A viral toolkit for recording transcription factor–DNA interactions in live mouse tissues

In order to perform transposon calling cards in mammalian cells, two basic components are required: the hypPB transposase (or a TF–hypPB fusion) and donor transposons (18). We sought to develop an in vivo method to efficiently deliver calling cards components throughout the mouse brain to identify TF-associated sites. We first tested AAV as a means for calling cards reagent delivery, as viral piggyBac delivery methods have been successful in other organ systems previously (31, 32). We packaged a myc-tagged version of hypPB and donor transposons carrying TdTomato reporter genes into separate AAV serotype 9 (AAV9) vectors, which efficiently transduce neuron and astrocyte populations (33), and intracranially injected these vectors into the cortices of postnatal day 0 to 1 (P0-1) mice. Animals were killed at P21 for analysis (Fig. 1A). We analyzed hypPB expression with in situ hybridization (SI Appendix, Fig. S1A) and transposon-derived TdTomato immunofluorescence (Fig. 1B) across the brain and observed widespread viral transduction in the neocortex, hippocampus, and inner brain structures. As expected with the AAV9 serotype (33), the vast majority of transduced cell types were neurons and astrocytes (Fig. 1 C and D). These results demonstrate that calling cards reagents can be efficiently delivered to the mouse brain by AAV.

Earlier implementations of the calling cards method (e.g., BrokenHeart) mapped transposon insertions by directly sequencing genomically inserted transposon DNA (18, 21) (SI Appendix, Fig. S2 A and B). However, our group recently developed a specialized calling cards donor transposon, termed a “self-reporting transposon” (SRT), which allows for amplification of each insertion via RNA transcription and highly efficient mapping of transposition events through deep sequencing of transposon-derived RNA (34) (SI Appendix, Fig. S2 A and C). We first sought to directly compare traditional DNA calling cards (BrokenHeart) with RNA calling cards (SRT) in AAV systems. To do this, we intracranially injected P0-1 mice with AAV::hypPB and either AAV::BrokenHeart or AAV::SRT. At P21, we isolated DNA or RNA from cortex samples and generated and sequenced calling cards libraries (SI Appendix, Fig. S2 B and C). We found that SRT reads mapped much more consistently to the mouse genome than BrokenHeart, where the majority of alignment was to the original AAV episomal sequence. We then mapped transposon insertions from these reads. While insertions from the two methods reliably mapped to similar genomic locations, we were able to recover an order of magnitude greater total number of insertions from animals receiving AAV::SRT compared with those receiving AAV::BrokenHeart (SI Appendix, Fig. S2 E and F). In summary, we found that SRTs provide a much greater sensitivity for recovering insertion events from AAV than traditional DNA methods. Finally, we tested whether SRT calling cards could also be delivered efficiently via adult intraparenchymal stereotactical cortical injection to precise coordinates, as this is more standard for AAV delivery than P0-1 injection. Indeed, after delivery of AAV::hypPB and AAV::SRT to three P107 adult mice (euthanized 1 mo later, at P136), we observed a near-equivalent read-mapping rate (SI Appendix, Fig. S2D), insertion total (SI Appendix, Fig. S2E), and insertion localization (SI Appendix, Fig. S2F) as in P0-1 SRT delivery. Thus, AAV calling cards systems are functional in vivo and can be delivered to the mouse brain at various time points and to targeted locations.

An important question with all calling cards technologies is whether continued transposon insertion is deleterious, particularly after long-term delivery to a living mammalian system such as the mouse brain. To address this question empirically, we intracranially delivered either calling cards viruses (AAV::hypPB/AAV::SRT) or control viruses (RFP only) to P0-1 mouse pups and then assessed neuronal degeneration, attainment of developmental milestones, anxiety-related behavior, and balance/strength/coordination during the first 4 wk of life. Four weeks after viral delivery, a small population of degenerating cells were found in the cortex, near the injection site; however, there was no significant difference between calling cards and RFP-only injected animals, suggesting that the observed degeneration was likely due to needle injury (Fig. 1 E and F). Likewise, no significant differences were observed in weight, righting from back, or edge/center dwelling, indicating that calling cards-injected animals develop normally and display no overt anxiety-like behavior (Fig. 1G and SI Appendix, Fig. S3 A–C). Finally, in a sensorimotor battery, calling cards-injected animals displayed a largely normal phenotype, with only one test (60°-inclined screen climbing) having a significant reduction compared with RFP-only controls. Further, these animals performed normally on the 90° inclined screen and inverted screen tests, which are even more difficult tests of balance and strength than the 60°-inclined screen (Fig. 1H and SI Appendix, Fig. S3 D–I). In summary, AAV calling cards reagents did not result in excess degeneration, weight loss, or behavioral/developmental defects, suggesting that genomic transposon insertion does not introduce significant toxicity or deleterious effects to the animal.

