$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
In situ hybridization is a meticulous assay that requires rigor and basic knowledge of nucleic acid chemistry, cell biology, and histology to be able to adapt each critical step to localize a target in a well conserved environment. In this discussion we would like to highlight the critical steps where troubleshooting is crucial to obtain accurate and interpretable results.
The fixation and processing of the tissues are critical and should be addressed upfront to make sure the assay can yield the best results. Neutral buffered PFA (4% freshly prepared) fixative is optimal for the duplex assay. However, the assay can also be performed on frozen tissues (OCT) with the appropriate post cryosectioning fixation conditions.
Pretreatment of the tissue sections is a crucial step. There are two pretreatment steps in this assay: the first is a heat-induced epitope retrieval (HIER). This step is important for the reversal of methylene bridge cross-links and restoration of protein structures, which is needed in fixed tissues. The efficiency of this treatment depends on time, temperature, type of retrieval buffer, and pH. The second pretreatment is a protease-induced epitope retrieval (PIER). This step cleaves peptides, exposing the antigen or nucleotides, and uses enzymes including proteinase K, trypsin, and pepsin. This is an extremely sensitive step that could potentially damage both tissue morphology and the target of interest. The concentration of the enzyme, as well as the time and temperature of incubation are critical in this process. Overdigestion leads to poor nuclei demarcation and difficulty in quantification steps. It is critical to find a balance between optimal access to the RNA/DNA target and pretreatment conditions that do not damage the tissue or target of interest. Each tissue type has a different level of sensitivity to each of these pretreatments and each parameter (enzyme concentration, time, temperature) should be empirically tested.
The stringency of the wash buffer is based on three major parameters: temperature, concentration of salts and detergent, and time. The wash buffer is a saline sodium citrate buffer (SSC), and the salt concentration within the buffer controls the stringency during the wash steps. In their protocol, ACD advises to use the wash buffer at a final concentration of 0.1x SSC, 0.03% lithium dodecyl sulfate. While working on DNAscope and multiplex optimization, we determined that using the wash buffer at a final concentration of 0.05x SSC gave us better results to visualize the DNA signal and considerably helped reduce nonspecific off target hybridization resulting from the overnight incubation of the sense probe.
The choice of detection approach, chromogen (red or brown) versus fluorescence needs to be thought through based on tissue type and goal before starting the assay. The red chromogenic approach will give a nice contrast, because red is not naturally found in tissues. Brown chromogen will give similar results to red chromogen. However, it is important to keep in mind that some blood degradation products present in the tissue have similar color, and tattoo ink will be difficult to separate from the brown signal while quantifying. A fluorescence detection approach will allow a clear distinction of different cellular markers and the multiplexing will offer a perfect assay to phenotype the cells harboring vRNA and/or vDNA.
Multiple controls are necessary to ensure the specificity of the probes and the quality of the assay. Each newly designed probe must be tested on known positive and negative control tissues or cell pellets. We often generate plasmids containing our targeted sequence and perform transfection into cell lines to generate positive controls. For each run we add a known negative tissue (HIV or SIV negative), a no probe control containing only the probe diluent, and an RNase treated control to ensure the quality and specificity of the assay.
The quantification is an extremely important step and should be performed using the appropriate tools and algorithm based on the question asked. In this manuscript we presented an image analysis software (e.g., Cellprofiler), that we chose after evaluation of multiple options. We estimated that this software was the best software for our needs, but there are numerous image analysis software programs that could be used.