$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Orienting the sample in a precise manner is a vital part of efficiently using a microscopy set-up. However, manually orienting samples is often not possible when using a multiview light sheet system, given the requirement for preparing the samples in a tube. Therefore, to check if there are stereotypical positions that embryos take up within the chorion, zebrafish embryos were imaged at 70% epiboly (about 7 h post-fertilization (hpf)), since time-lapse imaging from gastrulation to early somite stages was the focus of this study. When samples were prepared immediately before imaging at 70% epiboly, the embryos showed no specific orientation that is frequently observed across samples. Since this is often not desirable, samples were prepared well before gastrulation and stored in microcentrifuge tubes at the appropriate temperature until the start of imaging. Under these conditions, at 70% epiboly (N = 3; n = 87 embryos), the embryo orientations could be classified into (1) Horizontal, when the animal-vegetal (AV) axis of the embryo was orthogonal to the long axis of the polymer tube, (2) Vertical, when the AV axis was parallel to the long axis of the polymer tube, and, (3) Oblique, when the AV axis was at an acute angle (Figure 3A). The horizontal position was the least represented, while the vertical and oblique positions were equally observed (Figure 4).
When the embryos were left in the tubes, the embryos were stable in these respective positions until 90% epiboly, after which most embryos changed their orientations. Therefore, a second round of documentation of orientations at the bud stage of embryogenesis (about 10 hpf) was required to account for the changed orientations. This was performed for independently prepared samples. For imaging early somite stages, it was previously reported that an embryo with its notochord orthogonal to the long axis of the polymer tube was the ideal orientation as it allows visualization of multiple bilateral somites forming along the axis15. When samples were prepared before gastrulation (N = 3, n = 93 embryos), about 25% of the embryos exhibited this orientation (Figure 4) and these embryos remained stable in this orientation until at least the 8-somite stage, consistent with previous reports15. The rest of the embryos exhibited various other orientations at the bud stage (classified in Figure 3B and Figure 4); however, many of them reoriented to the horizontal position during early somite formation. Interestingly, a similar percentage of embryos presented a horizontal orientation at the bud stage irrespective of whether the sample was prepared before gastrulation, at 70% epiboly, or immediately before the bud stage. Thus, sample preparation timing seems less critical for the horizontal orientation of interest for imaging somite stages, unlike what was observed for imaging at 70% epiboly.
The advantage of a multiview system is the ability to view the same sample from multiple angles. However, for zebrafish embryos at the mentioned stages, the number of views required to obtain cellular resolution across the entire embryo is not clear. To characterize this, zebrafish embryos were imaged using a 20x/1 NA objective in the detection arm with a zoom factor of 1, which corresponded to a light sheet thickness of 4.57 µm. Under these settings, the embryo covered the entire field of view of a sCMOS camera with a pixel size of 6.5 µm and an area of 1920 by 1920 pixels. Microinjection of mRNA for a histone-tagged fluorophore (H2A-mCherry) in 1-cell stage embryos obtained from a transgenic line that marked actin filaments (Utr-GFP) allowed visualization of both nuclei and cell membranes in the embryo. To perform the multiview fusion of embryos with different angular intervals, 360° acquisition of the double transgenic embryos as well as beads in the tube was performed at every 30° (n = 3 embryos at 70% epiboly; n = 3 embryos at bud stage) or 45° (n = 3 embryos at 70% epiboly; n = 3 embryos at bud stage) intervals with about 100 slices in each angle and a slice interval of 2 µm. By skipping alternate angles during image processing, the 30° and 45° acquisitions additionally provided the 60° and 90° data sets.
The acquired images were then registered using the bead information, and the registration details were transferred to the embryo data set as described in the protocol section. Successful registration using the BigStitcher plugin was achieved for the different acquisitions except for the 90° data set, which is likely due to less coverage of the sample from each angle. To overcome this, embryos were imaged every 90° with about 400 slices in each angle and a slice interval of 2 µm, at both 70% epiboly and bud stages, which got registered successfully (n = 3 embryos for each stage).
The next step was to perform multiview fusion and deconvolution of the registered data sets. This was done with 4x downsampling to speed up computation. As seen in the representation of nuclei from individual views and a multiview reconstructed embryo (Figure 5), the individual views cover a smaller field of view, which, upon fusion, yielded an image of the entire embryo. For the representation, nuclei were detected using Mastodon (https://github.com/mastodon-sc/mastodon), a FIJI-based plugin, which can be added in the "Manage Update Sites" section of the "Help" menu in FIJI and accessed under the plugins menu once added. For detection, the respective images were first converted to XML/hdf5 format, and then nuclear detection was performed using the 'Detection' plugin of Mastodon with a DoG detector (Diameter 6 µm and Quality Threshold 80).
Among the different fused images, the 90° data set showed a very high background deeper in the sample, rendering it unsuitable for performing any quantification. Thus, unlike smaller samples such as Drosophila embryos, which have frequently been imaged with a 90° interval in other studies9,22, the same is not recommended for imaging early zebrafish embryos using a 20x/1 NA objective. Between the 30°, 45° and 60° fused data sets, qualitatively, there was no substantial difference in nuclei information (Figure 6B, top row); however, finer structures such as cell boundaries appeared much better resolved with the 30° fused data set compared to the rest (Figure 6C, top row).