BRD4 acts as a “chromatin reader” by binding to acetylated lysine residues on histones (35–37) and regulating gene transcription (38, 39). Accordingly, BRD4 is strongly associated with active, TF-bound REs, most prominently super enhancers (7, 40). Importantly, BRD4 has a known affinity for the unfused hypPB protein (29), and consequently unfused hypPB insertions are greatly enriched at known BRD4-binding sites (29), such as super enhancers (30). Thus, we aimed to test the hypothesis that unfused hypPB transposon insertion can be used to identify active REs in the brain (Fig. 2A).

We first analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of unfused hypPB insertions for identification of active super enhancers in vitro in neuroblastoma (N2a) cells. While N2a’s do not represent epigenetic regulation in vivo (only 20.9% of super enhancers are shared between N2a cells and P14 mouse cortex), this pure population allows for assessment of sensitivity and specificity without complex cellularity or serotype/transduction variability. To do this, we transfected these cells with hypPB and SRT plasmids, from which we collected a total of 806,653 insertions. We then down-sampled this library into randomly selected pools of various insertion totals and used peak calling to identify regions of significantly enriched insertion density in each pool, at a range of significance thresholds. Using a previously published N2a H3K27ac ChIP-seq dataset (12) to independently define active super enhancers in this population, we assayed sensitivity and specificity of calling cards insertion peaks for identifying these regions. From this, we observed that calling cards peaks are highly specific for active super enhancers across a range of sensitivities, with a high area under the receiver–operator characteristic curve (0.82; See SI Appendix, Fig. S4A). Further, we observed a high sensitivity for super-enhancer identification, even at low insertion totals (e.g., sensitivity of up to 0.8 from only 10,000 insertions), that increases steadily with increasing number of insertions (SI Appendix, Fig. S4B). Thus, unfused hypPB calling cards profiles can be used to identify active super enhancers in vitro.

We next asked whether AAV::hypPB could identify active REs, including super enhancers, in the brain. To do this, we combined all 3,732,694 insertions collected from two mice injected with AAV::hypPB and AAV::SRT at P0-1 and defined significantly enriched insertion peaks (7,031 peaks; P < 10⁻³⁰), which we predict to be BRD4-bound REs. We observed that insertion density at these peaks was highly correlated between the two animal replicates, indicating a high reproducibility of this method (Fig. 2B). To assess whether insertion peaks represented active REs, we compared our calling cards data with Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) ChIP-seq datasets (33) of enhancer-associated histone modifications (4) in the developing mouse cortex. At the 7,031 significantly enriched insertion peaks, we observed a strong enrichment of active enhancer-associated histone modifications H3K27ac and H3K4me1 and a deenrichment of the repressive mark H3K27me3 (Fig. 2 C–F). We then used a previously published (41) H3K27ac ChIP-seq data from P14 mouse cortex to independently define active enhancers and super enhancers and asked whether calling cards peaks significantly overlapped these regions. We observed that the majority of insertion peaks intersected with H3K27ac-defined enhancers, significantly higher than when insertion peak coordinates are randomized (Fig. 2G). Similarly, calling cards peak intersection with super enhancers is also significantly higher than chance (Fig. 2H). As expected for a BRD4-mediated mechanism, unfused hypPB calling cards profiles identify only a subset of all enhancers but do intersect the majority of super enhancers (Fig. 2 I and J). Of note, the reference ChIP-seq dataset used for enhancer and super-enhancer identification encompasses REs from all cortical cell types, while calling cards peaks are derived only from transduced cells (i.e., neurons and astrocytes), thus likely underrepresenting RE sensitivity. Further, this overlap analysis was performed using our standard, highly rigorous significance threshold for peak calling (P = 10⁻³⁰); however, we have also performed these analyses at a range of P value thresholds to confirm the finding is robust to this parameter (SI Appendix, Fig. S4 C and D). Together, these data support that AAV calling cards insertion profiles of unfused hypPB can be used to identify putative REs in the brain.

