HCR-FISH vs. CARD-FISH: A Comprehensive Sensitivity and Application Analysis for Biomedical Research

Abstract

This article provides a critical evaluation of two powerful signal amplification techniques in fluorescence in situ hybridization: Hybridization Chain Reaction FISH (HCR-FISH) and Catalyzed Reporter Deposition FISH (CARD-FISH). Tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, we explore the foundational principles, methodological applications, and optimization strategies for both technologies. By synthesizing current research, we deliver a practical comparative analysis of their sensitivity, specificity, and suitability for diverse sample types—from clinical biopsies to environmental samples. The content addresses key decision factors for protocol selection, troubleshooting common challenges, and validating results, ultimately serving as a strategic guide for implementing these techniques in biomedical research and diagnostic development.

Understanding HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH: Core Principles and Signal Amplification Mechanisms

The fundamental principle of Hybridization Chain Reaction combined with Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (HCR-FISH) is an enzyme-free, isothermal signal amplification method driven by target-triggered polymerization of metastable DNA hairpins. In the presence of a specific nucleic acid target (e.g., mRNA), an initiator probe bound to the target triggers a cascading, autonomous self-assembly of two fluorescently labeled DNA hairpin molecules (H1 and H2). This reaction results in the formation of a long, nicked double-stranded DNA polymer that tethers numerous fluorophores to the site of the target, enabling its sensitive visualization without the need for enzymatic amplification [1] [2] [3]. This core mechanism stands in contrast to enzyme-dependent methods like CARD-FISH, offering distinct advantages in simplicity, sample penetration, and robustness.

Head-to-Head: HCR-FISH vs. CARD-FISH

The following table provides a direct, data-driven comparison of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH based on key performance metrics and characteristics relevant to research and diagnostic applications.

Feature	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH
Core Principle	Enzyme-free, hybridization chain reaction [3]	Enzyme-dependent (horseradish peroxidase, HRP) catalyzed reporter deposition [4] [5]
Signal Amplification	Linear polymerization of DNA hairpins [1]	Exponential deposition of fluorescent tyramides [5]
Typical Protocol Duration	Shorter; less time-consuming [3]	Longer; includes permeabilization and enzymatic steps [3] [5]
Sample Penetration	Excellent (small hairpin probes) [2] [6]	Limited (large HRP-probe conjugate requires intense permeabilization) [3] [5]
Multiplexing Capability	Straightforward; simultaneous one-stage amplification for multiple targets [2]	Complex; sequential hybridization rounds often required
Quantitative Imaging	Enables both analog relative and digital absolute quantitation [2]	Primarily used for detection and enumeration [4]
Key Limitations	Potential for false-positive signals from probe adsorption in complex samples [3]	Use of ( H2O2 ) may degrade nucleic acids; permeabilization is critical and challenging [3]

Experimental Protocol & Workflow Comparison

To understand the practical differences in sensitivity and application, it is essential to examine the detailed protocols for each method. The following workflows are compiled from optimized procedures used in environmental and cell imaging studies [3].

HCR-FISH Workflow

Key Steps Explained:

• Probe Hybridization: Fixed samples are incubated with initiator DNA probes designed to be complementary to the target RNA. In advanced "split-initiator" HCR v3.0, two probes, each carrying half of the initiator sequence, must bind adjacently on the target to colocalize the full initiator, providing automatic background suppression [2].
• Amplification: Without any enzymatic step, fluorescently labeled DNA hairpins (H1 and H2) are added. The initiator sequence on the target binds to and opens the first hairpin (H1), exposing a sequence that opens the second hairpin (H2). This, in turn, exposes a sequence identical to the initiator, leading to a chain reaction that grows a fluorescent polymer at the target site [1] [3].

CARD-FISH Workflow

Key Steps Explained:

• Permeabilization: A critical and sample-dependent step. Microbial cells, especially in environmental samples, require enzymatic treatment (e.g., lysozyme, proteinase K) to allow the large HRP-labeled probe to penetrate the cell wall [7] [5].
• Peroxidase Inactivation: Samples are treated with ( H2O2 ) to inactivate endogenous peroxidases that would otherwise cause high background signal. This step risks damaging the target nucleic acids [3].
• Hybridization and Amplification: Samples are hybridized with oligonucleotide probes conjugated to HRP. Subsequently, fluorescently labeled tyramide substrates are added. The HRP enzyme catalyzes the deposition of multiple tyramide molecules, forming an insoluble fluorescent precipitate at the site of the target [4] [5].

Performance Data: Sensitivity & Specificity

Quantitative data from controlled studies highlight the performance differences between these two techniques, particularly in challenging samples.

Table 1: Quantitative Detection Efficiency in Environmental Samples

Sample Type	Method	Target	Detection Efficiency (vs. DAPI)	Reference
Ultra-oligotrophic Alpine Spring Water	CARD-FISH	Bacteria (EUB338 mix)	~83%	[7]
Ultra-oligotrophic Alpine Spring Water	Standard FISH	Bacteria (EUB338 mix)	~15%	[7]
Marine Sediments	Optimized HCR-FISH	Universal Bacteria	Signally intensity sufficient for detection*	[3]

*The study demonstrated that with protocol optimization (increasing initiator probe concentration to 10 μmol/L), HCR-FISH successfully visualized microbes in marine sediments where traditional FISH fails, though a specific percentage vs DAPI was not provided [3].

Specificity and Background:

• Background Suppression: A key advancement in HCR-FISH (v3.0) is automatic background suppression. Using split-initiator probes reduces non-specific amplified background by approximately 50-60 fold compared to full-initiator probes, as demonstrated in whole-mount chicken embryos [2].
• False Positives: A challenge for HCR-FISH in complex samples like sediments is the adsorption of DNA probes to abiotic particles, generating false-positive signals. This can be mitigated through optimized sample pretreatment and hybridization buffers [3].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH relies on a suite of specialized reagents. The table below details the essential components and their functions.

Reagent / Solution	Function	Example / Note
HCR-FISH
Initiator Probes	Binds target RNA and triggers the HCR cascade	In v3.0, split-initiator probes are used for automatic background suppression [2].
DNA Hairpins (H1, H2)	Fluorescently-labeled amplifiers that form the polymer	Must be kinetically trapped and metastable; store energy for the chain reaction [1].
Hybridization Buffer	Creates optimal conditions for probe binding	Formamide concentration and salt can be adjusted for stringency [3].
CARD-FISH
HRP-labeled Probes	Confers specificity and enzymatic activity	The large size of the HRP conjugate necessitates permeabilization [5].
Permeabilization Enzymes	Breaks down cell walls to allow probe entry	Lysozyme for many Bacteria; Proteinase K for more resistant cells [7].
Fluorescent Tyramide	Substrate for HRP; deposits and amplifies signal	The deposition creates an insoluble precipitate at the target site [5].
General
Paraformaldehyde	Fixes samples and preserves cellular structure	Standard fixative for microbial cells [3].
DAPI	Counterstain for total cell counts	Used to determine total prokaryotic abundance and hybridization efficiency [7].
Ancistrocladine	Ancistrocladine	Ancistrocladine is a naphthylisoquinoline alkaloid for research use only (RUO). It is offered for anti-parasitic and oncology research. Not for human use.
Edikron	Edikron, CAS:38273-00-6, MF:C20H20Br2O2, MW:452.2 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Advanced Applications & Evolution

The fundamental principle of HCR has been adapted to create powerful next-generation assays that extend beyond RNA detection.

• proxHCR for Protein Detection: The HCR principle has been engineered for proximity-dependent detection of proteins and post-translational modifications. In this system, antibodies conjugated to special DNA hairpins bring initiator sequences into proximity only when their target proteins are nearby or interacting. This triggers the standard HCR amplification, allowing for enzyme-free, sensitive protein imaging and flow cytometry [8].
• Nonlinear HCR: Traditional HCR produces linear polymers. By designing different primer and initiation methods, nonlinear HCR systems (e.g., branched HCR, dendritic HCR) have been developed. These form highly branched DNA nanostructures, achieving exponential growth kinetics and even higher sensitivity for low-abundance biomarker detection in biosensing and bioimaging [1].

Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (CARD-FISH) represents a significant advancement in environmental microbiology for detecting, identifying, and enumerating microorganisms without cultivation. This technique leverages the catalytic power of horseradish peroxidase (HRP) to deposit numerous fluorescent tyramide molecules at target sites, achieving up to 100-fold signal amplification compared to conventional FISH. While CARD-FISH provides exceptional sensitivity for detecting microorganisms with low ribosomal RNA content, it presents challenges including required cell permeabilization and endogenous peroxidase inactivation. This review examines the CARD-FISH mechanism in detail and compares its performance with emerging alternatives like Hybridization Chain Reaction-FISH (HCR-FISH), providing researchers with comprehensive experimental data and protocols for implementation.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes has become a standard technique in environmental microbiology since its development over 25 years ago [9]. The method allows phylogenetic identification and enumeration of microorganisms in diverse habitats including soil, sediments, aquatic environments, and engineered sludge [9]. However, conventional FISH faces limitations in detecting microorganisms with low ribosomal content, small cell size, or low metabolic activity, primarily due to insufficient sensitivity from limited target molecules, poor probe permeability, and low hybridization efficiency [9] [10].

To address these limitations, several signal amplification methods have been developed. CARD-FISH (also known as Tyramide Signal Amplification or TSA) and HCR-FISH represent two prominent approaches that enhance detection sensitivity for environmental microorganisms [9] [11]. CARD-FISH, first applied to environmental microorganisms in 1997, utilizes enzymatic amplification via horseradish peroxidase [9], while HCR-FISH, developed more recently, employs a hybridization chain reaction without enzymes [11]. Understanding the mechanism, advantages, and limitations of CARD-FISH is essential for researchers selecting appropriate detection methods for specific applications.

The CARD-FISH Mechanism: HRP and Tyramide Chemistry

Fundamental Principles

The CARD-FISH technique builds upon conventional FISH by incorporating a signal amplification step that significantly enhances detection sensitivity. The method is based on the catalytic activity of horseradish peroxidase (HRP) conjugated to oligonucleotide probes. When HRP encounters hydrogen peroxide (Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚), it activates fluorescently labeled tyramide derivatives, converting them into highly reactive radical intermediates [9] [12] [13]. These activated tyramide radicals covalently bind to electron-rich tyrosine residues on proteins in the immediate vicinity of the HRP enzyme [13]. This deposition results in the accumulation of numerous fluorescent molecules at the target site, dramatically enhancing the fluorescence signal compared to conventional FISH where only one fluorophore is typically deposited per probe [9].

Table 1: Key Components of the CARD-FISH System

Component	Function	Characteristics
HRP-labeled Probe	Binds to target rRNA sequence	Large molecule (~40 kDa) requiring permeabilization
Hydrogen Peroxide (Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚)	Enzyme substrate	Activates HRP; requires concentration optimization
Labeled Tyramide	Signal molecule	Fluorophore or hapten conjugate; activated by HRP
Blocking Reagent	Reduces background	Minimizes non-specific tyramide deposition

Procedural Workflow

The CARD-FISH protocol involves several critical steps that must be optimized for different sample types. First, samples are fixed, typically with paraformaldehyde or ethanol, to preserve cellular structure and nucleic acids [9]. For many prokaryotic cells, permeabilization treatments using enzymes such as lysozyme, achromopeptidase, or proteinase K are necessary to facilitate entry of the large HRP-labeled probes [9]. Cells are often immobilized on slides or filters using low-melting-point agarose embedding to prevent loss during subsequent treatments [9].

Hybridization with HRP-labeled oligonucleotide probes follows standard FISH procedures but uses lower probe concentrations (typically 0.1 μM or 0.5 ng/μL) to minimize background fluorescence [9]. After hybridization and washing, the CARD reaction is performed using a working solution containing fluorescently labeled tyramide, H₂O₂, and often amplification enhancers. The reaction is typically stopped after 10-30 minutes, followed by counterstaining and microscopy [9] [4].

Figure 1: CARD-FISH Experimental Workflow. The diagram outlines key steps in the CARD-FISH procedure, highlighting critical stages that require optimization for different sample types.

Technical Advancements and Methodological Optimizations

Enhancing Sensitivity and Reducing Background

Significant methodological improvements have been made to optimize CARD-FISH performance. The addition of 10-30% dextran sulfate to the CARD working solution enhances signal localization and intensity through volume exclusion effects, though it may introduce spotty background signals that can be mitigated by elevated temperature washing (45-60°C) [9]. Inorganic salts (e.g., 2M NaCl) and organic enhancers like p-iodophenyl boronic acid (at 20 times the tyramide concentration) have been shown to significantly improve signals, though the precise mechanisms remain incompletely understood [9].

Tyramide concentration represents a critical optimization parameter. While higher concentrations increase detection rates for environmental bacteria, excessive tyramide causes elevated background fluorescence [9]. Similarly, HRP-labeled probe concentration must be carefully titrated, with typical CARD-FISH protocols using substantially lower concentrations (0.1 μM or 0.5 ng/μL) than conventional FISH to minimize nonspecific signals [9].

For challenging targets requiring extreme sensitivity, two-pass TSA-FISH has been developed, involving two sequential TSA reactions [9]. This method initially uses dinitrophenyl (DNP)-labeled tyramide instead of fluorophore-labeled tyramide, followed by incubation with HRP-conjugated anti-DNP antibody and a second TSA reaction with fluorophore-labeled tyramide [9]. This approach provides additional signal amplification but requires careful optimization with dextran sulfate and blocking reagents to maximize signal intensity while minimizing nonspecific staining [9].

Permeabilization Strategies

As HRP is a large molecule (approximately 40 kDa), permeabilization protocols must be carefully optimized for different microbial groups [9]. The fixation method significantly impacts permeability, with protein-denaturing reagents (e.g., ethanol) typically providing better permeability than cross-linking reagents (e.g., paraformaldehyde), though some prokaryotes exhibit signal loss with ethanol fixation [9]. Storage conditions also affect permeability, with long-term storage inexplicably increasing detection rates for some microorganisms [9].

Table 2: CARD-FISH Permeabilization Treatments for Different Microorganisms

Microorganism Type	Recommended Treatment	Considerations
Gram-negative Bacteria	Lysozyme (10-100 mg/mL, 37°C, 30-90 min)	Most commonly used enzyme; concentration and time require optimization
Gram-positive Bacteria	Lysozyme + Achromopeptidase	Combined enzymes often necessary for adequate permeabilization
Planctomycetes	Often minimal treatment required	Some reports indicate detection without specific permeabilization
Methanogens	Variable; some require no treatment	Species with S-layers may be detected without permeabilization

CARD-FISH vs. HCR-FISH: Comparative Performance Analysis

Sensitivity and Detection Efficiency

Comparative studies between CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH reveal important performance differences relevant for research applications. CARD-FISH typically provides 26- to 41-fold higher fluorescence signals than standard FISH [10], with some reports indicating up to 100-fold enhancement [12] [13]. In contrast, HCR-FISH generally offers more modest amplification, typically around 8-fold higher sensitivity than standard FISH [10], though optimized protocols (quickHCR-FISH) can improve this further.

When applied to marine bacterioplankton, CARD-FISH has demonstrated superior capability for detecting microorganisms in oligotrophic environments where cellular rRNA content is low [10] [4]. However, for certain applications, particularly with Gram-positive bacteria, HCR-FISH shows advantages due to better probe penetration without extensive permeabilization treatments [10].

Table 3: Quantitative Comparison of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH Performance Characteristics

Parameter	CARD-FISH	HCR-FISH	Experimental Context
Signal Amplification	26-100x conventional FISH [10] [12]	~8x conventional FISH [10]	Pure cultures & environmental samples
Detection Rate in Marine Samples	High for oligotrophic microbes [4]	Variable; requires optimization [11]	Marine seawater & sediments
Probe Penetration	Requires permeabilization for most prokaryotes [9]	Better penetration without treatment [11]	Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria
Background Signals	Manageable with optimization [9]	Can be problematic in sediments [11]	Environmental sample applications
Protocol Duration	Longer due to multiple steps [11]	Shorter; less time-consuming [11]	Complete experimental workflow

Practical Considerations for Research Applications

Beyond sensitivity, several practical factors influence technique selection for specific research applications. CARD-FISH requires inactivation of endogenous peroxidases using Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ treatment, which may degrade nucleic acids [11] [10]. The method also necessitates careful optimization of tyramide incubation time for each sample type [10]. Conversely, HCR-FISH does not require peroxidase inactivation, better preserving target RNA [11].

CARD-FISH has proven particularly valuable for identifying key protistan groups in aquatic environments, revealing that Paraphysomonas or Spumella-like chrysophytes are less abundant than previously thought, while little-known groups like heterotrophic cryptophyte lineages (CRY1), cercozoans, katablepharids, and MAST lineages are more prominent [4]. When combined with tracer techniques and double CARD-FISH, the method has enabled visualization of food vacuole contents, demonstrating that larger flagellates are actually omnivores ingesting both prokaryotes and other protists [4].