To confirm this observation, Mastodon was used to detect nuclei in the fused images obtained from imaging every 30°, 45°, and 60°. Three regions in the fused images, one each at a depth of 20 µm (Figure 6A), 50 µm, and 100 µm from the surface of the embryo, were chosen for the analysis.To compare the efficiency of nuclei detection across images, the detection was performed as described above, with identical parameters across fused images from different angular intervals. In all analyzed regions, every nucleus was detected irrespective of fused images obtained from imaging every 30°, 45°, or 60° (Figure 6B, bottom row). Thus, globular structures such as nuclei can be imaged at any of the above angular intervals with no loss of information.
For analyzing cell boundaries, Tissue Analyzer23, a FIJI plugin routinely used for segmenting cells24,25,26, was used. Similar to Mastodon, the Tissue Analyzer plugin can be added in the "Manage Update Sites" section of the "Help" menu in FIJI and accessed under the plugins menu once added. Cell boundaries were segmented using the watershed algorithm with default parameters and a strong blur ranging from 1.5 to 2 depending on tissue depth and a weak blur of 1. These parameters were kept constant across all analyses, facilitating a straightforward comparison. When the segmented images were manually compared to the original input images, errors were observed, where the software either failed to detect a cell boundary or drew non-existent cell boundaries (Figure 6C, bottom row). The number of errors made by the tissue analyzer plugin was normalized to the total number of bonds detected in the region and calculated as 'Boundary segmentation error'. While these errors were present in all analyzed regions, the number of errors drastically increased in fused images obtained from imaging at 45° and 60° angular intervals, compared to 30° (Figure 6D). This indicated that the resolution in the fused images was increasingly worse when the angular interval was increased. Thus, for segmenting finer structures such as cell boundaries, a tighter angular interval enables easier downstream processing.

Figure 1: Sample preparation using polymer tubes. (A) A polymer tube from the stored microcentrifuge tubes is taken using forceps. (B) Attaching the tube to the tip of a 200 µL micropipette. (C) Aspirating embryos with the help of a pipette into the tube. (D,E) A polymer tube with bud-stage embryos visible towards the bottom of the tube. (F) The polymer tubes are placed on a Petri dish with E3 to solidify the agarose. (G) Storing the polymer tubes in a microcentrifuge tube filled with E3. (H) Assembled sample holder with the mounted polymer tube. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Multiview image analysis workflow and registration using beads. (A) The multiview image analysis pipeline. (B) The image shows the "Multiview Explorer" window in BigStitcher, a FIJI plugin, where each view appears as a single row and contains information about the angle, channel, registration, interest points, and PSF. All commands discussed in the protocol appear when a view is selected and followed by a right click, as depicted in the pop-up menu. The selected views can be visualized in the BigDataViewer window, as shown. (C) A representative bead image before (left) and after registration (right) obtained from imaging at 30° angular intervals. All angular views have been selected and displayed. Scale bars: 75 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Overview of default embryo orientations. Representative images of the orientations the embryos fall into within the chorion at 70% epiboly (A) and bud stages (B). The top row in each panel depicts bright-field images obtained from the light sheet system, and the bottom row depicts representative cartoons. Arrows in (B) indicate the position of the notochord, which was used for identifying the orientation. Ap, animal pole; Vp, vegetal pole; A, anterior; P, posterior. Scale bars: 100 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Statistics of different embryo orientations. (A) The stacked column indicates the percentages of embryos that fall into the indicated orientations at 70% epiboly when samples are prepared before gastrulation. (B) The stacked columns indicate the percentages of embryos that fall into the indicated orientations at bud stages when samples are prepared before gastrulation (left), at 70% epiboly (middle), and at bud stages (right). N, the number of independent clutches from which embryos were obtained; n, the total number of embryos. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Representation of nuclei from a multiview reconstructed embryo. (A)The 3D scatter plot represents nuclei detected in a multiview-reconstructed embryo imaged at 30̛° angular interval. Each circle represents a nucleus and the centroid of nuclei positions are plotted. The nuclear coordinates were obtained using Mastodon, a FIJI plugin. (B) 3D scatter plots of nuclei from three representative views of the same embryo - the depictions being 60° apart. Colors for each nucleus were randomly assigned. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Comparison of cellular-scale information in fused images. (A) The image on the left shows a snapshot from a multiview-reconstructed embryo at a 20 µm depth from the surface. The yellow circle depicts the region used for further analysis. Scale bars: 50 µm (in all panels). (B) Representative raw images of nuclei at 20 µm depth from the surface of the embryo from three data sets imaged every 30°, 45°, and 60° respectively (top). Nuclei detected (in green) in the same images by Mastodon, a FIJI plugin (bottom). (C) Representative raw images at 20 µm depth from the surface of the embryo from three data sets imaged every 30°, 45°, and 60° respectively, using the actin marker, Utr-GFP (top). Boundaries segmented by Tissue Analyzer, a FIJI plugin, are shown for the same images (bottom). Arrows indicate errors made by the Tissue Analyzer in boundary segmentation, with the yellow arrow representing a missing boundary and the white arrow representing wrongly detected boundaries when visually no boundaries appear to exist. (D) The box plot depicts the percentage of errors the Tissue Analyzer made between multiview reconstructed embryos imaged every 30°, 45°, and 60° at different depths. Error bars indicate 1.5 times the interquartile range. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.