Gene-based TF-tagging systems such as calling cards offer the potential for cell type-specific profiling through conditional expression of the TF–enzyme fusion. Thus, we generated a Cre-dependent calling cards system, termed FLEX calling cards, and tested the ability of this system to record cell type-specific RE activity or TF binding in complex tissues without isolation of the cell population of interest. In the FLEX system, the reverse complement of the hypPB or TF–hypPB gene is positioned downstream of a strong, ubiquitous promoter and is flanked by two sets of loxP sites. In the presence of Cre, the transposase gene is flipped to the correct orientation and is expressed. To confirm Cre dependence of the FLEX system, we cotransfected the Cre-dependent hypPB plasmid, hypPB FLEX, into HEK293T cells along with the BrokenHeart reporter plasmid (SI Appendix, Fig. S5A), which expresses TdTomato only after genomic transposon insertion (42); 24-h posttransfection, we observed BrokenHeart-derived TdTomato fluorescence only in cells that received both the FLEX calling cards constructs and a Cre expression plasmid, demonstrating that this system is Cre-dependent (SI Appendix, Fig. S5A).

As a proof of principle, we focused on two prominent and well-studied Cre-driver mouse lines, Syn1::Cre and GFAP::Cre, which direct expression to neurons and astrocytes, respectively. We packaged the hypPB FLEX plasmid into the AAV9 vector and intracranially coinjected it along with AAV::SRT into P0-1 mouse pups of either the Syn1::Cre or GFAP::Cre genotype, along with Cre(−) littermates as controls. We euthanized the animals at P28, isolated cortical RNA, and sequenced and mapped insertions across the genome (Fig. 3A). Immediately apparent upon sacrifice was that brains of Syn1::Cre-positive animals were noticeably more red than their negative littermates, even to the naked eye (SI Appendix, Fig. S5B), a result of the transposition-enhanced TdTomato reporter expression derived from AAV::SRT. This change in color was striking for Syn1::Cre brains but not as apparent in GFAP::Cre animals, an observation that is consistent with the relative abundances of transduced neurons and astrocytes (Fig. 1 C and D). In Syn1::Cre brains, we analyzed TdTomato expression with immunofluorescence and noted a marked increase in neurons of Cre(+) animals but not Cre(−) littermates (SI Appendix, Fig. S5C). We then sequenced insertions in Cre(+) and Cre(−) littermates from each line and observed a significant increase in insertion events in positive animals as compared with their negative littermates (SI Appendix, Fig. S5D).

We next sought to test whether FLEX calling cards with unfused hypPB could identify cell type-specific REs. To do this, we identified insertion peaks that were differentially enriched in either Syn1::Cre over GFAP::Cre or GFAP::Cre over Syn1::Cre by a count-based statistical comparison (Fig. 3B). We then asked whether genes near these differentially enriched peaks are more likely to be expressed in neurons or astrocytes, using a previously published and widely used cell type-specific RNA-seq dataset (43). As predicted, we found that as our significance threshold for defining differentially enriched insertion peaks became more stringent, the RNA expression of proximal gene sets became more cell type-specific (SI Appendix, Fig. S5 E and F). At a stringent significance threshold of P = 10⁻⁷, we compared all nearest genes to Syn1::Cre- or GFAP::Cre-enriched insertion peaks and found significant differences in astrocyte versus neuron expression in the expected directionalities (Fig. 3B and SI Appendix, Fig. S5G). Of note, these neuron and astrocyte RNA enrichments were observed despite using proximity as a means for enhancer-gene pairing, which, while widely used for analyses such as these (3), is likely only identifying the correct gene of interest in a subset of pairs (6). Lastly, we inputted these gene sets into an unbiased cell type-identification tool (Cell-Type Specific Expression Analysis [CSEA]) (44) and successfully identified cortical astrocyte and neuron populations for genes near GFAP::Cre- and Syn1::Cre-enriched insertion peaks, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S5 H and I). Together, these data indicate that peaks derived from FLEX calling cards insertion profiles recorded by unfused hypPB represent cell type-specific REs responsible for driving expression of cell type-enriched genes.