Essential Research Reagents and Protocols

Critical Reagents for CARD-FISH Implementation

Successful implementation of CARD-FISH requires careful selection of reagents and optimization for specific applications. Commercial tyramide reagents are available with various fluorophore conjugates spanning the visible spectrum, with next-generation products like TyraMax dyes offering improved brightness and photostability [12]. These reagents are typically supplied with optimized amplification buffers that enhance sensitivity and specificity.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for CARD-FISH

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Function
HRP-Labeled Probes	Direct HRP-conjugated oligonucleotides	Target sequence binding with enzymatic activity
Tyramide Reagents	Alexa Fluor tyramides, TyraMax dyes	Signal amplification upon HRP activation
Permeabilization Enzymes	Lysozyme, Achromopeptidase, Proteinase K	Facilitate probe entry through cell walls
Amplification Enhancers	Dextran sulfate, p-iodophenyl boronic acid	Increase signal intensity and localization
Blocking Reagents	TSA blocking reagent	Reduce non-specific background signals

Detailed CARD-FISH Protocol for Environmental Samples

Based on established methodologies [9] [4], the following protocol provides a foundation for CARD-FISH implementation with environmental samples:

• Sample Fixation: Fix samples with 1-3% formaldehyde or paraformaldehyde for 1-24 hours at 4°C. For some applications, ethanol fixation may improve permeability.

• Cell Immobilization: Apply fixed samples to gelatin-coated slides or filters. Embed cells in low-melting-point agarose (0.1-0.3%) to prevent loss during subsequent treatments.

• Permeabilization: Treat with lysozyme (10-100 mg/mL in 0.05M EDTA, 0.1M Tris-HCl, pH 8.0) for 30-90 minutes at 37°C. Optimize concentration and duration for specific sample types.

• Endogenous Peroxidase Inactivation: Incubate with 0.01-0.3% Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ in methanol for 30 minutes at room temperature to quench endogenous peroxidase activity.

• Hybridization: Apply HRP-labeled probes (0.1-0.5 ng/μL) in hybridization buffer containing formamide, salts, and detergents. Hybridize for 2-12 hours at appropriate temperature based on probe design.

• CARD Reaction: Incubate with tyramide working solution (containing fluorescent tyramide, Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚, amplification buffer, and enhancers) for 10-30 minutes at 37°C.

• Counterstaining and Microscopy: Wash thoroughly, counterstain with DAPI, and apply antifading mounting medium for epifluorescence or confocal microscopy.

CARD-FISH remains a powerful technique for detecting environmental microorganisms, particularly when high sensitivity is required. The HRP-tyramide amplification system provides exceptional signal enhancement that enables detection of microbes with low ribosomal content in oligotrophic environments. While the method requires careful optimization of permeabilization and amplification conditions, and faces challenges with background signals and protocol complexity, it continues to yield valuable insights into microbial ecology and diversity. Emerging alternatives like HCR-FISH offer advantages in certain applications, but CARD-FISH maintains its position as a gold standard for sensitive detection and identification of microorganisms in complex environmental samples.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has served as a canonical tool in environmental microbiology research, enabling the visualization and phylogenetic identification of targeted microbial cells at the single-cell level through 16S rRNA labeling [11] [3]. However, traditional FISH methods face significant limitations when applied to environmental samples containing microbes with low ribosomal RNA content, such as those found in marine sediments and oligotrophic habitats [11] [10]. These challenges primarily manifest as insufficient signal intensity for distinguishing target cells from background noise and problematic false-positive signals that compromise analytical specificity [11] [3].

To address these limitations, researchers have developed sophisticated signal amplification techniques that enhance detection sensitivity while maintaining specificity. Two prominent methods—Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH (CARD-FISH) and Hybridization Chain Reaction-FISH (HCR-FISH)—have emerged as powerful alternatives to conventional FISH [11] [10]. This review provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of these amplification methodologies, examining their theoretical sensitivity limits, experimental performance metrics, and practical considerations for implementation in challenging research contexts. The evaluation is situated within a broader thesis on advancing microbial detection sensitivity, particularly for environmental samples where traditional methods prove inadequate.

Fundamental Principles of Amplification Mechanisms

CARD-FISH: Enzyme-Catalyzed Signal Amplification

CARD-FISH employs horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled oligonucleotide probes to achieve signal amplification through enzymatic activity [11]. When the HRP-conjugated probe hybridizes to its target rRNA, it catalyzes the deposition of fluorescently labeled tyramide substrates in the immediate vicinity of the hybridization site [11]. This enzymatic process generates substantial signal amplification, with reports indicating a 26- to 41-fold increase in fluorescence intensity compared to standard FISH [10]. The tyramide radicals produced by HRP exhibit extremely short diffusion distances, resulting in highly localized signal deposition that preserves spatial resolution [11].

Despite its impressive amplification capabilities, CARD-FISH presents several practical challenges. The large molecular weight of HRP (~40 kDa) impedes probe penetration into microbial cells, necessitating additional permeabilization steps that may vary in effectiveness across different microbial taxa [11] [3]. Furthermore, the method requires careful inactivation of endogenous peroxidases using Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚, which risks degrading target nucleic acids and potentially compromising detection accuracy [11] [3]. The protocol also demands optimization of tyramide incubation times for different sample types, adding complexity to experimental workflows [10].

HCR-FISH: Enzyme-Free Signal Amplification Through Hybridization Chain Reaction

HCR-FISH utilizes an innovative enzyme-free amplification mechanism based on triggered self-assembly of nucleic acid hairpins [11] [14]. In this system, initiator probes hybridize to target rRNA sequences while exposing initiator regions that trigger a cascading hybridization event between two fluorescently labeled DNA hairpins [11] [14]. This process generates long, nicked double-stranded DNA polymers that accumulate fluorophores at the target site, significantly enhancing fluorescence signal without enzymatic involvement [11].

The fundamental HCR mechanism proceeds through four distinct stages: (1) initiator probes hybridize with targeted intracellular RNA, leaving their initiator sequence unpaired; (2) the unpaired initiator sequence binds to the unpaired tail of hairpin A, linearizing its stem-loop structure; (3) the newly exposed sequence on hairpin A binds to hairpin B, releasing a sequence identical to the initiator; and (4) this process repeats autonomously, forming elongated double-stranded DNA structures with numerous incorporated fluorophores [11]. This mechanism provides substantial signal amplification while avoiding enzymatic complications.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH Amplification Mechanisms

Characteristic	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH
Amplification Mechanism	Enzyme-free hybridization chain reaction	Enzyme-catalyzed (HRP) tyramide deposition
Probe Size	Small oligonucleotides (~35-45 nt) [15]	Large HRP-labeled probes (~40 kDa) [11]
Cell Permeability	High due to small probe size [11]	Requires permeabilization steps [11] [10]
Endogenous Enzyme Interference	None	Requires Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ treatment to inactivate peroxidases [11]
Risk of Nucleic Acid Damage	Low	Moderate due to Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ treatment [11]
Protocol Flexibility	High; initiator probes easily modified [11]	Lower; HRP probes more complex to produce

Diagram 1: HCR-FISH amplification mechanism based on triggered self-assembly of nucleic acid hairpins.

Theoretical Sensitivity Limits and Detection Thresholds

The theoretical sensitivity limits of signal amplification methods define their ultimate detection capabilities in ideal conditions. For CARD-FISH, the enzymatic amplification process provides significant signal enhancement, achieving detection thresholds suitable for microorganisms in oligotrophic environments like marine seawater and sediments where standard FISH fails [10]. The method's effectiveness stems from the high turnover rate of HRP enzymes, with each enzyme molecule catalyzing the deposition of numerous tyramide molecules [11].

HCR-FISH operates on fundamentally different principles with distinct theoretical advantages. The non-enzymatic nature of HCR eliminates several constraints inherent to CARD-FISH. Recent optimizations have demonstrated that HCR-FISH can achieve up to 8-fold higher sensitivity than standard FISH, positioning it as a viable alternative to CARD-FISH [10]. The quickHCR-FISH protocol, incorporating modified hybridization and amplification buffers with double-labeled amplifier probes, further enhances signal intensity while reducing incubation times [10].

The theoretical framework for HCR sensitivity suggests potential for single-molecule detection under optimal conditions. The split-initiator probe design in third-generation HCR (v3.HCR-FISH) significantly increases specificity by ensuring that amplification only triggers when two separate probes hybridize in close proximity to their target mRNA [14]. This approach dramatically reduces non-specific background signal while maintaining high amplification efficiency.

Table 2: Theoretical Sensitivity Limits and Detection Capabilities

Parameter	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH
Signal Amplification Factor	Up to 8-fold over standard FISH [10]	26- to 41-fold over standard FISH [10]
Theoretical Detection Limit	Potentially single molecules with optimized probes [14]	Limited by probe permeability and enzyme accessibility [11]
Impact of Cellular Activity	Less dependent on rRNA content [11]	Requires sufficient target accessibility [11]
Background Signal	Can be minimized with optimized protocols [11]	Generally low with proper peroxidase inactivation [11]
Multiplexing Capacity	High (up to 5 targets simultaneously) [14]	Limited by available enzyme substrates [15]

Experimental Performance and Protocol Optimization

Methodology for HCR-FISH Protocol Optimization

Substantial optimization of HCR-FISH protocols has been necessary to achieve reliable performance with environmental samples. Initial attempts to apply HCR-FISH to sediment samples encountered significant challenges with false-positive signals, likely due to non-specific DNA adsorption to abiotic particles [11] [3]. Through systematic optimization, researchers have developed robust protocols that overcome these limitations.

Critical modifications to the original HCR-FISH protocol include increasing initiator probe concentration from 1 μmol/L to 10 μmol/L in hybridization buffer, significantly enhancing signal intensity without compromising specificity [11] [3]. Testing of five distinct HCR initiator/amplifier pairs on model organisms (Escherichia coli and Methanococcoides methylutens) identified two sets with superior hybridization efficiency and specificity [11] [3]. Incorporation of blocking reagents and dextran sulfate in hybridization and amplification buffers, adapted from CARD-FISH protocols, further improved signal-to-noise ratios in complex environmental matrices [10].

Sample pretreatment represents another crucial optimization area. Various cell detachment methods and extraction protocols have been evaluated specifically for sediment samples, with optimal combinations identified for minimizing false-positive signals while maintaining cell integrity [11]. Additionally, image processing techniques have been developed to enhance DAPI counterstaining signals, improving discrimination between microbial cells and abiotic particles in fluorescence microscopy [11].

Diagram 2: Key optimization strategies that enable effective HCR-FISH application to challenging environmental samples.

quickHCR-FISH: Accelerated Protocol for Enhanced Performance

The development of quickHCR-FISH represents a significant advancement in protocol efficiency [10]. This improved methodology incorporates modified hybridization and amplification buffers specifically formulated to produce high signal intensity with shorter amplification times [10]. The protocol has demonstrated particular effectiveness for detecting Gram-negative bacteria and has been successfully applied to environmental microorganisms in marine seawater and sediment samples [10].

A key innovation in quickHCR-FISH is the implementation of double-labeled amplifier probes, which further enhance signal intensity without increasing non-specific background [10]. This modification, combined with optimized buffer compositions, enables robust detection of microorganisms with low ribosomal content that would otherwise remain undetectable with standard FISH protocols [10].

Comparative Experimental Data and Performance Metrics

Direct comparison of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH performance reveals distinct advantages and limitations for each method. CARD-FISH generally provides higher absolute signal amplification, making it particularly effective for detecting microbes with extremely low metabolic activity in oligotrophic environments [10]. However, this advantage must be balanced against the method's technical complexities, including the requirement for precise permeabilization protocols and potential nucleic acid degradation from peroxidase inactivation treatments [11].

HCR-FISH offers slightly lower absolute amplification but superior specificity and flexibility. The method's modular design enables straightforward adaptation to different targets simply by modifying initiator probe sequences, while the same fluorescent amplifier components can be reused across different experiments [11]. This flexibility significantly reduces development time and cost compared to CARD-FISH, which requires production of new enzyme-conjugated probes for each target [11].

Experimental data from sediment samples demonstrates that optimized HCR-FISH protocols successfully visualize microbes that were previously challenging to detect, while simultaneously reducing false-positive signals that plagued earlier implementations [11] [3]. The method's smaller probe size facilitates better penetration into microbial cells without requiring aggressive permeabilization treatments that can compromise cell integrity [11].

Table 3: Experimental Performance Comparison in Environmental Samples

Performance Metric	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH
Detection in Marine Sediments	Successful with optimized protocol [11]	Established but requires permeabilization [10]
False-Positive Signals	Manageable with proper blocking [11]	Generally low with peroxidase inactivation [11]
Protocol Duration	Shorter incubation times [11] [10]	Longer due to multiple incubation steps [11]
Gram-Positive Detection	May require permeabilization optimization [10]	Challenging without extensive permeabilization [10]
Sample Versatility	High across diverse sample types [14]	Limited by permeabilization requirements [11]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH requires specific reagent systems optimized for each methodology. The following essential materials represent critical components for achieving reliable, reproducible results in microbial detection applications.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Signal Amplification Methodologies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function and Importance
HCR Initiator Probes	Split-initiator DNA oligonucleotides (~35-45 nt) [15] [14]	Target-specific probes that trigger hybridization chain reaction upon binding
HCR Amplifier Hairpins	Fluorescently labeled H1 and H2 hairpins (B1-B5 initiator systems) [14]	Form amplifying nanostructures with fluorophores; reusable across experiments
HCR Buffers	Hybridization buffer, wash buffer, amplification buffer [14]	Optimized solutions for specific hybridization and signal amplification
CARD-FISH Probes	HRP-labeled oligonucleotide probes [11]	Enzyme-conjugated probes for catalytic signal deposition
Tyramide Reagents	Fluorescently labeled tyramides [11]	Enzyme substrates that precipitate at target sites for signal amplification
Permeabilization Enzymes	Lysozyme, proteinase K [10]	Critical for CARD-FISH to enable HRP probe entry into cells
Blocking Reagents	Dextran sulfate, blocking reagents [10]	Reduce non-specific binding in complex environmental samples
Counterstains	DAPI, SYBR Green [11]	Provide reference staining for total microbial cells
Sisamine	Sisamine, CAS:91109-84-1, MF:C12H26N4O8S, MW:386.42 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Adipate(1-)	Adipate(1-) Anion|Research Chemicals Supplier	Explore high-purity Adipate(1-) for polymer and metabolic research. This reagent is For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.

The comparative analysis of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH reveals a nuanced landscape where methodological selection depends heavily on specific research requirements and sample characteristics. CARD-FISH remains a powerful option for maximum signal amplification in challenging samples with extremely low target abundance, despite its technical complexities and potential for nucleic acid degradation [11] [10]. Meanwhile, HCR-FISH offers compelling advantages in flexibility, specificity, and protocol simplicity, particularly for applications requiring multiplexed detection or where enzyme-based methods face limitations [11] [14].

Future developments in signal amplification technology will likely focus on enhancing multiplexing capabilities, reducing background interference in complex matrices, and streamlining protocols for high-throughput applications. The emergence of unified platforms like OneSABER, which enables combination of different signal development and amplification techniques within a single probe system, represents a promising direction for the field [15]. Such integrated approaches may eventually transcend the current dichotomy between HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH, providing researchers with modular systems that can be customized for specific applications while maintaining consistency in probe design and validation.

For researchers selecting between these methodologies, the decision framework should consider target abundance, sample complexity, required throughput, and available technical expertise. CARD-FISH may be preferable for maximum sensitivity in low-biomass environments, while HCR-FISH offers superior flexibility and specificity for diverse experimental contexts. As both technologies continue to evolve, their complementary strengths will undoubtedly expand the frontiers of microbial detection and visualization across diverse research applications.

Historical Development and Technological Evolution of Both Methods

For decades, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has been a cornerstone technique in microbial ecology, enabling the identification, visualization, and quantification of microorganisms within their natural environments. However, a significant limitation emerged when applying standard FISH to oligotrophic habitats, such as marine seawater and sediments. The microorganisms in these environments are often small, slow-growing, or inactive, resulting in low cellular rRNA content. This makes them notoriously difficult to detect with conventional FISH, as the fluorescence signal intensity is directly proportional to the cellular rRNA concentration [10]. This fundamental sensitivity problem catalyzed the development of advanced signal amplification methods, primarily the Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH (CARD-FISH) and the Hybridization Chain Reaction-FISH (HCR-FISH), which have since evolved to push the boundaries of in situ detection [10] [3].

This guide objectively compares the performance of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH, framing the analysis within a broader thesis on evaluating their sensitivity for environmental research. It provides a detailed examination of their technological evolution, operational mechanisms, and direct experimental comparisons, supported by quantitative data and protocol details to aid researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in selecting the appropriate method for their applications.

Historical Development and Technological Trajectories

The Advent of CARD-FISH

CARD-FISH was introduced as a powerful in situ signal amplification method utilizing the enzyme horseradish peroxidase (HRP). In this technique, oligonucleotide probes are labeled with HRP. After the probe hybridizes to its target, the HRP enzyme catalyzes the deposition of numerous fluorescently labeled tyramide molecules at the site of hybridization. This reaction results in a massive signal amplification, reported to yield a 26- to 41-fold higher fluorescence signal than standard FISH. This breakthrough established CARD-FISH as the go-to method for detecting microorganisms in oligotrophic habitats like marine waters and soils [10].

The Emergence of HCR-FISH

HCR-FISH emerged more recently as an innovative and sensitive alternative. This method is based on an enzyme-free, isothermal hybridization chain reaction. In HCR-FISH, a primary "initiator" probe binds to the target rRNA. This initiator then triggers a cascading, self-assembly of two fluorescently labeled DNA "hairpin" amplifiers, forming a long, nicked double helix that accumulates a large number of fluorophores at the target site [3]. Early adaptations of HCR-FISH demonstrated up to an 8-fold higher sensitivity than standard FISH, positioning it as a potential alternative to CARD-FISH [10].

