders that are rotation-compatible as well as non-invasive10, but usually not designed for more than one specimen20,31,32. A framework for simultaneous live imaging of two or more embryos, in which the advantages of sample chamber-based setups are not compromised, addresses the ambient variance issue thereby increasing the value of LSFMs for comparative studies.
In our protocol, we present an experimental framework for comparative live imaging in sample chamber-based LSFMs (Figure 1A) in which the y axis is used as an option to “stack” embryos. Firstly, we provide a fluorescent microsphere-based calibration guideline for sample chamber-based LSFMs, which is especially important for instruments that lack a calibration assistant. Secondly, we describe a mounting method for multiple embryos based on the cobweb holder28 (Figure 1B) that is compatible with sample rotation and thus allows simultaneous imaging of multiple specimens along multiple directions (Figure 1C). Several embryos are aligned on top of a thin agarose film and, after insertion into the sample chamber, moved successively through the light sheet to acquire three-dimensional images. Thirdly, we provide three exemplary live imaging datasets for Drosophila as well as for Tribolium. For the former, we juxtapose transgenic lines with fluorescently labeled nuclei. For the latter, we compare the performance of transgenic sublines that carry the same transgene, but at different genomic locations. Finally, we discuss the importance of parallelization with regard to comparative live imaging and ambient variance33, debate the throughput limit of our experimental framework and evaluate adaption of our approach to other model organisms.