Lastly, we sought to functionally validate the enhancer activity of a subset of the previously undescribed astrocyte-enriched REs by testing whether these regions could enhance the expression of a dsRed reporter gene in astrocytes in vivo. We chose four candidate astrocyte-enriched REs, based on their size, cell type-specific activity, and astrocyte/neuron RNA expression of their nearest genes (SI Appendix, Fig. S6 A–E). We then cloned these candidate REs upstream of the hsp68 minimal promoter driving a dsRed reporter gene. As a positive control, we also cloned the canonical GFAP promoter (pGFAP) (45) into the same location upstream of hsp68::dsRed (Fig. 3C). To test the functional enhancer activity of these REs in vivo, we delivered these plasmids, along with a separate plasmid carrying a CFP reporter under the GFAP promoter for astrocyte identification, via postnatal astrocyte-labeling electroporation (PALE) (46). At P7, mice were euthanized and brains were collected for immunohistochemistry. This method specifically targeted astrocytes in the cerebral cortex, noting that >96% of dsRed(+) cells in this region were also GFAP::CFP(+) (SI Appendix, Fig. S6 F and G). As expected, the positive control (pGFAP hsp68::dsRed) plasmid exhibited enhanced dsRed fluorescence in astrocytes, relative to a negative control plasmid carrying only hsp68::dsRed, that approached statistical significance (P = 0.055; Fig. 3 D and E and SI Appendix, Fig. S6 F and H). We then quantified enhancer activity of our candidate REs and observed a significant enhancement of dsRed fluorescence for three of the four candidates (Fig. 3 D and E and SI Appendix, Fig. S6 F and H). Thus, these astrocyte-enriched REs display functional enhancer activity in astrocytes in the mouse brain at P7. Next, we repeated this experiment allowing mice to age to P21 to allow further astrocyte maturation prior to euthanasia. To our surprise, at this time point, we observed a change in localization of dsRed expression in brains receiving the minimal promoter hsp68::dsRed construct, with fewer GFAP::CFP(+) astrocytes and a new population of NeuN(+) neurons labeled with dsRed in the cortex (SI Appendix, Fig. S7 A and B). This suggests that the PALE method does deliver plasmids to neurons or neural progenitors in addition to astrocyte progenitors but that expression via the hsp68 promoter in neurons does not arise until later in postnatal development. Strikingly, however, in animals that received pGFAP hsp68::dsRed or any of the RE candidate plasmids, dsRed expression was contained to GFAP::CFP(+) astrocytes, suggesting that in addition to enhancing expression in astrocytes, these RE sequences also repress activity of hsp68 in neurons (SI Appendix, Fig. S7 A and B). Additionally, as in the P7 experiment, we observed increased dsRed expression within GFAP::CFP(+) astrocytes for all RE constructs relative to hsp68::dsRed only, of which two reached statistical significance (SI Appendix, Fig. S7C). Indeed, even eMms22l, which was not yet active at P7, displays these functional enhancer phenotypes at P21. Overall, these data demonstrate that cell type-specific REs derived from FLEX calling cards functionally regulate cell type-specific gene expression in the brain.

A key feature of calling cards is the ability to record binding of a TF of interest using TF–hypPB fusions. To demonstrate in vivo TF recording with AAV calling cards, we fused hypPB to a sequence-specific DNA-binding general TF, SP1, which binds to gene promoters and is involved in transcription (47, 48), and cloned this fusion gene into the FLEX calling cards system for cell type-specific use (Fig. 4A). As full-length SP1 is too large to be efficiently packaged into AAV, we instead used a truncated version of SP1 containing the carboxyl-terminal (C-terminal) 621 amino acids, which includes the DNA-binding domain and has been shown to be sufficient to replicate sequence-specific binding of full-length SP1 (49). To test this system, we intracranially coinjected AAV::SP1(621C)–hypPB FLEX along with AAV::SRT into P0-1 mice of the Syn1::Cre line, killed animals at P28, generated and sequenced SRT libraries from cortical RNA samples, and compared insertion profiles with that of unfused hypPB. Consistent with the affinity of SP1 for proximal promoters, we found that insertions were significantly enriched upstream of the transcription start site (TSS), as compared with unfused hypPB insertion profiles (Fig. 4C). Next, we defined differentially enriched insertion peaks in SP1(621C)–hypPB profiles over unfused hypPB (P < 10⁻¹⁵) and found that the majority of significant enrichments occur in gene promoters (Fig. 4 D and E). Finally, at these SP1 peaks, we performed motif discovery and identified the canonical SP1-binding motif, GGGCGGGG (18) (Fig. 4F). Thus, fusion of SP1 to hypPB and delivery via AAV identifies SP1-binding sites in the mouse brain.