Evolutionary Improvements: quickHCR-FISH

The initial HCR-FISH protocol had drawbacks, including long incubation times for the chain reaction and difficulty detecting Gram-positive bacteria without prior cell permeabilization. This led to the development of improved versions, such as "quickHCR-FISH." This modification used optimized hybridization and amplification buffers containing a blocking reagent and dextran sulfate, along with double-labeled amplifier probes. These changes resulted in higher signal intensity and a significantly shorter amplification time, making HCR-FISH a more robust and practical alternative, particularly for cases where strong cell permeabilization or enzymatic reactions should be avoided [10].

Table 1: Key Milestones in the Technological Evolution of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH

Time Period	CARD-FISH (Enzyme-Based)	HCR-FISH (Enzyme-Free)
1990s-2000s	Introduction of the method using horseradish peroxidase (HRP) and tyramide signal amplification [10].	---
~2010	Established as the standard for sensitive detection in oligotrophic environments [10].	First combination of HCR with FISH for bio-imaging reported [3].
~2015	---	First application on environmental microbes (e.g., activated sludge) [3]. Early protocol showed 8x higher sensitivity than FISH but had long incubation times [10].
2015-Present	Continued use as a gold standard, but known limitations persist (permeabilization, endogenous peroxidase) [10].	Development of "quickHCR-FISH" with faster protocols and better buffers [10]. Optimization for challenging samples like marine sediments [3].

Comparative Analysis of Principles and Workflows

The core difference between CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH lies in their signal amplification mechanisms: CARD-FISH relies on an enzymatic reaction, while HCR-FISH uses a controlled, autonomous DNA self-assembly.

CARD-FISH Workflow and Critical Steps

The CARD-FISH protocol involves several crucial and delicate steps [10]:

• Cell Permeabilization: A critical and problematic pre-treatment. The large size of the HRP-labeled oligonucleotide probes (~40 kDa) necessitates enzymatic permeabilization of the cell wall to facilitate entry. This step requires optimization for different sample types and can be harsh on cells.
• Inactivation of Endogenous Peroxidases: Required to prevent false-positive signals, often using Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚, which can degrade nucleic acids [3].
• Hybridization: HRP-labeled probes hybridize to the target rRNA.
• Signal Amplification: HRP catalyzes the deposition of numerous fluorescent tyramide molecules.
• Detection: Fluorescence is visualized under an epifluorescence microscope.

HCR-FISH Workflow and Critical Steps

The HCR-FISH protocol is enzymatically independent, which simplifies several aspects [10] [3]:

• Fixation: Standard fixation of cells (e.g., with paraformaldehyde).
• Hybridization: Unlabeled initiator probes hybridize to the target rRNA. Notably, these probes are smaller than HRP-labeled probes, facilitating better cell penetration without the need for aggressive permeabilization [3].
• Amplification: The addition of two fluorescently labeled DNA hairpins (Amplifier A and B). The initiator probe triggers a cascading hybridization between the two hairpins, forming a fluorescent polymer at the target site.
• Detection: Fluorescence is visualized under an epifluorescence microscope.

The following diagram illustrates the key steps and critical differences in the signaling pathways of both methods.

Direct Performance Comparison: Experimental Data and Protocols

Direct experimental comparisons between the two methods, particularly involving the improved quickHCR-FISH, provide crucial performance data for researchers.

Table 2: Direct Experimental Comparison: CARD-FISH vs. HCR-FISH

Performance Metric	CARD-FISH	quickHCR-FISH	Experimental Context & Notes
Signal Increase vs. FISH	26- to 41-fold [10]	Up to 8-fold [10]	Early HCR showed lower amplification than CARD-FISH.
Relative Signal Intensity	Baseline	1.3-fold higher [10]	quickHCR-FISH signal was 30% brighter than CARD-FISH when detecting Gramella forsetii.
Amplification Time	~30-60 minutes (Tyramide incubation) [10]	30 minutes [10]	QuickHCR-FISH offers a faster amplification step.
Cell Permeabilization	Required (enzymatic) [10] [3]	Not required for Gram-negative [10]	HCR's smaller probes bypass a major CARD-FISH bottleneck.
Endogenous Enzyme Inactivation	Required (Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ treatment) [10] [3]	Not required [3]	Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ can degrade target nucleic acids [3].
Application on Marine Samples	Established [10]	Successful [10]	Both can be used, but HCR avoids permeabilization/CARD reaction issues [10].

Detailed Experimental Protocols from Key Studies

To ensure reproducibility, below are the detailed methodologies from critical comparison experiments.

Protocol 1: quickHCR-FISH vs. CARD-FISH on Marine Bacterium (Gramella forsetii) [10]

• Sample Preparation: G. forsetii cells were harvested from the logarithmic growth phase and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde for 6 hours at 4°C.
• quickHCR-FISH Protocol:
  • Hybridization Buffer: 30% formamide, 0.9 M NaCl, 20 mM Tris/HCl (pH 7.5), 0.01% SDS, 1% blocking reagent, 10% dextran sulfate. Initiator probe concentration was 10 µM.
  • Hybridization: 4 hours at 46°C.
  • Amplification: Incubation with 60 nM of each fluorescently labeled hairpin amplifier (double-labeled) in amplification buffer for 30 minutes at room temperature in the dark.
• CARD-FISH Protocol:
  • Permeabilization: Cells were embedded in agarose gel and permeabilized with lysozyme solution.
  • Inactivation: Endogenous peroxidases were inactivated with 10 mM HCl and 1% Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚.
  • Hybridization: HRP-labeled probe in hybridization buffer (30% formamide) at 35°C for 4 hours.
  • Amplification: Incubation with fluorescently labeled tyramide in amplification buffer for 30 minutes at 37°C.
• Result: quickHCR-FISH demonstrated a 1.3-fold higher fluorescence signal intensity than CARD-FISH for the same target organism.

Protocol 2: HCR-FISH Optimization for Sediment Microbes [3]

• Critical Modification: Increasing the initiator probe concentration in the hybridization buffer from the original 1 μmol/L to 10 μmol/L was essential for obtaining a clear and intensive signal sufficient to identify the exact location and shape of individual cells (E. coli was used as a model).
• Challenge: Early attempts to apply HCR-FISH to sediments were unsuccessful due to strong false-positive signals, likely from probe adsorption to abiotic particles.
• Solution: The optimized protocol involved modifications to sample pretreatment methods and hybridization buffer composition to reduce false positives, successfully enabling visualization of microbes in marine sediments.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH relies on a specific set of reagents and materials. The table below details these key components and their functions.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH

Item	Function/Role	CARD-FISH	HCR-FISH
Primary Probe	Binds to target rRNA sequence.	HRP-labeled oligonucleotide (~40 kDa) [10].	Unlabeled initiator oligonucleotide (smaller size) [3].
Signal Amplifier	Amplifies the fluorescence signal.	Fluorescently labeled tyramide [10].	Fluorescently labeled DNA hairpins (Amplifier A & B) [3].
Permeabilization Agent	Allows probe entry into the cell.	Lysozyme or other enzymes (critical step) [10].	Typically not required for many bacteria [10].
Blocking Reagent	Reduces non-specific binding.	Used in buffers to improve specificity [10].	Used in hybridization buffer (e.g., in quickHCR-FISH) [10].
Hybridization Buffer	Creates conditions for specific probe binding.	Standard buffer with formamide [10].	Optimized buffer with dextran sulfate & blocking reagent [10].
Microscope	For signal visualization.	Epifluorescence microscope [16].	Epifluorescence microscope [3].
Trimethylazanium	Trimethylazanium|C3H10N+|For Research		Bench Chemicals
Acid red 29(2-)	Acid red 29(2-), MF:C16H10N2O8S2-2, MW:422.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The historical evolution of in situ hybridization for detecting environmental microbes has been driven by the need for greater sensitivity and practicality. CARD-FISH, with its powerful enzymatic amplification, broke through the limitations of standard FISH and remains a highly sensitive benchmark. However, its drawbacks—specifically the requirement for meticulous permeabilization and the risk of endogenous enzyme activity—have driven the development of enzyme-free alternatives.

HCR-FISH, particularly in its optimized "quick" form, represents a significant technological evolution. It offers a compelling alternative with several practical advantages: simpler sample preparation, no enzyme-related steps, and faster amplification. While early versions had lower absolute signal amplification than CARD-FISH, recent optimizations have resulted in protocols where HCR-FISH can not only match but in some cases exceed the performance of CARD-FISH for specific applications, such as detecting Gram-negative bacteria in marine samples [10].

The choice between these methods ultimately depends on the specific research context. For projects where the highest possible signal amplification is critical and sample types are well-characterized for permeabilization, CARD-FISH remains a powerful choice. For broader screening, studies of novel organisms where permeabilization is unknown, or when simplicity and speed are prioritized, HCR-FISH has emerged as a robust, sensitive, and often more user-friendly alternative. Future developments will likely continue to enhance the sensitivity, multiplexing capability, and accessibility of both techniques.

Key Advantages and Inherent Limitations of Each Approach

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a cornerstone technique in environmental microbiology and medical diagnostics for visualizing and identifying microbial cells. To overcome the limitations of traditional FISH—particularly its limited sensitivity for detecting microorganisms with low ribosomal RNA content—researchers have developed powerful signal amplification methods. Among these, Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH (CARD-FISH) and Hybridization Chain Reaction-FISH (HCR-FISH) represent two of the most advanced approaches [11] [4]. This guide provides an objective comparison of these techniques, framing their performance within sensitivity research to inform method selection by researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals.

CARD-FISH: Enzyme-Mediated Signal Amplification

CARD-FISH combines the principles of FISH with catalytic reporter deposition for signal amplification. The technique employs oligonucleotide probes labeled with horseradish peroxidase (HRP). When these probes hybridize to their target RNA sequences, the HRP enzyme catalyzes the deposition of numerous fluorescently labeled tyramide molecules onto the probe-target complex [17]. This enzymatic amplification results in a massive increase in fluorescence signal at the target site, enabling the detection of microbial cells with low rRNA content that would be undetectable with conventional FISH [18].

HCR-FISH: Enzyme-Free Signal Amplification

HCR-FISH utilizes an isothermal, enzyme-free signal amplification mechanism based on DNA hairpin oligonucleotides. In this system, initiator probes hybridize to the target rRNA, triggering a cascading hybridization event between two fluorescently labeled DNA hairpins [11] [2]. This process forms elongated double-stranded DNA polymers that accumulate at the target site, significantly amplifying the fluorescence signal without requiring enzymatic reactions [11]. The latest generation of this technology (HCR v3.0) employs split-initiator probes that provide automatic background suppression, dramatically improving signal-to-noise ratios [2].

Comparative Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the fundamental mechanistic differences between CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH:

Performance Comparison: Quantitative Data

The table below summarizes key performance characteristics of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH based on experimental data:

Table 1: Quantitative Performance Comparison of CARD-FISH vs. HCR-FISH

Performance Metric	CARD-FISH	HCR-FISH	Experimental Basis
Detection Sensitivity	8.9-54 rRNA copies/cell [18]	~2-4 fold lower than CARD-FISH (estimated)	Competitive FISH with E. coli; gel quantification
Signal-to-Background Ratio	High with optimized protocols	≈50-60 fold suppression with v3.0 [2]	Whole-mount embryo imaging; in situ validation
Amplification Mechanism	Enzymatic (HRP-tyramide) [17]	Enzyme-free, isothermal HCR [11]	Biochemical protocol analysis
Probe Permeability	Limited (HRP ~40 kDa) [11]	Excellent (small DNA probes) [11]	Molecular weight comparison
Multiplexing Capacity	Moderate	High (up to 5 targets simultaneously) [2]	Multiplexed mRNA imaging studies
Protocol Duration	~2 days [4]	~1 day (shorter than CARD-FISH) [11]	Protocol timing comparisons

Advantages and Limitations Analysis

CARD-FISH: Strengths and Constraints

Key Advantages:

• Superior Sensitivity: CARD-FISH demonstrates the highest sensitivity of both methods, capable of detecting as few as 8.9±1.5 to 54±7 16S rRNA molecules per E. coli cell, representing a 26- to 41-fold improvement over conventional FISH [18].
• Proven Track Record: Extensive validation in diverse environments, including aquatic ecosystems, soil microbiology, and extreme environments [4] [17].
• Compatible with Autofluorescent Samples: Effective even in samples with significant background autofluorescence due to powerful signal amplification [18].

Inherent Limitations:

• Permeability Challenges: The large molecular size of HRP (~40 kDa) requires additional permeabilization steps (e.g., lysozyme treatment) to enable probe entry into cells [11] [4].
• Endogenous Peroxidase Interference: Requires hydrogen peroxide treatment to inactivate cellular peroxidases, which may degrade target nucleic acids [11].
• Limited Probe Versatility: HRP-labeled probes are more complex and expensive to modify compared to DNA-based probes [11].

HCR-FISH: Strengths and Constraints

Key Advantages:

• Excellent Cell Permeability: Small DNA probes penetrate cells efficiently without additional permeabilization steps [11].
• Flexible Probe System: Initiator probes are unlabeled, allowing easy adaptation to new targets without redesigning fluorescent components [11].
• Automatic Background Suppression: Third-generation HCR (v3.0) with split-initiator probes provides ≈50-fold suppression of amplified background, enabling use of unoptimized probe sets [2].
• Preserved Cellular Integrity: Eliminates hydrogen peroxide treatment, better preserving target RNA and cellular structure [11].

Inherent Limitations:

• Moderately Lower Sensitivity: Shows approximately 2-4 fold lower signal conversion compared to full-initiator systems, though this is offset by dramatically reduced background [2].
• Environmental Sample Challenges: Increased potential for false-positive signals from probe adsorption to abiotic particles in complex matrices like sediments [11].
• Protocol Optimization Needs: Requires careful optimization of hybridization conditions, particularly for challenging environmental samples [11].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Detailed CARD-FISH Protocol

The following protocol for CARD-FISH with prokaryotic cells has been adapted from established methodologies [18] [4]:

• Fixation: Harvest cells and fix in 3% formaldehyde solution for 8 hours [18].
• Permeabilization: Apply lysozyme solution (3 mg/ml) at 4°C for 15 minutes, followed by incubation in 0.01 M HCl at room temperature for 30 minutes [18] [4].
• Hybridization: Hybridize with HRP-labeled oligonucleotide probes (e.g., EUB338-I) in buffer containing 20-40% formamide at 46°C for 3 hours [18].
• Signal Amplification: Incubate with substrate mixture containing Cy3-labeled tyramide and amplification buffer at 46°C [18].
• Detection: Counterstain with DAPI and visualize by epifluorescence or confocal microscopy.

Detailed HCR-FISH Protocol

The optimized HCR-FISH protocol for environmental samples includes these key steps [11] [2]:

• Fixation: Fix cells following standard FISH protocols.
• Hybridization: Hybridize with initiator probes at increased concentration (10 μmol/L) in appropriate hybridization buffer [11].
• Amplification: Add fluorescently labeled H1 and H2 hairpin amplifiers simultaneously for multiplexed detection [2].
• Washing and Imaging: Remove excess hairpins through washing and image with appropriate fluorescence microscopy.

For HCR v3.0 with automatic background suppression, replace standard probes with split-initiator probe pairs that each carry half of the HCR initiator sequence [2].

Protocol Workflow Comparison

The diagram below contrasts the key procedural differences between the two methods:

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The table below catalogues key reagents and their functions for implementing these techniques:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH

Reagent Type	Specific Examples	Function & Application
Fixatives	Formaldehyde (3%) [18]	Preserves cellular structure and immobilizes target nucleic acids
Permeabilization Enzymes	Lysozyme, Achromopeptidase [4]	Enables HRP-probe entry in CARD-FISH (not needed for HCR-FISH)
HRP-Labeled Probes	EUB338-I-HRP [18]	Target-specific hybridization with enzymatic label for CARD-FISH
HCR Initiator Probes	Split-initiator probe pairs [2]	Target recognition and HCR initiation for HCR-FISH v3.0
HCR Hairpin Amplifiers	H1 and H2 hairpins [11] [2]	Fluorescent DNA hairpins for signal amplification in HCR-FISH
Tyramide Reagents	Cy3-labeled tyramide [18]	Fluorescent substrate for HRP-mediated deposition in CARD-FISH
Hybridization Buffers	Formamide-containing buffers [11] [18]	Controls stringency of hybridization conditions
Counterstains	DAPI [11]	General nucleic acid stain for reference imaging

Research Applications and Selection Guidelines

Application-Specific Recommendations

• Low-Biomass Environments: CARD-FISH is preferable for oligotrophic environments or dormant cells with extremely low rRNA content due to its superior sensitivity [18].
• Complex Environmental Samples: HCR-FISH v3.0 excels in sediments, soils, and biofilms where background suppression is critical [11] [19].
• Multiplexing Studies: HCR-FISH provides advantages for simultaneous detection of multiple targets without sequential hybridization [2].
• Delicate Cellular Structures: HCR-FISH is preferred when preserving mRNA integrity is essential, as it eliminates harsh peroxidase inactivation steps [11].
• High-Throughput Applications: HCR-FISH's shorter protocol duration (~1 day vs. ~2 days for CARD-FISH) benefits processing multiple samples [11].

Emerging Technological Developments

Third-generation HCR-FISH with automatic background suppression represents the latest advancement in this field [2]. This innovation addresses a fundamental limitation of earlier amplification methods by ensuring that non-specifically bound probes don't generate amplified background. The split-initiator probe design colocalizes two probe halves on the target mRNA, triggering amplification only when both bind specifically, thereby improving robustness and reducing the need for extensive probe optimization [2].

CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH each offer distinct advantages for sensitive microbial detection. CARD-FISH remains the gold standard for maximum sensitivity in challenging, low-biomass samples. In contrast, HCR-FISH provides superior versatility, easier implementation, and increasingly robust performance with automatic background suppression in v3.0. The choice between these methods should be guided by specific research needs: ultimate sensitivity favoring CARD-FISH versus ease of use, flexibility, and background suppression favoring HCR-FISH. As both technologies continue to evolve, they will further empower researchers to explore microbial diversity, function, and interactions at unprecedented resolution.

Practical Implementation: Protocol Design and Sample-Specific Applications

This guide provides a detailed, objective comparison of the Hybridization Chain Reaction-Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (HCR-FISH) protocol alongside the Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH (CARD-FISH) method, focusing on their sensitivity and application in microbial detection and research.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with rRNA-targeted probes is a cornerstone technique in microbial ecology for identifying and quantifying microorganisms in their native context [10]. However, standard FISH often lacks sufficient sensitivity for detecting microbes with low ribosomal RNA content, such as those in oligotrophic habitats like marine water and sediments [10] [3]. To address this limitation, signal amplification methods have been developed. CARD-FISH utilizes horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled probes and tyramide signal amplification to achieve a 26- to 41-fold higher fluorescence signal than standard FISH [10]. Meanwhile, HCR-FISH employs an enzyme-free, hybridization-based chain reaction to typically provide an up to 8-fold signal increase [10]. The following sections will dissect the standard HCR-FISH protocol and objectively compare its performance to CARD-FISH, providing a clear framework for researchers to select the appropriate method.

The Standard HCR-FISH Protocol: A Detailed Workflow

The HCR-FISH protocol is typically completed over three days. The process involves cell fixation, permeabilization, hybridization with initiator probes, signal amplification with fluorescent hairpins, and final washing steps before visualization [20].

Day 1: Sample Preparation and Hybridization

• Fixation: Cells are harvested and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) for 15 minutes at room temperature to preserve cellular structure and nucleic acids. After fixation, cells are washed with PBS [20].
• Permeabilization: Cells are treated with 0.5% Tween for 15 minutes at room temperature. This step is critical for enabling the entry of probes into the cells. A subsequent PBS wash is performed [20].
• Pre-hybridization: Cells are equilibrated with a pre-made hybridization buffer for 30 minutes at 37°C [20].
• Overnight Hybridization: The supernatant is removed, and cells are resuspended in a probe solution containing initiator probes (typically at 5-10 nM concentration) in hybridization buffer. The incubation proceeds overnight (12-16 hours) at 37°C [14] [20]. Note that for environmental samples, increasing the initiator probe concentration to 10 μmol/L has been shown to significantly enhance signal clarity [3] [11].

Day 2: Washing and Signal Amplification

• Post-Hybridization Washing: The probe solution is removed, and cells are washed with a pre-warmed probe wash buffer for 15 minutes at 37°C to remove unbound probes. This is followed by a wash with 5X SSCT (Saline-Sodium Citrate buffer with Tween-20) at room temperature [20].
• Pre-amplification: Cells are incubated in amplification buffer for 30 minutes at room temperature [20].
• Hairpin Preparation: While the pre-amplification step is ongoing, the two fluorescently labeled DNA hairpin molecules (H1 and H2) are prepared. Each hairpin is snap-cooled separately by heating to 95°C for 90 seconds and then allowing them to cool at room temperature in the dark for 30 minutes. This ensures they form the correct metastable hairpin structure [14] [20].
• Overnight Amplification: The pre-amplification buffer is replaced with a solution containing the snap-cooled H1 and H2 hairpins in fresh amplification buffer. The amplification reaction occurs overnight in the dark at room temperature [20].

Day 3: Final Washing and Visualization

• Removal of Unbound Hairpins: The hairpin solution is removed, and cells undergo two washes with 5X SSCT (30 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively) in the dark to eliminate any unamplified hairpins [20].
• Resuspension and Storage: The final cell pellet is resuspended in PBS and should be stored at 4°C in the dark until imaging or analysis by flow cytometry [20].

The following diagram illustrates the core biochemical mechanism of the HCR process that occurs during the amplification step.

Objective Performance Comparison: HCR-FISH vs. CARD-FISH

The choice between HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH involves trade-offs between sensitivity, practicality, and application-specific requirements. The table below summarizes a direct comparison based on key experimental parameters.

Performance Characteristic	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH
Signal Amplification Factor	Up to 8-fold higher than standard FISH [10]	26- to 41-fold higher than standard FISH [10]
Probe Size	Small oligonucleotides [3]	Large HRP-labeled oligonucleotides (~40 kDa) [3]
Cell Permeabilization	Standard treatment often sufficient [3]	Often requires harsh enzymatic permeabilization [10] [3]
Endogenous Enzyme Inactivation	Not required [3]	Required (e.g., using Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚) [3]
Protocol Duration	Less time-consuming [3]	More time-consuming due to additional steps [10]
Key Advantages	Easier probe customization, milder protocol, preserves RNA integrity [3]	Higher absolute signal amplification [10]
Key Limitations	Lower absolute signal gain, potential for false positives in complex samples [3]	Complex protocol, risk of nucleic acid degradation, limited probe entry [10] [3]

Supporting Experimental Data and Protocol Optimizations

• Sensitivity in Environmental Samples: A study focusing on marine sediments found that a modified "quickHCR-FISH" protocol, which uses improved buffers and double-labeled amplifier probes, could serve as a true alternative to CARD-FISH, especially when strong cell permeabilization should be avoided [10].
• Probe Concentration is Critical: Research demonstrates that a primary factor for successful HCR-FISH is initiator probe concentration. While the original protocol used 1 μmol/L, increasing the concentration to 10 μmol/L was necessary to generate intense and clear signals sufficient for identifying individual cells in environmental samples [3] [11].
• Reducing False Positives: A significant challenge for HCR-FISH in sediment samples is false-positive signals from probe absorption to abiotic particles. This can be mitigated by optimizing sample pre-treatment methods, hybridization buffer formulas, and implementing image processing to enhance the distinction between microbial cells and particles stained with DAPI [3].

Essential Reagents for HCR-FISH

A successful HCR-FISH experiment relies on a set of core reagents. The table below lists these key components and their functions.

Reagent / Material	Function / Description
Paraformaldehyde (PFA)	Fixative agent that cross-links and preserves cellular structures [20].
Permeabilization Agent (e.g., Tween-20)	Detergent that creates pores in the cell membrane, allowing probe entry [20].
Initiator Probes	Unlabeled oligonucleotides that bind the target rRNA and contain the HCR initiator sequence [3].
Hairpin H1 & H2	Fluorescently labeled, metastable DNA hairpins that self-assemble into a polymerization nanoscale assembly upon initiation [14] [20].
Hybridization Buffer	Contains formamide and salts to create stringent conditions for specific probe binding [14] [20].
Wash Buffer	Removes excess and non-specifically bound probes after hybridization [20].
Amplification Buffer	Provides ideal ionic conditions for the HCR hairpin assembly process [20].
SSCT (Saline-Sodium Citrate with Tween)	Washing buffer used after amplification to remove unbound hairpins [20].

The complete workflow, from fixation to final analysis, is visualized in the following diagram.

Both HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH are powerful tools that overcome the sensitivity limitations of traditional FISH. CARD-FISH offers a higher degree of signal amplification, making it a strong candidate for extremely challenging targets. However, HCR-FISH presents a compelling alternative with significant practical advantages: its enzyme-free, isothermal nature simplifies the protocol, its smaller probes facilitate cell entry, and it avoids the use of harsh chemicals that can compromise RNA integrity. The development of optimized protocols, such as quickHCR-FISH and the critical adjustment of initiator probe concentration, has further solidified its position as a robust and reliable method for identifying microbes, even in complex environmental samples like marine sediments. The choice between them should be guided by the specific requirements of the experiment, weighing the need for maximum signal intensity against the benefits of a more flexible and milder assay.

Catalyzed Reporter Deposition - Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (CARD-FISH) is a powerful technique that significantly enhances detection sensitivity for microorganisms with low ribosomal content in environmental samples [4]. Unlike standard FISH with directly labeled oligonucleotides, CARD-FISH utilizes horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled probes and tyramide signal amplification to achieve 26- to 41-fold higher fluorescence signals [21] [10]. However, this enhanced sensitivity comes with a critical technical challenge: the HRP enzyme molecule must penetrate target cells while preserving cellular integrity during rigorous permeabilization treatments [21]. This article examines the precise permeabilization requirements for successful CARD-FISH, directly comparing its technical demands against the emerging hybridization chain reaction (HCR-FISH) methodology.

Core Principles: CARD-FISH Versus HCR-FISH

The fundamental difference between these amplification techniques lies in their mechanism and consequent permeabilization requirements.

CARD-FISH Mechanism

CARD-FISH employs HRP-labeled probes that catalyze the deposition of numerous fluorescently labeled tyramide molecules at the hybridization site [21]. This enzymatic amplification creates intense fluorescence signals but necessitates extensive cell wall permeabilization to allow the large HRP enzyme (approximately 44 kDa) to enter bacterial cells [21] [10].

HCR-FISH Mechanism

HCR-FISH utilizes enzyme-free signal amplification through hybridization chain reactions, where metastable DNA hairpin probes initiate a cascade of hybridization events upon binding to the target [10]. This method employs smaller DNA probes that penetrate cells more readily, potentially avoiding the harsh permeabilization treatments required for CARD-FISH [10].

Table 1: Fundamental Comparison of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH Technologies

Characteristic	CARD-FISH	HCR-FISH
Amplification Mechanism	Enzyme-catalyzed (HRP) tyramide deposition	Enzyme-free hybridization chain reaction
Probe Size	Large HRP-labeled oligonucleotides	Smaller DNA hairpin probes
Key Permeabilization Requirement	Lysozyme treatment essential	May not require enzymatic permeabilization
Endogenous Enzyme Interference	Requires peroxidase inactivation	No enzyme interference concerns
Typical Signal Amplification	26-41x compared to standard FISH [10]	Up to 8x compared to standard FISH [10]

Diagram 1: Comparative workflows highlight the critical permeabilization step in CARD-FISH that carries risk of species-selective cell loss.

Critical Permeabilization Protocols for CARD-FISH

Standardized CARD-FISH Permeabilization Procedure

The permeabilization protocol for CARD-FISH requires meticulous optimization to balance cell permeability with structural integrity [21]. The following step-by-step procedure has been validated for marine bacterioplankton and benthic microorganisms:

• Sample Embedding: After concentration onto membrane filters, embed filters in low-gelling-point agarose (0.2% wt/vol) to prevent cell loss during subsequent treatments. Dry filters face up on glass slides at 35°C, then dehydrate in 96% ethanol for 1 minute [21].

• Endogenous Peroxidase Inactivation (for sediment samples): Treat samples overnight with 0.1% (wt/vol) active diethyl pyrocarbonate in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) at 37°C to inhibit endogenous peroxidases that cause background signal [21].

• Lysozyme Permeabilization: Incubate filters in lysozyme solution (10 mg ml⁻¹ in 0.05 M EDTA, 0.1 M Tris-HCl [pH 7.5]) at 37°C for 30-90 minutes. The optimal duration must be determined empirically for different sample types [21].

• Post-Permeabilization Processing: Wash filters twice in molecular grade water, followed by dehydration in 96% ethanol for 1 minute. Air dry filters before proceeding with hybridization [21].

Permeabilization Optimization Evidence

Experimental data demonstrates that the agarose embedding step prevents significant cell loss during lysozyme treatment. Without embedding, 90-minute lysozyme incubation caused substantial cell loss, while embedded samples maintained cell counts comparable to untreated controls [21]. This embedding step is therefore critical for quantitative applications.

Table 2: Quantitative Comparison of Detection Efficiency Between FISH Techniques

Sample Type	Standard FISH with MONOLABELED Probe (EUB338-mono)	CARD-FISH with HRP-Labeled Probe (EUB338-HRP)	HCR-FISH (quickHCR Protocol)
Coastal North Sea Bacterioplankton	19-66% (mean 48%) of total cell counts [21]	85-100% (mean 94%) of total cell counts [21]	Not specified in search results
Wadden Sea Sediment Communities	25-71% (mean 44%) of total cell counts [21]	53-100% (mean 81%) of total cell counts [21]	Not specified in search results
SAR86 Clade in Marine Samples	Undetectable [21]	3-13% (mean 7%) of total cell counts [21]	Not specified in search results
Gramella forsetii (Pure Culture)	Not specified	Not specified	High signal intensity with modified buffers [10]
Gram-Positive Environmental Bacteria	Limited detection without permeabilization [10]	Requires optimized lysozyme treatment [21]	Requires cell permeabilization for detection [10]

Advanced CARD-FISH Applications and Methodological refinements

Protistan Ecology Applications

CARD-FISH has been adapted for studying phagotrophic protists in aquatic environments, revealing previously underestimated groups including heterotrophic cryptophyte lineages (CRY1), cercozoans, katablepharids, and MAST lineages [4]. When combined with tracer techniques and double CARD-FISH, researchers can visualize food vacuole contents of specific flagellate groups, challenging the conventional view of these organisms as predominantly bacterivores [4].

mRNA-Targeting Applications

Recent protocols have extended CARD-FISH to detect mRNA expression in environmental bacteria, including cyanobacteria [22]. This application demands even more stringent permeabilization controls to preserve labile mRNA molecules while allowing probe access.

Research Reagent Solutions for CARD-FISH

Table 3: Essential Reagents for CARD-FISH Permeabilization and Detection

Reagent	Function	Example Specification	Critical Notes
Lysozyme	Digests peptidoglycan in bacterial cell walls	10 mg ml⁻¹ in 0.05 M EDTA, 0.1 M Tris-HCl (pH 7.5) [21]	Concentration and incubation time require sample-specific optimization
Low-Gelling-Temperature Agarose	Embeds samples to prevent cell loss	0.2% (wt/vol) in molecular grade water [21]	Critical for preserving cell numbers during permeabilization
Diethyl Pyrocarbonate (DEPC)	Inactivates endogenous peroxidases	0.1% (wt/vol) in PBS [21]	Primarily needed for samples with intrinsic peroxidase activity
HRP-Labeled Oligonucleotide Probes	Target-specific hybridization	Typically 20-30 nucleotides, HRP-labeled [21]	Larger than conventional FISH probes due to enzyme label
Fluorochrome-Labeled Tyramides	Signal amplification substrates	Various fluorochrome options available	Signal intensity depends on tyramide incubation time

Technical Decision Framework

Diagram 2: Technical decision framework for selecting appropriate FISH methodology based on experimental requirements and sample characteristics.

The critical permeabilization requirements of CARD-FISH represent both a technical challenge and methodological opportunity. While the protocol demands careful optimization of lysozyme treatment and sample embedding to prevent species-selective cell loss, the resulting detection rates of 85-100% for marine bacterioplankton significantly surpass the 19-66% achieved with standard FISH [21]. The enhanced sensitivity enables detection of previously unidentifiable microbial lineages, including the SAR86 clade in marine environments [21].

Researchers must weigh CARD-FISH's superior signal amplification against its technically demanding permeabilization requirements when selecting appropriate methodology for microbial identification and quantification. The emerging HCR-FISH methodology presents a promising alternative with simpler permeabilization needs, though potentially reduced amplification efficiency [10].

Oligotrophic environments, characterized by extremely low nutrient concentrations, present significant challenges for microbial detection and visualization. These ecosystems—including deep-sea sediments, ultrapure water systems, and other low-nutrient habitats—are dominated by microbes with low metabolic activity and reduced ribosomal content, making them difficult targets for traditional fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) methods. detecting microbes in these conditions requires highly sensitive techniques that can amplify faint signals while maintaining cellular integrity and minimizing false positives. This comparison guide evaluates the performance of two powerful signal amplification methods—Hybridization Chain Reaction-FISH (HCR-FISH) and Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH (CARD-FISH)—specifically for applications in oligotrophic settings.

The fundamental limitation in oligotrophic microbial detection lies in the low rRNA content of target organisms, which results in insufficient signal intensity when using standard FISH protocols [11]. While CARD-FISH has served as the gold standard for signal amplification for years, the recently developed HCR-FISH offers a radical-free alternative that preserves cellular DNA and enables multiplexing capabilities. Understanding the comparative advantages, limitations, and optimal applications of each method is essential for researchers investigating microbial communities in nutrient-poor environments, from pharmaceutical water systems to deep marine sediments.

HCR-FISH: Principles and Workflow

Hybridization Chain Reaction-FISH is an enzyme-free signal amplification method that utilizes a triggered chain reaction of hybridization events. In this process, initiator probes bind to the target rRNA, subsequently triggering the self-assembly of fluorescently labeled DNA hairpins into amplification polymers [11]. This method involves five key steps: (1) sample fixation and permeabilization, (2) hybridization with initiator probes, (3) removal of excess probes, (4) amplification with fluorescent hairpin probes, and (5) visualization and imaging. The hairpin probes remain stable until exposed to the initator, enabling controlled amplification directly at the target site without enzymatic involvement.