An intriguing potential use of calling cards technologies is in the recording of TF binding over an integrated period of time. Such a method, which is not possible with endpoint TF profiling methods such as ChIP-seq or CUT&Tag, could empower novel studies in which historical TF-binding information would be useful, such as during cellular development or differentiation. Further, by integrating signal over time, longitudinal calling cards may report transient binding events which would be otherwise missed with endpoint-only measures.

To test whether FLEX calling cards could report integrated, historical TF occupancy, we asked whether we could recover transient SP1 promoter-binding events and successfully read them out at a later date. Importantly, consistent with the known role of SP1 in regulating gene expression (18, 47, 48), we observed that expression of genes genome-wide was on average correlated with the number of SP1-directed promoter insertions (Fig. 5 A and B). Thus, we predicted that should a gene be expressed early, but not late, in the lifetime of the animal, this transient event could be marked by SP1 binding and be recoverable via SP1 calling cards at a later time point.

To test this hypothesis, we intracranially coinjected AAV::SP1(621C)–hypPB and AAV::SRT into two separate cohorts of P0-1 mice. The first cohort was euthanized at P10, while the second cohort was allowed to continue to record SP1 occupancy until P28 (Fig. 5C). This time period of postnatal brain development involves several key neurodevelopmental processes (50), including substantial hippocampal neurogenesis (51) as well as glial and synaptic maturation (50), development of the extracellular matrix (50), and closing of critical periods (50), which are accompanied by numerous changes in gene and protein expression (52). For these analyses, we utilized a previously published cortical RNA-seq dataset (53) with postnatal time points of 1 wk (Wk1; ∼P7) and 4 wk (Wk4; ∼P28). From these expression data, we then derived and tested three separate predictions (Fig. 5C). First, for genes expressing at Wk1 but not Wk4 (i.e., “early genes”), we would observe near-equivalent SP1 binding at promoters in both cohorts. Second, for constitutive genes that express equally at Wk1 and Wk4, we would observe continued integration of SP1 binding in the P28 cohort, resulting in increased SP1 insertion density at promoters. Third, for genes expressing only at Wk4 (i.e., “late genes”), we would observe SP1 promoter binding only in the P28 cohort. We defined early genes as having a log (Wk4/Wk1 fragments per kilobase of exon model per million reads mapped [FPKM]) of less than −0.5 (n = 292), late genes as greater than 0.5 (n = 285), and all genes in the middle as constitutive (n = 4,413; Fig. 5 D and E). Indeed, at the promoters of these gene sets, we observed SP1 promoter occupancy to be consistent with our three predictions (Fig. 5E; example early and late genes, Idh1 and Gjb6, displayed in Fig. 5 F and G, respectively). Importantly, at the promoters of early genes, we observed near-equivalent binding in the P10 and P28 cohorts (mean P28:P10 SP1 promoter insertion ratio = 0.98), despite these genes only being transiently expressed; thus, this system is capable of permanently recording transient TF-binding events for retrospective read out at a later date. Together, these data support that TF–hypPB fusions integrate signal over time and provide a historical, integrated picture of TF occupancy.

During our analysis of FLEX calling cards in neurons and astrocytes, we observed the presence of some background transposition activity in Cre(−) animals (SI Appendix, Fig. S5D), which could impinge on our ability to apply FLEX calling cards to analyze more rare cell populations. We hypothesized that this aberrant hypPB expression could be due to cryptic transcription of the hypPB gene on the antisense strand of the AAV::hypPB FLEX sequence, which would result in expression independent of Cre-mediated flip excision. To overcome this, we designed a variant FLEX construct in which only the amino terminus (N terminus) of hypPB is present within the FLEX cassette and is flanked by the 5′ end of a synthetic intron (54), the 3′ end of which is located upstream of the hypPB C terminus. Thus, aberrant transcription in either direction would produce only a nonfunctional, truncated hypPB protein. However, upon Cre recombination, the N-terminal hypPB segment is flipped in frame with its C terminus, split by the newly reconstituted artificial intron, which will then be spliced out of the nascent RNA, producing a full-length, functioning hypPB. We coined this FLEX variant “hypPB Frontflip” (Fig. 6A).