A significant advantage of HCR-FISH is its modular design—the same initiator probes can be paired with different fluorescent amplifiers, allowing flexible experimental design without redesigning target-specific components [11]. This feature is particularly valuable in oligotrophic environments where researchers may need to adjust signal intensity based on the physiological state of target microbes. Additionally, the method avoids the peroxide treatments that can damage nucleic acids, better preserving the target RNA and cellular DNA for downstream analyses [11].

CARD-FISH: Principles and Workflow

Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH relies on enzymatic signal amplification using horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled oligonucleotide probes. When the HRP-conjugated probe hybridizes to its target, it catalyzes the deposition of fluorescently labeled tyramide molecules, resulting in substantial signal amplification through the deposition of multiple fluorophores per probe [11]. The multi-step protocol includes: (1) sample fixation and permeabilization, (2) endogenous peroxidase inactivation with hydrogen peroxide, (3) hybridization with HRP-labeled probes, (4) tyramide signal amplification, and (5) fluorescence detection.

The primary strength of CARD-FISH is its exceptional signal intensity, making it suitable for detecting microbes with extremely low rRNA content. However, the method faces challenges in oligotrophic environments due to the large molecular size of HRP (~40 kDa), which can hinder probe penetration into cells without extensive permeabilization treatments [11]. Additionally, the required hydrogen peroxide treatment may degrade nucleic acids and potentially generate false-positive signals through the activation of endogenous peroxidases [11]. These limitations must be carefully considered when applying CARD-FISH to sensitive environmental samples.

Performance Comparison in Oligotrophic Environments

Direct Performance Metrics

Table 1: Direct Performance Comparison Between HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH

Performance Metric	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH	Experimental Context
Signal Intensity	High (comparable to CARD-FISH in validated protocols)	Very High	Detection of marine sediment microbes [11]
Detection Rate	>90% of DAPI counts in coastal picoplankton	>90% of DAPI counts in coastal picoplankton	Comparison in coastal seawater and sediment samples [23]
False Positive Rate	Low (when optimized for sediment samples)	Moderate (due to abiotic adsorption and endogenous peroxidase)	Analysis of marine sediments [11]
Probe Penetration Efficiency	High (small probe size)	Low (large HRP enzyme size requires permeabilization)	Environmental microbial detection [11]
Impact on DNA Integrity	Minimal (no peroxide treatment)	Substantial (H2O2 treatment causes DNA damage)	Targeted metagenomics pipeline development [23]
Protocol Duration	~3 hours (quickHCR-FISH protocol)	6-8 hours (standard protocol)	Protocol optimization for environmental samples [23]

Technical and Practical Considerations

Table 2: Technical and Practical Considerations for Method Selection

Characteristic	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH
Amplification Mechanism	Enzyme-free, hybridization chain reaction	Enzyme-dependent, tyramide signal amplification
Probe Size	Small (~35-45 nt initiator probes)	Large (HRP-labeled probes)
Sample Preservation	Maintains DNA integrity for downstream genomics	DNA damage from H22 treatment
Multiplexing Potential	High (multiple initiator/amplifier sets)	Limited (enzyme inactivation required between rounds)
Optimal Initiator Probe Concentration	10 μmol/L (optimized for environmental samples)	Standard FISH probe concentrations
Critical Reagents	DNA initiator probes, fluorescent hairpin amplifiers	HRP-labeled probes, fluorescent tyramides, H22
Equipment Requirements	Standard molecular biology equipment	Standard molecular biology equipment
Technical Skill Level	Intermediate	Intermediate to Advanced
Cost Considerations	Higher reagent cost, lower time investment	Lower reagent cost, higher time investment

Experimental Protocols for Oligotrophic Environments

Optimized HCR-FISH Protocol for Sediment Samples

The following protocol has been specifically optimized for detecting microbes in oligotrophic marine sediments, where autofluorescence and probe adsorption to abiotic particles can interfere with detection [11]:

• Sample Pretreatment: Separate cells from sediment matrices using a mild detergent solution (0.1% Na-pyrophosphate in 1× PBS) combined with gentle centrifugation (1,000 × g for 2 min) to minimize abiotic particle interference.

• Fixation: Fix samples in 4% paraformaldehyde for 2-4 hours at 4°C. Ethanol fixation (50% ethanol final concentration) is recommended when downstream genome sequencing is planned [23].

• Permeabilization: Apply lysozyme solution (10 mg/mL in 0.05 M EDTA, 0.1 M Tris-HCl, pH 8.0) for 60 minutes at 37°C to enhance probe penetration.

• Hybridization: Prepare hybridization buffer containing 10 μmol/L initiator probes (optimized concentration for environmental samples), 30% formamide, 0.9 M NaCl, 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 0.01% SDS, and 10% dextran sulfate. Hybridize for 2-4 hours at 46°C [11].

• Washing: Perform stringent washing using a buffer containing 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 0.01% SDS, 5 mM EDTA, and 80-225 mM NaCl (depending on formamide concentration in hybridization buffer) for 30 minutes at 48°C.

• Signal Amplification: Add fluorescent hairpin amplifiers (H1 and H2, 60 nM each) in amplification buffer (5× SSC, 0.1% Tween-20, 10% dextran sulfate) and incubate for 30-45 minutes at room temperature.

• Counterstaining and Imaging: Counterstain with DAPI (1 μg/mL) and apply an anti-fading mounting medium before microscopy. Implement image processing to enhance microbial cell signals against background fluorescence.

CARD-FISH Protocol for Low-Biomass Samples

For CARD-FISH application in oligotrophic environments, the following modifications to the standard protocol are recommended:

• Peroxidase Inactivation: Treat samples with 0.015% H₂₂ in methanol for 10 minutes at room temperature to minimize endogenous peroxidase activity while preserving target RNA.

• Permeabilization Optimization: Apply achromopeptidase (60 U/mL in 0.01 M NaCl, 0.01 M Tris-HCl, pH 8.0) for 60 minutes at 37°C followed by lysozyme (10 mg/mL) for 60 minutes at 37°C to facilitate HRP-probe penetration.

• Hybridization: Use HRP-labeled probes at 2-5 ng/μL in hybridization buffer with appropriate formamide concentration. Hybridize for 2-4 hours at 35°C.

• Tyramide Signal Amplification: Dilute fluorescently labeled tyramides in amplification buffer containing 0.0015% H₂₂ and apply for 20-45 minutes at 37°C.

• Post-Amplification Processing: Counterstain with DAPI and mount with anti-fading medium for microscopy.

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH Experimental Workflows

The diagram illustrates the fundamental procedural differences between HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH methods. The HCR-FISH workflow (yellow) emphasizes DNA preservation through ethanol fixation and eliminates the peroxide inactivation step, making it particularly suitable for samples requiring downstream genomic analysis. The CARD-FISH workflow (red) provides superior signal intensity through enzymatic amplification but compromises DNA integrity through peroxide treatment and formaldehyde fixation. The choice between these pathways should be guided by research priorities: HCR-FISH for studies combining visualization with subsequent genomic analyses, and CARD-FISH for challenging samples where maximum signal intensity is paramount.

Research Reagent Solutions for Microbial Detection

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function	Method
Fixatives	4% Paraformaldehyde, 50% Ethanol	Preserve cellular morphology and nucleic acid targets	Both
Permeabilization Enzymes	Lysozyme (10 mg/mL), Achromopeptidase (60 U/mL)	Enhance probe penetration through cell walls	Both
Hybridization Buffers	Formamide (30-50%), Dextran Sulfate (10%)	Control hybridization stringency and efficiency	Both
Specific Probes	Initiator Probes (10 μmol/L for HCR-FISH)	Target-specific binding to rRNA sequences	HCR-FISH
Specific Probes	HRP-Labeled Oligonucleotides (2-5 ng/μL)	Target-specific binding with enzyme conjugate	CARD-FISH
Amplification Reagents	Fluorescent Hairpin Oligonucleotides (H1 & H2, 60 nM)	Signal amplification through hybridization chain reaction	HCR-FISH
Amplification Reagents	Fluorescently Labeled Tyramides, H22 (0.0015%)	Enzyme-mediated signal deposition	CARD-FISH
Washing Buffers	SSC buffers with varying stringency (5× to 0.2×)	Remove non-specifically bound probes	Both
Counterstains	DAPI (1 μg/mL), SYTOX Green	General nucleic acid staining for total cell counts	Both
Mounting Media	Anti-fading reagents (e.g., Vectashield)	Preserve fluorescence during microscopy	Both

Based on comprehensive performance comparison and experimental data, HCR-FISH emerges as the preferred method for most microbial detection applications in oligotrophic environments, particularly when downstream genomic analyses or multiplexing are required. Its DNA-preserving qualities, reduced false positive rates in complex matrices like sediments, and comparable detection efficiency to CARD-FISH make it ideally suited for modern microbial ecology studies where integration with meta-omics approaches is essential.

CARD-FISH remains valuable for specific applications requiring maximum signal intensity, such as detecting microbes with extremely low ribosomal content or when working with particularly recalcitrant sample types. However, researchers should consider its limitations regarding DNA integrity and potential for false positives when selecting this method.

For researchers investigating microbial communities in oligotrophic environments, the optimal approach may involve using HCR-FISH for routine detection and quantification, while reserving CARD-FISH for particularly challenging targets where signal intensity remains insufficient. As both technologies continue to evolve, their combined applications will undoubtedly enhance our understanding of microbial life in Earth's most nutrient-poor environments.

Single-Nucleotide Variation Discrimination with High-Fidelity amp-FISH

The detection of single-nucleotide variations (SNVs) at the single-molecule level represents a significant challenge in molecular diagnostics and basic research. While fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has been a cornerstone technique for visualizing nucleic acids in their native context, conventional approaches often lack the specificity to discriminate single-base differences. High-fidelity amplified FISH (amp-FISH) has emerged as a powerful solution, enabling researchers to visualize and distinguish SNVs within individual RNA molecules with exceptional precision. This capability is particularly valuable for studying imbalanced allelic expression, identifying somatic mutations in cancer biopsies, and validating cell types discovered through single-cell sequencing [24] [25].

This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of amp-FISH against other signal amplification techniques, with a specific focus on its performance in discriminating SNVs. We objectively evaluate the technical capabilities, experimental parameters, and practical considerations of each method to assist researchers in selecting the most appropriate approach for their specific applications in drug development and biomedical research.

Technology Comparison: amp-FISH vs. Alternative FISH Platforms

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of FISH Technologies for SNV Detection

Technology	SNV Discrimination	Signal Amplification Mechanism	Best Applications	Multiplexing Capacity	Protocol Complexity
High-Fidelity amp-FISH	Yes (single-base resolution)	Hybridization chain reaction (HCR) with masked initiators	Allelic expression studies, cancer mutation detection, low-abundance transcripts	Moderate (sequential imaging recommended)	Moderate (requires careful probe design)
Conventional HCR-FISH	Limited (prone to false signals)	Standard HCR with constant initiator exposure	General RNA detection in samples with moderate autofluorescence	High (with orthogonal hairpins)	Low to Moderate
CARD-FISH/TSA	No (limited by antibody specificity)	Enzyme-catalyzed tyramide deposition	Detection of low-abundance targets in thick, autofluorescent samples	Limited (enzyme inactivation required)	High (multiple steps, enzyme optimization)
OneSABER	Possible with optimized probes	Primer exchange reaction (PER) concatemers	Flexible detection in multiple model organisms, whole-mount samples	High (modular adapter system)	Moderate (PER step required)
GenomeFISH	For DNA targets (strain differentiation)	Whole-genome hybridization	Microbial strain visualization, complex community analysis	Moderate (spectral separation)	High (single-cell sorting and amplification)

Table 2: Performance Metrics in Experimental Applications

Parameter	amp-FISH	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH	OneSABER
Signal-to-Background Ratio	Significantly enhanced over conventional HCR [25]	Moderate (improved with optimization) [3]	High (26-41x standard FISH) [10]	Customizable via concatemer length [15]
Detection Sensitivity	Single mRNA molecules [24]	~8x standard FISH [10]	Excellent for low rRNA content cells [10]	Adaptable to expression level [15]
Single-Base Specificity	Excellent (distinguishes SNVs) [24] [25]	Poor (prone to false signals) [24]	Not demonstrated	Not specifically documented
Time to Result	~1-2 days (including hybridization and HCR)	3-6 hours (quickHCR modifications) [10]	1-2 days (including permeabilization)	1-2 days (including PER step)
Cell Permeabilization Requirements	Standard (similar to conventional FISH)	Standard	Extensive (for HRP entry) [10]	Model-dependent [15]

The amp-FISH Mechanism: Principles and Workflow

High-fidelity amp-FISH employs a sophisticated system of interacting hairpin binary probes in which the HCR initiator sequence is conditionally sequestered. This design fundamentally differs from conventional HCR-FISH by incorporating a masking mechanism that prevents non-specific amplification [24] [25].

Key Innovation: Masked Initiator System

The core innovation of amp-FISH lies in the structural configuration of its probes. Each probe contains:

• A target-binding region complementary to the RNA of interest
• A sequestered HCR initiator sequence that remains inactive in the absence of the perfect target
• Structural elements that maintain the initiator in a masked state until specific binding occurs

Only when the probe binds to a perfectly complementary target is the HCR initiator sequence unmasked, enabling the initiation of the hybridization chain reaction and subsequent signal amplification. This conditional activation provides the exceptional specificity required for single-nucleotide discrimination [24].

Figure 1: amp-FISH Specificity Mechanism - This diagram illustrates the conditional activation pathway of amp-FISH probes. Only perfect complementarity to the target sequence unmasks the initiator, enabling amplification and detection.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

High-Fidelity amp-FISH Protocol for SNV Detection

The following protocol has been optimized for reliable single-nucleotide discrimination in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections and cell preparations:

Day 1: Sample Preparation and Hybridization

• Fixation and Permeabilization: Fix cells or tissue sections with 4% paraformaldehyde for 15 minutes at room temperature. Permeabilize with 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 10 minutes. For FFPE sections, follow standard deparaffinization and rehydration procedures.
• Pre-hybridization: Apply pre-hybridization buffer (30% formamide, 5× SSC, 9 mM citric acid, 0.1% Tween-20, 50 µg/mL heparin, 1× Denhardt's solution) for 30 minutes at 37°C.
• Probe Hybridization: Prepare hybridization mixture containing 2-5 nM masked hairpin binary probes in hybridization buffer. Apply to samples and incubate overnight (12-16 hours) at 37°C in a humidified chamber.
• Post-hybridization Washes: Perform stringent washes with 30% formamide in 2× SSC for 30 minutes at 37°C, followed by two 5-minute washes with 2× SSC at room temperature.

Day 2: Signal Amplification and Detection

• HCR Amplification: Prepare HCR hairpin solutions by snap-cooling individual hairpins (0.5 µM each) in 5× SSC, 0.1% Tween-20. Combine hairpins and apply to samples for 45-60 minutes at room temperature.
• Washing: Remove excess hairpins with three 5-minute washes in 5× SSC, 0.1% Tween-20.
• Counterstaining and Mounting: Counterstain with DAPI (0.5 µg/mL) for 2 minutes, rinse with PBS, and mount with antifade mounting medium.
• Imaging: Acquire images using a confocal or epifluorescence microscope with appropriate filter sets. For multiplex detection, perform sequential imaging and bleaching between rounds.

Critical Optimization Parameters

• Probe Design: Design masked hairpin probes with the initiator sequence positioned to maximize structural constraint. The target-binding region should be 18-25 nucleotides with Tm ≈ 65-70°C.
• Stringency Control: Optimize formamide concentration in wash buffers (typically 25-35%) to maximize discrimination while maintaining signal intensity.
• HCR Hairpin Design: Use fluorophore-labeled hairpins with minimal background and efficient polymerization. Validate each hairpin set individually before combinatorial use.
• Controls: Always include:
  • Positive control (known expressed target)
  • Negative control (no probe)
  • Specificity control (single-base mutant target if available)

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for amp-FISH Implementation

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Protocol	Key Considerations
Masked Hairpin Probes	Custom-designed binary probes with sequestered initiators [24]	Target recognition and conditional initiator exposure	Requires careful bioinformatic design; commercial synthesis available
HCR Hairpin Amplifiers	Fluorescently labeled hairpins H1 and H2 [25]	Signal amplification through chain reaction	Must be snap-cooled before use; orthogonal systems enable multiplexing
Hybridization Buffers	Formamide-based buffers with Denhardt's solution and heparin	Controls hybridization stringency and reduces background	Formamide concentration critical for single-base discrimination
Stringent Wash Buffers	SSC buffers with precise formamide concentrations [3]	Removes imperfectly bound probes	Temperature and formamide concentration determine specificity
Mounting Media	Antifade media with DAPI	Preserves fluorescence and provides nuclear counterstain	Low-fluorescence formulations preferred for signal preservation

Comparative Analysis in Research Context

Sensitivity and Specificity Performance

When evaluated within the broader thesis context of HCR-FISH versus CARD-FISH sensitivity research, amp-FISH demonstrates distinct advantages for SNV detection applications. While CARD-FISH provides superior signal amplification for challenging samples like marine sediments and biofilms [10] [26], it lacks the single-base resolution required for allele-specific detection. Conversely, conventional HCR-FISH offers easier implementation and better probe penetration than CARD-FISH [3], but suffers from false-positive signals that limit its utility for SNV discrimination [24].

The amp-FISH technology addresses this fundamental limitation through its conditional initiator system. Experimental data demonstrates that amp-FISH can generate amplified signals for both mutant and wild-type variants in distinguishable colors, enabling direct visualization of allelic imbalances within individual cells [24] [25]. This capability is particularly valuable for cancer research, where somatic mutations may be present in only a subset of cells.

Practical Implementation Considerations

For research and drug development applications, each technology presents distinct practical considerations:

High-Fidelity amp-FISH requires significant upfront optimization in probe design and validation but provides unparalleled specificity once established. The method is particularly well-suited for:

• Validation of single-cell sequencing results
• Spatial mapping of allelic expression patterns
• Pharmacodynamic studies of allele-specific therapeutics
• Cancer biomarker validation in heterogeneous samples

CARD-FISH remains the preferred choice for samples with extreme autofluorescence or challenging permeability, such as:

• Microbial communities in environmental samples [10] [26]
• Highly autofluorescent plant and tissue materials
• Detection of low-abundance targets in complex matrices

Conventional HCR-FISH offers a balanced approach for general purpose applications where single-base resolution is not required, with recent protocol optimizations (quickHCR-FISH) significantly reducing incubation times [10].

High-fidelity amp-FISH represents a significant advancement in molecular imaging technology, providing researchers with an unprecedented ability to discriminate single-nucleotide variations in situ. While alternative amplification methods like CARD-FISH and conventional HCR-FISH maintain important roles in specific applications, amp-FISH offers unique capabilities for allele-specific imaging that are increasingly valuable in both basic research and drug development contexts.

The conditional activation mechanism of amp-FISH probes addresses the fundamental specificity limitations of earlier amplification methods, enabling reliable detection of point mutations and allelic expression patterns with single-molecule sensitivity. As personalized medicine continues to emphasize the importance of genetic heterogeneity, amp-FISH provides a powerful spatial genomics tool for validating therapeutic targets and understanding disease mechanisms at the single-cell level.

The ability to detect multiple genetic targets simultaneously within their native spatial context is a cornerstone of modern biological research. For techniques like fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), this multiplexing capability is crucial for understanding complex gene expression patterns, microbial community interactions, and cellular heterogeneity. This guide objectively compares the multiplexing performance of two prominent signal amplification methods: Hybridization Chain Reaction FISH (HCR-FISH) and Catalyzed Reporter Deposition FISH (CARD-FISH). While both techniques enhance detection sensitivity beyond conventional FISH, their approaches to multiplexing—the simultaneous detection of multiple targets—differ significantly in mechanism, practicality, and experimental flexibility. By examining supporting experimental data and detailed methodologies, this analysis provides researchers with a framework for selecting the optimal technique for their specific multiplexing applications.

Technical Comparison of Multiplexing Capabilities

The fundamental differences in the signal amplification mechanisms of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH directly impact their respective multiplexing potentials, as summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Fundamental Comparison of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH Multiplexing Capabilities

Feature	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH
Amplification Mechanism	Enzyme-free, hybridization chain reaction [11] [3]	Enzyme-dependent (horseradish peroxidase) tyramide deposition [11] [3]
Probe Size	Small DNA probes (<1000 Da) [11] [3]	Large HRP-labeled probes (~40 kDa) [11] [3]
Inherent Multiplexing	High - Uses orthogonal DNA hairpin amplifiers [2] [27]	Limited - Sequential tyramide reactions required [11]
Experimental Workflow	Simultaneous one-step amplification for multiple targets [2] [27]	Sequential processing with enzyme inactivation between targets [11]
Key Advantage for Multiplexing	Straightforward multiplexing with pre-validated amplifier sets [2]	High single-target sensitivity, but cumbersome for multiple targets [11]

HCR-FISH employs an enzyme-free, isothermal amplification system where DNA initiator probes bound to target RNA sequences trigger the self-assembly of fluorescent DNA hairpins into amplification polymers [11] [3]. This mechanism inherently supports multiplexing through the use of orthogonal HCR amplifier systems—distinct pairs of DNA hairpins that respond only to their cognate initiator sequences without cross-talk [2]. Researchers can simultaneously apply multiple probe sets with different amplifier systems, each labeled with a distinct fluorophore, enabling the direct simultaneous detection of several targets in a single experimental step [27].

In contrast, CARD-FISH relies on horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled probes that catalyze the deposition of fluorescent tyramide molecules at the target site [11] [3]. While this method provides high signal amplification for single targets, its multiplexing capacity is inherently constrained by the need for sequential processing. Each target requires individual hybridization, tyramide deposition, and subsequent enzyme inactivation steps to prevent cross-reactivity in subsequent rounds, making the workflow complex and time-consuming for multiple targets [11].

Experimental Data and Performance Comparison

Direct experimental evidence from diverse biological systems demonstrates the practical multiplexing advantages of HCR-FISH, with performance data summarized in the table below.

Table 2: Experimental Performance Data of HCR-FISH Multiplexing Across Biological Systems

Organism/System	Targets Detected	Probe Set Details	Key Findings	Source
Arabidopsis thaliana (plant)	CLV3, WUS	Split-initiator probes	Simultaneous detection of two genes with expected spatial patterns in shoot apical meristem [27].	[27]
Arabidopsis thaliana (plant)	AP3, AG, STM	Split-initiator probes	Successful 3-plex imaging in inflorescence with correct spatial expression patterns for all three genes [27].	[27]
Chicken embryo	EphA4, etc.	Up to 4 targets with unoptimized split-initiator probe sets (20 probe pairs per target)	Robust 4-plex mRNA imaging with automatic background suppression in whole-mount embryos [2].	[2]
Marine sediments	Multiple microbial taxa	HCR initiator/amplifier pairs	Successful detection of environmental microbes after protocol optimization for reduced false positives [11] [3].	[11] [3]

The practical implementation of HCR-FISH multiplexing is particularly robust in challenging samples. In whole-mount chicken embryos, researchers successfully performed four-channel multiplexed experiments using large, unoptimized split-initiator probe sets, demonstrating the technique's robustness and automatic background suppression capabilities [2]. Similarly, in plant systems, HCR-FISH enabled simultaneous detection of three transcripts (APETALA 3, AGAMOUS, and SHOOT MERISTEMLESS) in Arabidopsis inflorescences with expected spatial expression patterns and low background interference [27].

Methodologies and Protocols for Effective Multiplexing

HCR-FISH Workflow for Multiplex Detection

The standard protocol for multiplexed HCR-FISH involves several critical stages, with the core amplification mechanism illustrated below.

Diagram 1: HCR-FISH workflow and amplification mechanism. The enzyme-free chain reaction enables simultaneous multiplexing by using orthogonal hairpin systems for different targets.

• Sample Preparation and Permeabilization: Fix samples with paraformaldehyde (typically 4% for 6 hours at 4°C) to preserve tissue morphology and RNA integrity [10] [3]. For challenging samples like sediments or plant tissues, additional permeabilization steps are crucial. This may include enzymatic treatments (cell wall digesting enzymes for plants) [27] or detergent applications to facilitate probe access.

• Probe Hybridization: Hybridize with split-initiator probes (10 μmol/L in hybridization buffer) targeting multiple RNA sequences simultaneously [11] [2] [3]. For multiplexing, researchers combine probe sets for different targets, with each set designed to trigger a distinct HCR amplifier system. Hybridization typically occurs at 37-45°C for several hours to overnight [11] [27].

• HCR Amplification: After washing off excess probes, apply fluorescent HCR hairpins (amplifiers) corresponding to each initiator system. These hairpins self-assemble into tethered fluorescent polymers exclusively at sites where both probes of a pair have bound adjacent to each other on the target RNA [2] [27]. This split-initiator design provides automatic background suppression, as individually bound probes don't trigger amplification [2]. Amplification typically requires 30 minutes to 2 hours at room temperature [10] [27].

• Imaging and Analysis: Image samples using standard or confocal fluorescence microscopy. The distinct fluorophores on different HCR amplifier systems enable simultaneous visualization of multiple targets [2] [27].

CARD-FISH Limitations in Multiplexing

The sequential nature of CARD-FISH fundamentally limits its multiplexing efficiency. The workflow requires:

• Hybridization with the first HRP-labeled probe
• Tyramide deposition with the first fluorophore
• HRP inactivation with hydrogen peroxide to prevent cross-reactivity
• Repetition of steps 1-3 for each additional target [11]

This sequential processing not only increases experimental time substantially but also risks sample degradation with each additional round. Furthermore, the enzyme inactivation step may compromise target accessibility for subsequent probes, reducing detection efficiency for later targets in the sequence.

Research Reagent Solutions for HCR-FISH Multiplexing

Successful implementation of multiplexed HCR-FISH requires several key reagent systems, as detailed below.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for HCR-FISH Multiplexing

Reagent Category	Specific Examples/Components	Function in Multiplexing	Optimization Notes
Split-Initiator Probes	25-45 nt DNA oligonucleotides with split initiator sequences [2] [27]	Target recognition and conditional HCR initiation; enables automatic background suppression [2]	10 μmol/L concentration recommended; 20+ probe pairs per target enhance signal-to-background ratio [11] [2]
HCR Amplifier Systems	Orthogonal DNA hairpin pairs (e.g., B1, B2, B3, B4, B5) with distinct fluorophores [2] [27]	Signal amplification for different targets without cross-talk; enables simultaneous detection [2]	Five orthogonal systems validated for simultaneous use; hairpins typically used at 60-120 nM concentration [2]
Hybridization Buffers	Dextran sulfate, blocking reagent, formamide, SSC buffer [11] [10]	Enhance hybridization specificity and signal intensity; reduce non-specific binding [11] [10]	Addition of dextran sulfate and blocking reagent increases signal intensity approximately 2-fold [10]
Permeabilization Reagents	Lysozyme (for Gram-negative bacteria), proteinase K (for tissues), cell wall digestive enzymes (for plants) [11] [27]	Enable probe access to intracellular targets; critical for complex samples [11] [27]	Must be optimized for sample type; over-digestion can damage morphology [11]

The split-initiator probe design is particularly valuable for multiplexing applications. Unlike standard probes that carry a full HCR initiator and can generate amplified background if they bind non-specifically, split-initiator probes only trigger HCR amplification when both probes in a pair bind adjacently on the target mRNA [2]. This automatic background suppression allows researchers to use larger, unoptimized probe sets to increase signal without compromising specificity—a significant advantage when working with multiple targets simultaneously [2].

The multiplexing capabilities of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH differ fundamentally, with HCR-FISH offering superior performance for simultaneous multi-target detection. While CARD-FISH provides high sensitivity for individual targets, its enzyme-dependent mechanism and requirement for sequential processing create significant practical limitations for multiplexing. In contrast, HCR-FISH employs an enzyme-free amplification system with orthogonal DNA hairpin amplifiers that enable straightforward, simultaneous detection of multiple targets—demonstrated in diverse applications from whole-mount embryos to environmental samples. The development of split-initiator probes with automatic background suppression further enhances HCR-FISH's multiplexing robustness, allowing researchers to investigate complex spatial gene expression patterns and microbial community interactions with unprecedented clarity and efficiency. For research requiring simultaneous visualization of multiple genetic targets within their native spatial context, HCR-FISH represents the clearly superior technical approach.

The evaluation of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) methodologies represents a critical frontier in molecular diagnostics and environmental microbiology. As a cornerstone technique for spatial gene expression analysis and microbial identification, FISH has evolved significantly with the incorporation of signal amplification technologies. Two prominent amplification methods—Hybridization Chain Reaction FISH (HCR-FISH) and Catalyzed Reporter Deposition FISH (CARD-FISH)—offer distinct advantages and limitations across diverse sample types. This guide provides an objective comparison of HCR-FISH versus CARD-FISH performance within the broader context of evaluating HCR-FISH sensitivity research, presenting experimental data and detailed methodologies to inform researcher selection for specific applications across marine samples, sediments, clinical biopsies, and tissue sections.

Fundamental Mechanisms

The core differentiator between these amplification methods lies in their fundamental operating principles and resulting practical implications for sample processing.

HCR-FISH employs an enzyme-free, isothermal amplification system based on strand displacement [11]. Initiator probes bind to target nucleic acids, triggering a cascading hybridization event between two fluorescently labeled hairpin probes that self-assemble into elongated amplification polymers [14]. This mechanism preserves RNA integrity and eliminates enzymatic processing steps.

CARD-FISH utilizes horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled probes that catalyze the deposition of fluorescent tyramide substrates [11]. While offering substantial signal amplification, this enzyme-dependent system requires careful peroxidase inactivation and cell wall permeabilization to accommodate large enzyme complexes, potentially compromising nucleic acid integrity through required hydrogen peroxide treatments [11] [10].

Comparative Technical Specifications

Table 1: Core Technology Comparison Between HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH

Parameter	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH
Amplification Mechanism	Enzyme-free hybridization chain reaction	Enzyme-catalyzed (HRP) tyramide deposition
Probe Size	Small oligonucleotides (<1 kDa) [11]	Large HRP-conjugated probes (~40 kDa) [11]
Cell Permeabilization	Standard treatment sufficient [11]	Extensive permeabilization required [11] [10]
Endogenous Enzyme Interference	None	Peroxidase inactivation mandatory [11]
RNA Preservation	High (no Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ treatment) [11]	Potential degradation from Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ exposure [11]
Protocol Duration	Shorter processing time [11]	Longer due to multiple enzymatic steps
Multiplexing Capability	High (multiple initiator/amplifier sets) [14] [27]	Limited by enzyme compatibility

Sample-Type Specific Performance Evaluation

Marine Samples and Sediments

Marine environments present unique challenges including low microbial rRNA content, high particulate matter, and significant autofluorescence. Performance comparisons in these samples reveal technology-specific advantages.

Table 2: Performance Comparison in Marine and Sediment Samples

Performance Metric	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH	Experimental Support
Signal Intensity	8-fold higher than standard FISH [10]	26-41-fold higher than standard FISH [10]	Gramella forsetii testing [10]
False Positive Rate	Low with optimized protocol [11]	Moderate (abiotic particle adhesion) [11]	Marine sediment validation [11]
Cell Permeability	Excellent (small probes) [11]	Limited without permeabilization [11] [10]	Gram-positive bacteria studies [10]
Protocol Adaptation	quickHCR-FISH developed for marine samples [10]	Well-established for oligotrophic habitats [10]	North Sea water testing [10]
Sample Preservation	Superior RNA preservation [11]	Potential nucleic acid degradation [11]	Escherichia coli validation [11]

Key Studies and Optimizations:

Marine sediment analysis initially proved challenging for HCR-FISH due to false-positive signals from abiotic particle adsorption [11]. Protocol optimization successfully addressed these limitations through:

• Initiator probe concentration adjustment from 1 μmol/L to 10 μmol/L significantly enhanced signal clarity for Escherichia coli and Methanococcoides methylutens [11] [3].
• Sample pretreatment modifications including detachment methods and hybridization buffer formulations reduced false positives in sediment samples [11].
• quickHCR-FISH development incorporated blocking reagents and dextran sulfate in buffers, enabling shorter amplification times (1-2 hours) while maintaining sensitivity for Gram-negative marine bacteria [10].
• Image processing enhancements improved DAPI counterstaining effectiveness against abiotic particles, providing better reference points for FISH imaging [11].

Clinical Biopsies and Tissue Sections

Clinical applications demand high sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility within complex tissue architectures. Both technologies have been adapted to meet these rigorous requirements.

Table 3: Performance Comparison in Clinical and Tissue Samples

Performance Metric	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH	Experimental Support
Multiplexing Capacity	High (5-plex demonstrated) [14]	Limited	Axolotl tissue sections [14]
Subcellular Resolution	Excellent (single-molecule detection) [27]	Moderate	Plant whole-mount studies [27]
Tissue Penetration	Superior in whole-mount samples [27]	Limited to sections	Arabidopsis inflorescences [27]
Validation Requirements	Rigorous preclinical validation [28]	FDA-approved kits available [29]	Hematologic malignancy testing [29]
Compatibility with IHC	Demonstrated with protein detection [27]	Challenging due to enzyme interference	Plant FISH-IHC protocols [27]

Key Studies and Optimizations:

Clinical and tissue applications benefit from technology-specific adaptations:

• HCR-FISH v3.0 Implementation: Split-initiator probes in the third-generation HCR significantly enhanced specificity by requiring dual probe hybridization to trigger amplification, successfully applied in axolotl regenerating tissue sections [14].
• Whole-Mount Compatibility: HCR-FISH enables 3D spatial gene expression analysis in intact tissues, demonstrated in Arabidopsis inflorescences and monocot roots through optimized permeabilization protocols [27].
• Clinical Validation Frameworks: While few commercial HCR-FISH kits are FDA-approved, rigorous preclinical validation methodologies have been established for clinical FISH applications [28], including familiarization, pilot studies, clinical evaluation, and precision experiments [28].
• Combined Detection Protocols: HCR-FISH successfully integrates with immunohistochemistry (IHC) and endogenous fluorescent protein detection, enabling simultaneous RNA and protein visualization in the same sample [27].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

HCR-FISH Protocol for Challenging Samples

Sample Preparation and Permeabilization:

• Marine Sediments: Fix in paraformaldehyde (4%) for 6 hours at 4°C, followed by storage in ethanol/PBS at -20°C. Apply detachment methods (e.g., ultrasonic treatment) to separate cells from particles [11] [10].
• Tissue Sections: Fix in 4% PFA for 45-60 minutes, followed by permeabilization with cell wall digesting enzymes (plants) or proteinase K (animal tissues) [27]. For whole-mount samples, critical point drying or organic solvent treatment enhances probe penetration [14].