We first tested the ability of hypPB Frontflip to reduce Cre(−) background in vitro by cotransfecting it into HEK293T cells along with the BrokenHeart reporter transposon. Previously, we had shown that the original hypPB FLEX construct produces no Cre-independent transposition in vitro at 24-h posttransfection (SI Appendix, Fig. S5A). However, at 96-h posttransfection, we began to observe some background transposition in the absence of Cre, mimicking our in vivo results. In contrast, the hypPB Frontflip variant eliminated this Cre-independent transposition in vitro (Fig. 6B). We then packaged hypPB Frontflip into an AAV9 vector and intracranially coinjected it with AAV::SRT into GFAP::Cre animals at P0-1. At P28, we observed a significant and dramatic reduction in Cre-independent insertions in Cre(−) animals accompanied by a >30-fold increase in Cre(+) littermates (Fig. 6C). To confirm that these insertions were indeed astrocyte-derived, as we had previously done with the original AAV::hypPB FLEX, we identified differential BRD4-binding peaks compared with the Syn1:Cre line and analyzed the cell type-expression patterns of proximal genes. Indeed, we found that genes near differential binding peaks again exhibited increased expression in astrocytes, as expected (Fig. 6D). In summary, AAV::hypPB Frontflip is a tightly Cre-controlled conditional expression viral system, which will allow for the implementation of AAV calling cards in more rare cell types in the future.

All animal practices and procedures were approved by the Washington University in St. Louis Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

HEK293T and N2a cells used in this study were cultured in 1× Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium with 10% fetal bovine serum and grown under standard conditions (37 °C; 5% CO₂). Plasmid transfections in HEK293T cells were carried out with Fugene 6 Transfection Reagent (Promega) with the manufacturer’s protocol. Calling cards constructs were delivered to N2a cells via either Fugene 6 or Neon Electroporation (no. MPK10025; Thermo Fisher) with the following settings: 1,050 V, 30 ms, and two pulses.

Ten- or 40-µm-thick fixed-frozen sagittal or coronal brain sections were cut, slide-mounted, and used for immunostaining or in situ hybridization (SI Appendix, Extended Methods). Antibodies used for immunostaining included chicken anti-GFP (Aves Labs GFP-1020) at 1:1,000 dilution, mouse rabbit anti-RFP at 1:400 or 1:500 dilution (600-401-379; Rockland), anti-NeuN at 1:100 dilution (MAB377; Millipore-Sigma), rabbit anti-cMyc at 1:250 dilution (C3956; Sigma), and goat anti-GFAP at 1:500 dilution (ab53554; Abcam). Messenger RNA (mRNA) encoding for hyperPiggyBac (VF1-20268-01) was detected using a custom probe set designed by Affymetrix (now Thermo Fisher).

Mice were exposed to either the calling cards viruses (AAV::hypPB + AAV::SRT) or RFP-only virus (as a control) via P0-1 injection and analyzed for anxiety-like behavior, developmental milestones, sensorimotor battery, and brain degeneration. Behavior tests were done as previously described (63, 64) at various time points in the 4 wk following injection. At P28, brains were silver-stained as described previously (65) and analyzed for brain degeneration. See SI Appendix, Extended Methods for behavior and immunohistochemical procedures.

Transposase and donor transposon constructs were cloned into Cre-dependent (FLEX) or Cre-independent AAV transfer vectors and used for in vitro transfection or viral packaging. Plasmids were packaged into AAV by the Hope Center Viral Vectors Core at Washington University School of Medicine. For in vivo experiments involving P0-1 delivery, transposase and donor transposon viruses (mixed equally by volume) or undiluted RFP-only virus were intracranially injected into the cortex of P0-1 mice (three sites per hemisphere; 1 μL of viral mix per site). For adult injections, viruses were delivered to P107 animals intraparenchymally with stereotactic surgery, as previously described (66). Two sites were chosen for direct, unilateral cortical injection with coordinates relative to bregma of 1.25-mm rostral, 1.5-mm lateral, and 0.55-mm depth; and 1.06-mm caudal, 1.5-mm lateral, and 0.55-mm depth. Two microliters of viral mix were delivered at a rate of 0.2 μL/min.