Hybridization Conditions:

• Use hybridization buffer containing blocking reagent and dextran sulfate [10].
• Initiator probe concentration: 10 μmol/L in hybridization buffer [11] [3].
• Hybridization temperature: 37°C for 12-48 hours depending on sample type [14] [27].

Signal Amplification:

• Prepare fluorescent hairpin amplifiers (60 nM in amplification buffer) [14].
• Heat hairpins to 95°C for 90 seconds, then cool in dark for 30 minutes before application [14].
• Amplification time: 1-2 hours for quickHCR-FISH [10], 4-12 hours for standard protocols [14].

Image Processing and Analysis:

• Acquire images using confocal or lightsheet microscopy [14].
• Apply computational methods to enhance DAPI signals against abiotic particles in sediment samples [11].
• For multiplex experiments, use sequential staining with DNase treatment (500 units/mL for 30 minutes at 37°C) between rounds [14].

CARD-FISH Protocol for Reference

Sample Pretreatment:

• Permeabilize with lysozyme (10 mg/mL for 1 hour at 37°C) for Gram-positive bacteria [10].
• Inactivate endogenous peroxidases with Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ (0.15-3% for 10-30 minutes) [11] [10].

Hybridization and Amplification:

• Hybridize with HRP-labeled probes (2.5-10 ng/μL) in appropriate buffer [10].
• Tyramide incubation: 15-45 minutes at 37°C in amplification buffer [10].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Reagents for HCR-FISH Implementation

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function	Application Notes
Probe Design	oPools oligonucleotide pools (IDT)	Target-specific initiator sequences	36 split-initiator pairs per mRNA target recommended [14]
Amplification System	B1-B5 HCR hairpins (Molecular Instruments)	Signal amplification	Match initiators to hairpins (B1-Alexa488, B2-Alexa594, etc.) [14]
Hybridization Buffers	Commercial HCR buffers (Molecular Instruments)	Optimized hybridization conditions	Include dextran sulfate and blocking reagent [10]
Permeabilization Agents	Proteinase K, cell wall enzymes	Enhance probe access	Concentration optimization critical for each sample type [27]
Mounting Media	Antifade reagents with DAPI	Nuclear counterstaining and preservation	ProLong Diamond recommended for tissue sections [14]
Image Analysis Software	Daime, Probegenerator	Quantitative analysis and probe design	Custom probe design for non-model organisms [14]
Eptaloprost	Eptaloprost (RUO)|Prostacyclin Analogs Research	Eptaloprost is a prostacyclin analog prodrug for antimetastatic cancer research. This product is for Research Use Only (RUO) and not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals
Norswertianin	Norswertianin, CAS:22172-15-2, MF:C13H8O6, MW:260.20 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The comparative analysis of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH reveals a nuanced technology landscape where optimal selection depends fundamentally on sample characteristics and research objectives. HCR-FISH demonstrates superior performance in applications requiring multiplexing, whole-mount analysis, and delicate RNA preservation, with significant protocol improvements enhancing its utility for previously challenging samples like marine sediments. CARD-FISH maintains advantages in scenarios demanding maximum signal amplification in samples amenable to extensive processing. Researchers should consider the fundamental trade-offs between signal intensity, structural preservation, multiplexing capability, and protocol complexity when selecting the appropriate methodology for their specific experimental needs. As both technologies continue to evolve, ongoing optimization will further expand their applications across diverse sample types from ocean sediments to clinical biopsies.

Optimizing Performance: Troubleshooting Common Challenges and Enhancing Signal Quality

In the evolving field of molecular cytogenetics, the evaluation of method sensitivity is paramount. Within this context, Hybridization Chain Reaction-Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (HCR-FISH) has emerged as a powerful, enzyme-free alternative to traditional detection methods. A critical thesis in current research directly compares the sensitivity of HCR-FISH with the established standard, Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH (CARD-FISH). While CARD-FISH is renowned for its high signal amplification, it suffers from limitations including potential RNA degradation and complex pre-treatment steps due to the large size of the horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled probes [10] [11]. HCR-FISH addresses these issues by using smaller probes for better cell penetration and an isothermal amplification reaction that preserves RNA integrity [11]. This guide objectively compares the performance of these two techniques, focusing on the core strategies—particularly probe concentration and incubation time optimization—that are essential for boosting the signal and specificity of HCR-FISH assays for research and drug development applications.

Experimental Data at a Glance: HCR-FISH vs. CARD-FISH

The following table summarizes key performance metrics and characteristics of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH, based on published experimental data.

Table 1: A direct comparison of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH performance characteristics.

Feature	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH
Signal Amplification Factor	Up to 8-fold higher than standard FISH [10]	26- to 41-fold higher than standard FISH [10]
Probe Size	Smaller oligonucleotides [11]	Large HRP-labeled probes (~40 kDa) [11]
Cell Permeabilization	Generally less intensive required [11]	Requires enzymatic permeabilization [10]
Key Protocol Advantage	No endogenous peroxidase inactivation needed; more RNA-friendly [11]	Very high absolute signal gain [10]
Key Protocol Drawback	Potential for DNA probe adsorption to abiotic particles in environmental samples [11] [3]	Potential degradation of nucleic acids from Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ treatment [11]
Typical Amplification Time	Overnight (or 2-4 hours for quickHCR-FISH) [30] [10]	Tyramide incubation time requires sample-specific optimization [10]

Core Strategies for Optimizing HCR-FISH Signal

The sensitivity of HCR-FISH is not inherent but is highly dependent on protocol fine-tuning. The two most critical and universally applicable parameters are probe concentration and incubation time.

Optimizing Probe Concentration

A primary strategy for enhancing signal intensity in HCR-FISH is the adjustment of probe concentration. Evidence from controlled studies demonstrates that increasing the concentration of the initiator probe in the hybridization buffer is a decisive factor.

• Evidence from Microbial Studies: When applying HCR-FISH to the model bacterium Escherichia coli, researchers found that a probe concentration of 1 μmol/L, common in traditional FISH, produced signals that were too unclear to identify individual cells. The signal intensity and clarity improved markedly when the concentration was increased to 2.5 μmol/L and reached optimal levels at 10 μmol/L [11] [3]. This higher concentration ensures a sufficient number of initiator molecules bind to the target RNA, thereby triggering a more robust amplification cascade.
• Recommendations for HCR v3.0: For users of the legacy HCR (v3.0) assay, a specific recommendation is to increase the probe concentration from a commonly used 4 nM to 20 nM to improve signal strength [30].

Optimizing Incubation Time

The duration of both the probe hybridization and the amplification steps directly influences the extent of the HCR reaction, and thus, the final signal strength.

• Overnight Incubations: A widely adopted strategy for boosting signal, especially in thicker samples or for low-abundance targets, is to extend both the probe hybridization and amplification incubation times to overnight [30]. This provides ample time for the probes to access and bind their targets and for the hairpin amplifiers to self-assemble into a long fluorescent polymer.
• Rapid Protocols: Conversely, modified "quick" HCR-FISH protocols have been developed that can reduce the amplification time to just 2-4 hours by using optimized buffers containing dextran sulfate and a blocking reagent [10]. This demonstrates that incubation times can be adjusted based on the specific protocol and sample requirements, though longer times generally benefit challenging samples.

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Key Comparisons

Protocol: Optimizing HCR-FISH for Environmental Microbes

This protocol, optimized for detecting microbes in marine sediments, highlights the critical adjustments for strong signal and low background [11] [3].

• Sample Fixation: Fix cells in 4% paraformaldehyde for 6 hours at 4°C.
• Hybridization:
  • Prepare a hybridization buffer containing the initiator probe at a final concentration of 10 μmol/L.
  • Incubate the sample in the hybridization buffer overnight at the appropriate temperature (e.g., 37°C).
• Washing: Remove unbound probe with multiple washes in a pre-warmed wash buffer.
• Signal Amplification:
  • Add fluorescently labeled hairpin amplifiers (H1 and H2) at a concentration of 60 nM in amplification buffer.
  • Incubate for overnight amplification at room temperature, protected from light.
• Counterstaining and Imaging: Wash the sample, counterstain with DAPI, and image. An image-processing method can be applied to enhance DAPI signals against abiotic particles for more reliable identification [11].

Protocol: QuickHCR-FISH for Faster Results

This modified protocol for marine bacteria reduces the total experimental time while maintaining high signal intensity [10].

• Buffer Modification: The key to this protocol is the use of improved hybridization and amplification buffers, which include the addition of a blocking reagent and dextran sulfate.
• Hybridization: Hybridize with initiator probes in the modified buffer.
• Amplification: Incubate with double-labeled amplifier probes for a shorter duration of 2-4 hours, significantly less than the standard overnight incubation.

Visualizing the HCR-FISH Workflow and Optimization Logic

The following diagrams illustrate the core HCR-FISH mechanism and the decision-making process for optimization.

The HCR-FISH Mechanism

Optimization Strategy Flowchart

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for HCR-FISH

Successful implementation of HCR-FISH relies on a set of core reagents. The following table details these key components and their functions.

Table 2: Key reagents and materials required for an HCR-FISH experiment.

Reagent / Material	Function / Description
Split-Initiator Probes	Pairs of DNA oligonucleotides that bind adjacently on the target RNA, forming a full initiator sequence [14] [31].
Fluorescent Hairpins (H1 & H2)	Self-assembling DNA hairpins that form the amplification polymer; hairpins are pre-annealed before use [14].
Hybridization Buffer	A solution containing salts and formamide that facilitates specific probe binding [14].
Amplification Buffer	A solution containing dextran sulfate, which promotes macromolecular crowding and enhances the amplification reaction [10] [31].
Formamide	A denaturing agent included in the hybridization and wash buffers to control stringency and reduce non-specific binding [31] [11].
Dextran Sulfate	A polymer included in buffers to increase effective probe concentration and signal intensity via volume exclusion [10] [31].
Blocking Reagent	Added to buffers to minimize non-specific binding of probes to non-target sites [10].
Malealdehyde	Malealdehyde, CAS:3675-13-6, MF:C4H4O2, MW:84.07 g/mol
GR95030X	GR95030X, CAS:129443-92-1, MF:C25H26F2N2O4, MW:456.5 g/mol

The strategic optimization of probe concentration and incubation time is fundamental to maximizing the performance of HCR-FISH, enabling it to serve as a robust and sensitive alternative to CARD-FISH. While CARD-FISH may offer a higher theoretical amplification factor, the practical advantages of HCR-FISH—including simpler sample preparation, better RNA preservation, and the capacity for multiplexing—make it an exceptionally powerful tool for researchers and drug development professionals [10] [11]. The experimental data and protocols detailed in this guide provide a clear roadmap for scientists to systematically enhance their HCR-FISH signals, thereby strengthening the reliability of their findings in the critical evaluation of in situ hybridization techniques.

Table of Contents

• Introduction: The False-Positive Challenge in HCR-FISH
• Comparative Analysis: HCR-FISH vs. CARD-FISH
• Key Buffer Modifications to Enhance Specificity
• Experimental Protocols for Specificity Optimization
• Essential Reagents for Robust HCR-FISH
• Conclusions and Future Directions

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a cornerstone technique for visualizing and quantifying microorganisms in their natural contexts. However, its application in complex environmental samples like sediments is often hampered by low signal intensity from target cells and false-positive signals from non-specific probe binding or probe adsorption to abiotic particles [11]. The hybridization chain reaction (HCR) amplifies FISH signals enzymatically, offering a powerful solution to sensitivity issues. Nevertheless, the involvement of more DNA probes in HCR-FISH can ironically increase the potential for false positives [11]. This guide objectively compares the performance of optimized HCR-FISH against alternative methods like CARD-FISH, focusing on practical buffer modifications and procedural adjustments that enhance specificity without compromising signal strength, providing a critical toolkit for researchers validating microbial presence and function in drug discovery and development pipelines.

Comparative Analysis: HCR-FISH vs. CARD-FISH

When selecting a signal amplification method for challenging samples, researchers often weigh HCR-FISH against Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH (CARD-FISH). The table below summarizes a performance comparison based on key parameters critical for specificity and ease of use.

Feature	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH
Signal Amplification Mechanism	Enzyme-free, hybridization chain reaction [11]	Enzyme-dependent (horseradish peroxidase) [10]
Probe Size	Smaller, easier cell penetration [11]	Larger (HRP-labeled), requires permeabilization [11] [10]
Endogenous Enzyme Inactivation	Not required [11]	Required (H2O2 treatment) [10]
Risk of RNA Degradation	Lower (avoids H2O2) [11]	Higher (due to H2O2 use) [11]
Typical Protocol Duration	Shorter [11]	Longer (requires permeabilization & inactivation) [10]
Major Specificity Challenge	Non-specific adsorption of DNA probes to particles [11]	Optimization of tyramide incubation for each sample [10]

A key advantage of HCR-FISH is its linear amplification scheme, which not only scales fluorescence intensity proportionally to target RNA quantity but also contributes to lower background and higher specificity, especially with split-initiator probe designs [32].

The following diagram illustrates the core mechanisms and procedural differences between these two techniques, highlighting steps that influence specificity.

Key Buffer Modifications to Enhance Specificity

Optimizing the chemical environment during hybridization and amplification is critical for suppressing non-specific binding. The following table consolidates key buffer modifications from successful studies that significantly reduce false positives.

Modification	Standard Protocol	Optimized Protocol	Impact on Specificity & Signal
Initiator Probe Concentration	1 μmol/L [11]	10 μmol/L [11]	Increased to 10 μmol/L on E. coli resulted in more intense and clearer cell signals [11].
Amplifier Probe Label	Single-labeled [10]	Double-labeled [10]	Using double-labeled amplifier probes increases the fluorescence signal per binding event [10].
Blocking Reagent	Not used	Added to hybridization and amplification buffers [10]	Reduces non-specific binding of probes to non-target sites and sample surfaces [10].
Dextran Sulfate	Not used	Added to hybridization and amplification buffers [10]	A volume-excluding agent that increases the effective probe concentration, enhancing hybridization efficiency [10].

Beyond buffer composition, the probe design itself is a fundamental factor. Using third-generation HCR with split-initiator probes is reported to drastically reduce background and false-positive signals by increasing the stringency required for amplification to begin [33]. Furthermore, for low-abundance targets, commercial providers suggest using "Boosted" probe sets (with more binding sites) or upgrading to even more sensitive systems like HCR Pro [30].

Experimental Protocols for Specificity Optimization

Here, we detail two key experimental workflows from the literature that have been successfully implemented to achieve high-specificity HCR-FISH in complex samples.

Protocol 1: Optimized HCR-FISH for Marine Sediments (from [11])

This protocol was developed to tackle false positives specifically in marine sediment samples, where abiotic particle interference is a major concern.

• Sample Fixation: Fix samples in paraformaldehyde (final concentration 4%) for 6 hours at 4°C. Store in ethanol/PBS at -20°C.
• Cell Detachment (for sediments): Apply various physical and chemical detachment methods to separate microbial cells from sediment particles before hybridization.
• Hybridization:
  • Use initiator probes at an elevated concentration of 10 μmol/L.
  • Test different formulas of hybridization buffer to find the optimal composition for your sample.
  • The original study tested five sets of HCR initiator/amplifier pairs and identified two that displayed high hybridization efficiency and specificity for their targets.
• Washing: Stringently wash to remove unbound initiator probes.
• Signal Amplification: Add fluorescently labeled amplifier probes A and B.
• Counterstaining & Imaging: Develop an image processing method for DAPI staining to better distinguish microbial cells from abiotic particles, providing a reliable reference for FISH signal validation [11].

Protocol 2: quickHCR-FISH for Marine Bacteria (from [10])

This "quickHCR-FISH" protocol modifies buffers to enable shorter amplification times while maintaining high signal intensity.

• Sample Preparation: Fix Gramella forsetii (a marine bacterium) in 4% PFA for 6h at 4°C.
• Hybridization Buffer Modification: Add a blocking reagent and dextran sulfate to the hybridization buffer. This reduces non-specific binding.
• Probe Hybridization: Hybridize with initiator probes.
• Amplification Buffer Modification: Use an amplification buffer that also contains blocking reagent and dextran sulfate. Employ double-labeled amplifier probes to enhance signal.
• Amplification: Carry out the HCR amplification. This modified protocol achieved strong signals with a shorter amplification time compared to the original HCR-FISH protocol [10].
• Imaging: Visualize and quantify the cells. The study demonstrated that this method provided an 8-fold higher sensitivity than standard FISH and served as a viable alternative to CARD-FISH [10].

Essential Reagents for Robust HCR-FISH

A successful HCR-FISH experiment relies on a set of core components. The table below lists these essential reagents and their critical functions in ensuring high specificity and signal strength.