Viral titers (viral genomes [vg] per milliliter) were as follows:

SRT libraries were prepared from cortex RNA samples. Prior to library preparation, cortex samples were dissected into 10 separate pieces, from which RNA was independently isolated with the manufacturer’s protocol (Qiagen RNeasy kit). This allows for identification of up to 10 independent insertion events into any TTAA site, given that these insertions occur in spatially separate samples. From these RNA samples, transposon sequencing libraries were generated with our bulk SRT protocol (34) and sequenced on Illumina HiSEq 2500, NextSEq 500, or MiniSeq platforms (Illumina). BrokenHeart libraries were prepared from cortical DNA samples, as previously described (18), and sequenced on Illumina NextSEq 500 (Illumina). See SI Appendix, Extended Methods for information on read filtering and mapping. Reads aligning to the same TTAA with separate barcodes were considered unique insertions, and all analyses in this report considered all unique insertions equally, independent of read depth.

Significantly enriched insertion peaks were identified via a count-based statistical comparison as previously described (34) (SI Appendix, Extended Methods). TF motifs were identified with MEME-ChIP v4.11.2 motif discovery software (67, 68) with -zoops -meme-minw 6 -ccut 250.

Sensitivity and specificity of calling cards peaks were assessed for super-enhancer identification in N2a cells that were either transfected or electroporated with AAV::hypPB and AAV::SRT plasmids (SI Appendix, Fig. S4). Sensitivity was defined as the percentage of peaks intersecting super enhancers for each peak-calling significance threshold. To then define specificity, we identified the “true-negative” space of the genome and assessed the percentage of true negative peaks intersected by calling cards peaks (SI Appendix, Extended Methods).

Gene expression has been shown to be preferentially regulated by proximal enhancer elements (4, 69, 70). Thus, since a cell type-specific mapping of enhancers to the genes they regulate is not available, we used proximity as an imperfect (6), albeit widely used (3), proxy (Figs. 3 and 6 and SI Appendix, Fig. S5 and Extended Methods). Unbiased cell type identification was completed with the CSEA tool (44) (http://genetics.wustl.edu/jdlab/csea-tool-2/) using candidate gene sets near either GFAP::Cre-enriched or Syn1::Cre-enriched insertion peaks (SI Appendix, Extended Methods).

For comparison of SP1 binding and gene expression in Fig. 5 A and B, we utilized the mm10_knownCanonical gene set and mm10_TSS coordinates from the University of California, Santa Cruz Gene Browser genes table, with promoter-proximal regions defined as ±1,000 bases from the TSS. For comparison of P28 and P10 SP1 promoter insertions to RNA expression in Fig. 5 C–G, we utilized a previously published RNA-seq dataset (53) with RNA expression data available for Wk1 and Wk4, which correspond to ∼P7 and ∼P28, respectively. After filtering out genes with low expression and/or no SP1 signal, genes were divided into three categories, based on their RNA expression at Wk1 and Wk4: 1) early genes, log(Wk4/Wk1 FPKM) < −0.5; 2) constitutive genes, −0.5 < log(Wk4/Wk1 FPKM) < 0.5; and 3) late genes, log(Wk4/Wk1 FPKM) > 0.5. Within these categories, SP1 occupancy was compared between the P28 and P10 cohorts. See SI Appendix, Extended Methods for more details on filtering and comparisons.

Candidate astrocyte-enriched enhancers were selected from the list of GFAP::Cre-enriched insertion peaks in Fig. 3, PCR-amplified with primers listed in the table below and with an MluI overhang adapter (TGTAGGACGCGT) on either end, and cloned into the miniP–dsRed plasmid with MluI, upstream of the hsp68 minimal promoter. As a positive control, the canonical GFAP promoter (45) was also cloned into this plasmid, in the same location. To test efficacy of the candidates for enhancing dsRed expression, each plasmid was electroporated into lateral ventricle-proximal cells, along with a separate plasmid containing CFP driven by the canonical GFAP promoter. Pups were sacrificed at P7 or P21, and brains were collected and analyzed with immunohistochemistry for CFP and dsRed. Individual astrocytes were imaged for intensity analysis in Fig. 3 E and F and SI Appendix, Figs. S6 F and H and S7 A and C using equivalent exposure settings (SI Appendix, Extended Methods).

Statistical tests were done with GraphPad Prism v8.1.2 and are detailed in the figure legends. For box-and-whisker plots, central tendency line represents median, box represents 25th to 75th percentiles, and whiskers represent minimum and maximum values.

All raw and processed data are available through GEO accession no. GSE128493 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE128493) (71). Figures containing raw data include Figs. 2–6 and SI Appendix, Figs. S2 and S4–S6. Supplemental tables containing information about significant peaks and figure-specific analyses are also available upon request.

Calling cards analysis software were developed previously (27) and are available upon request.