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in the Assay
Initiator Probes	Split-initiator DNA probes [33]	Binds specifically to the target RNA sequence; the split design reduces non-specific initiation of HCR.
Amplifier Hairpins	DNA hairpins A and B, double-labeled with fluorophores [10]	Form the fluorescent polymer chain upon initiation; double-labeling increases signal per unit.
Hybridization Buffer	With added dextran sulfate and blocking reagent [10]	Creates optimal conditions for specific probe-target binding while suppressing background.
Amplification Buffer	With added dextran sulfate and blocking reagent [10]	Supports efficient HCR polymerization while minimizing non-specific amplifier binding.
Blocking Reagent	e.g., competitor DNA/RNA, proteins [10]	Blocks common non-specific binding sites on cells and abiotic particles.
Wash Buffers	Saline-sodium citrate with Tween-20 (SSCT) [34]	Removes unbound probes and hairpins under controlled stringency to minimize background.
Counterstains	DAPI (4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole) [11] [34]	Labels all cell nuclei, providing a reference to distinguish true target cells from fluorescent debris.

The systematic optimization of HCR-FISH, particularly through buffer modifications and the use of split-initiator probes, establishes it as a highly specific and sensitive alternative to CARD-FISH for microbial detection in complex samples. The summarized data and protocols provide a clear roadmap for researchers in drug development and environmental microbiology to enhance the reliability of their cellular identifications. Key takeaways include the critical role of blocking reagents and dextran sulfate in buffers, the superiority of double-labeled amplifier probes, and the importance of elevated initiator probe concentrations (10 μmol/L) for clear signal detection.

Future advancements will likely focus on standardizing these optimized protocols across a wider range of sample types, including clinical tissues, and further engineering of probe systems for automated, high-throughput multiplexing. The integration of HCR-FISH with advanced tissue clearing techniques [32] [33] and 3D imaging modalities promises to unlock new dimensions in spatial microbiology and host-pathogen interaction studies, solidifying its role as an indispensable tool in life science research and diagnostic development.

Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (CARD-FISH) has become an indispensable tool in environmental microbiology for identifying and quantifying microbial populations in their natural habitats. The technique's superior sensitivity over conventional FISH makes it particularly valuable for studying oligotrophic environments and microbes with low ribosomal content [4]. However, one crucial limitation persists: the efficient penetration of horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled oligonucleotide probes through robust microbial cell walls. This challenge is especially pronounced when studying gram-positive bacteria, such as freshwater Actinobacteria, and archaea in ultra-oligotrophic systems [35] [7].

The permeabilization step represents both a technical bottleneck and opportunity for optimization in CARD-FISH protocols. Inadequate permeabilization results in significant underestimation of target populations, while excessive treatment causes cell loss and morphological degradation. This methodological comparison examines enzymatic permeabilization strategies that successfully overcome these barriers, with particular focus on challenging environmental samples where conventional approaches fail. By comparing the performance of optimized protocols against standard methods, this analysis provides researchers with validated strategies for improving quantification accuracy across diverse microbial communities.

Comparative Analysis of Permeabilization Methods

Performance Evaluation Across Sample Types

Table 1: Comparison of CARD-FISH Permeabilization Methods and Their Performance

Permeabilization Method	Target Microorganisms	Sample Types	Detection Efficiency	Key Advantages
Lysozyme (10 mg mL⁻¹) + Achromopeptidase (60 U mL⁻¹)	Freshwater Actinobacteria, General Bacteria	Lake water, Enrichment cultures	72->99% (mean 86%) of Bacteria	Significantly improves detection of gram-positive Actinobacteria
Lysozyme only (standard marine protocol)	Marine Bacterioplankton	Marine samples	Mean: 55% of Bacteria	Standard for marine samples; insufficient for freshwater
Proteinase K	Planctomycetales	Groundwater, Drinking water	83% total detection (groundwater)	Effective for Planctomycetales when lysozyme ineffective
Lysozyme (various concentrations)	General Bacteria	Marine picoplankton	Varies by cell wall type	Baseline method requiring optimization for specific samples

Quantitative Assessment of Method Efficacy

Table 2: Quantitative Detection Efficiency of Optimized vs. Standard Methods

Methodological Comparison	Bacterial Detection	Archaeal Detection	Sample Preservation
Optimized CARD-FISH	83-89% (oligotrophic waters) [7]	3-22% (mineral water) [7]	Minimal cell loss with agarose embedding
Conventional FISH	15% (oligotrophic waters) [7]	Not reliably detectable	Moderate cell loss
CARD-FISH vs FISH	1.5-2x higher detection [35]	Significant improvement	Similar preservation with proper handling

The performance differential between permeabilization methods is substantial and ecologically significant. The combined lysozyme-achromopeptidase treatment transformed the detection capability for freshwater Actinobacteria, revealing this lineage as comprising 32->55% (mean 45%) of bacterial populations in studied lakes, rather than the minority status suggested by previous methods [35]. Similarly, CARD-FISH with optimized permeabilization achieved 83% total detection efficiency in ultra-oligotrophic alpine ground waters compared to merely 15% with conventional FISH [7]. This 5.5-fold improvement in detection fundamentally alters understanding of microbial community structure in these environments.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Optimized Enzymatic Permeabilization for Freshwater Samples

The following protocol was developed specifically to address the underestimation of Actinobacteria in freshwater systems [35]:

• Sample Fixation and Preparation: Fix samples with particle-free formaldehyde (2% final concentration) for 24h at 4°C or with alkaline Lugol's iodine solution prefixed for 30min followed by formaldehyde (2%) for 30min. Filter onto polycarbonate membrane filters (0.2μm pore size), wash with distilled water, and air dry.

• Agarose Embedding: Embed air-dried filters in low-gelling-point agarose (0.2% concentration) to prevent cell loss during subsequent enzymatic treatments. Dry at 35°C for 10min.

• Lysozyme Treatment: Incubate filters with lysozyme solution (10mg mL⁻¹ in 0.05M EDTA, pH 8.0, and 0.1M Tris-HCl, pH 7.4) for 60min at 37°C.

• Achromopeptidase Treatment: Transfer filters directly to achromopeptidase solution (60U mL⁻¹ in 0.01M NaCl, 0.01M Tris-HCl, pH 8.0) for 30min at 37°C.

• Peroxidase Inactivation: Wash filters thoroughly in distilled water and incubate in 0.01M HCl for 10min to inactivate endogenous peroxidases.

• Hybridization: Proceed with standard CARD-FISH protocol using HRP-labeled oligonucleotide probes and tyramide signal amplification.

This protocol's effectiveness stems from the sequential enzymatic attack: lysozyme degrades the peptidoglycan layer, while achromopeptidase further disrupts proteinaceous cell wall components, creating sufficient permeability for HRP-labeled probes without excessive cell loss.

Permeabilization for Ultra-Oligotrophic Groundwater Samples

For ultra-oligotrophic groundwater and drinking water samples, an alternative permeabilization strategy is recommended [7]:

• Sample Preparation: Fix with paraformaldehyde (2% final concentration) for 14-18h at 4°C. Filter through polycarbonate membranes (0.2μm pore size).

• Permeabilization for Planctomycetales: Use proteinase K instead of lysozyme for improved detection of Planctomycetales with probe EUB338-II.

• Archaeal Detection: Apply modified protocol with optimized permeabilization and amplification times for archaeal populations in oligotrophic systems.

This adaptation highlights that taxon-specific permeabilization optimizations are necessary for comprehensive community analysis, as different phylogenetic groups exhibit distinct cell wall susceptibilities to enzymatic treatments.

Methodological Workflow and Comparative Pathway

CARD-FISH Permeabilization Workflow Comparison

The experimental workflow reveals critical divergence points where methodological choices significantly impact outcomes. The parallel pathways demonstrate how optimized permeabilization sequentially applies multiple enzymes to maximize probe penetration while maintaining cellular integrity through agarose embedding. This contrasts with standard single-enzyme approaches that frequently underperform with robust cell wall types.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for CARD-FISH Permeabilization Optimization

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Protocol	Application Context
Embedding Matrix	Low-gelling-point agarose (0.2%)	Prevents cell loss during enzymatic treatments	Universal for all sample types
Gram-Positive Permeabilizers	Lysozyme (10mg mL⁻¹), Achromopeptidase (60U mL⁻¹)	Digests peptidoglycan and proteinaceous cell walls	Freshwater samples, Actinobacteria
Specialized Permeabilizers	Proteinase K	Digests proteins for resistant cell walls	Planctomycetales detection
Cell Wall Weakening	HCl (0.2-1M), EDTA (0.05M)	Complementary treatments for difficult cells	Optional enhancement step
Peroxidase Blockers	HCl (0.01M)	Inactivates endogenous peroxidases	Prevents false-positive signals
Probe Sets	EUB338-mix (EUB338, EUB338-II, EUB338-III)	Comprehensive bacterial detection	Replaces individual EUB338 probe
Mgbcp	Mgbcp (Magnesocene)		Bench Chemicals
Dodecanedioate	Dodecanedioate Reagent	High-purity Dodecanedioate for metabolic disease and polymer research. This product is for Research Use Only, not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals

Comparative Analysis with HCR-FISH: Implications for Sensitivity Research

While CARD-FISH with optimized permeabilization significantly improves detection efficiency, alternative signal amplification methods offer complementary advantages. Hybridization Chain Reaction-FISH (HCR-FISH) has emerged as a viable alternative that circumvents certain permeabilization challenges [10] [3].

HCR-FISH utilizes smaller DNA probes that more easily penetrate cells without requiring intensive enzymatic pretreatment [3]. The method employs initiator probes that trigger self-assembly of fluorescent amplifier hairpins, creating amplified signals without HRP-enzyme complexes. This approach eliminates the need for endogenous peroxidase inactivation and reduces protocol time. However, HCR-FISH can produce false-positive signals in sediment samples due to probe adsorption to abiotic particles, requiring additional optimization of hybridization buffers and sample pretreatment [3].

Recent improvements in "quickHCR-FISH" have addressed some limitations through modified hybridization buffers and shorter amplification times [10]. Studies report that HCR-FISH provides up to 8-fold higher sensitivity than standard FISH, positioning it as a potential alternative to CARD-FISH, particularly when strong cell permeabilization should be avoided [10].

The optimal permeabilization strategy depends on sample type, target microorganisms, and research objectives. The combined lysozyme-achromopeptidase treatment represents the gold standard for freshwater systems with abundant Actinobacteria, while proteinase K proves more effective for Planctomycetales in groundwater ecosystems. For marine samples, standard lysozyme treatment often suffices, though verification with known positive controls is recommended.

When selecting between CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH, researchers must balance permeabilization requirements against potential false-positive signals and protocol complexity. CARD-FISH with optimized permeabilization currently provides the most reliable quantification for diverse environmental samples, while HCR-FISH offers advantages for delicate cells or when peroxidase activity presents problems. As both technologies continue evolving, ongoing methodological comparisons will further refine our understanding of their appropriate applications in microbial ecology and drug development research.

Managing Background Fluorescence and Autofluorescence in Both Techniques

In the application of advanced fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) techniques for detecting microorganisms with low ribosomal RNA content, managing background fluorescence and autofluorescence is not merely an optimization step but a fundamental requirement for data integrity. Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH (CARD-FISH) and Hybridization Chain Reaction-FISH (HCR-FISH) both provide the necessary signal amplification to detect these microbes but through distinct mechanisms that introduce different background challenges [11] [9]. Autofluorescence from inherent cellular pigments or abiotic particles, combined with non-specific probe binding, can obscure target signals, leading to false positives and inaccurate quantification [11] [36]. This guide objectively compares the strategies and performance of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH in managing these interference factors, providing researchers with experimental data and protocols to inform their methodological choices.

CARD-FISH: Enzyme-Mediated Amplification

CARD-FISH (also known as Tyramide Signal Amplification or TSA) utilizes a horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled probe. When hydrogen peroxide (Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚) is added, the HRP enzyme catalyzes the conversion of fluorescently labeled tyramide into a reactive radical that deposits densely around the probe site [9]. While this provides powerful signal amplification, it is also a primary source of background:

• Enzyme-Dependent Background: The enzymatic reaction is rapid, and the radical tyramide can react non-specifically with aromatic compounds in the sample if not carefully controlled, leading to diffuse background staining [9].
• Endogenous Peroxidases: Intracellular peroxidases in some samples must be inactivated with Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ treatment before the assay, as they can catalyze the same reaction, generating false-positive signals [11] [9].
• Probe Permeability: The HRP-labeled probe is large (~40 kDa), requiring harsh permeabilization treatments (e.g., lysozyme) that can damage cellular morphology and increase non-specific binding sites [11] [9].

HCR-FISH: Enzyme-Free, Isothermal Amplification

HCR-FISH employs a different principle. An "initiator" probe binds to the target rRNA, triggering the self-assembly of fluorescently labeled DNA "hairpin" amplifiers in an enzyme-free, isothermal reaction [11]. Its background characteristics stem from this mechanism:

• Probe Adsorption: The major source of background is the non-specific adsorption of the DNA hairpins or initiator probes to non-target cells or, more problematically, to abiotic particles in complex environmental samples like sediments [11].
• No Enzymatic Interference: Since no enzymes are involved, there is no risk of background from endogenous enzyme activity, and the smaller probes penetrate cells more easily, avoiding the need for harsh permeabilization [11] [10].

The following diagram illustrates these distinct mechanisms and their associated background risks.

Comparative Experimental Data and Protocol Optimizations

Direct comparisons and specific optimizations for each technique reveal key differences in their performance and practical application.

Quantitative Comparison of Background Management

The table below summarizes the primary sources of background and the corresponding optimized solutions for each technique, based on experimental findings.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Background and Autofluorescence Management

Feature	CARD-FISH	HCR-FISH
Primary Background Source	Non-specific tyramide deposition; endogenous peroxidases [9].	Non-specific adsorption of DNA probes to cells and abiotic particles [11].
Autofluorescence Mitigation	Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ treatment for peroxidase inactivation also quenches some autofluorescence [11] [9].	Chemical treatment with Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ & CuSOâ‚„ effective for cyanobacterial pigments [36].
Key Optimization Strategy	Adjust tyramide concentration and use blocking reagents [9].	Increase initiator probe concentration (e.g., to 10 µM) and optimize hybridization buffer [11].
Permeabilization Impact	Harsh permeabilization (lysozyme) often needed, can increase background [9].	Milder permeabilization sufficient, reducing background risk [11] [10].
Signal Localization	Can be diffuse due to tyramide diffusion; dextran sulfate helps but may cause spotty background [9].	Generally good localization; optimized protocols show clear signal on target cells [11] [27].
Best for Sample Types	Samples with low innate autofluorescence and no endogenous peroxidases [9].	Complex samples like sediments; samples with endogenous enzymes [11] [10].

Detailed Optimized Protocols for Background Suppression

CARD-FISH Optimized Protocol for Low Background

• Sample Preparation and Permeabilization: Immobilize cells on filters using low-melting-point agarose to prevent loss during subsequent steps. For Gram-negative bacteria, use lysozyme treatment (10 mg/mL for 30-60 min at 37°C) to enable probe entry [9].
• Hybridization: Hybridize with a low probe concentration (0.1 µM or 0.5 ng/µL) to minimize non-specific binding. This is lower than in standard FISH and is critical for reducing background [9].
• CARD Reaction (Critical Step): Prepare the CARD working solution containing:
  • Fluorescently labeled tyramide at an optimized concentration (too little reduces signal, too much increases background).
  • Blocking reagent (e.g., from a TSA kit) to minimize non-specific deposition.
  • Dextran sulfate (10-30%) to improve signal localization via volume exclusion.
  • Signal enhancers like 2 M NaCl and organic reagents (e.g., p-iodophenyl boronic acid) can be added to boost specific signal [9].
• Stringent Washing: Perform post-reaction washes at elevated temperatures (45-60°C) to remove dextran sulfate that can cause spotty background [9].

HCR-FISH Optimized Protocol for Complex Samples

The following workflow, adapted for challenging environmental samples like marine sediments, details key steps for suppressing false positives.

• Key Optimizations from Experimental Studies:
  • Probe Concentration: Unlike standard FISH, increasing the initiator probe concentration to 10 µM was found to be crucial for generating a strong, clear signal on E. coli and environmental microbes [11].
  • Buffer Composition: The addition of dextran sulfate and a blocking reagent to the hybridization and amplification buffers, a modification borrowed from CARD-FISH protocols, significantly improves signal intensity and reduces non-specific binding in the quickHCR-FISH method [10].
  • Image Processing: A developed image processing method can enhance the DAPI signal of microbial cells against abiotic particles, providing a more reliable reference for distinguishing true FISH signals from background [11].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Background Management

Table 2: Key Reagents for Background Suppression in FISH Experiments

Reagent	Function in Background Management	Technique
Lysozyme	Enzymatically digests peptidoglycan cell walls for probe entry. Over-digestion increases background.	CARD-FISH
Blocking Reagent	Blocks non-specific binding sites on cells and the sample substrate.	Both
Dextran Sulfate	Polymer that improves signal localization via volume exclusion. Requires hot washes to prevent spotty background.	Both
Hydrogen Peroxide (Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚)	Inactivates endogenous peroxidases to prevent false-positive signal.	CARD-FISH
p-Iodophenyl Boronic Acid	An organic enhancer that boosts the specific tyramide signal, allowing for lower tyramide concentrations.	CARD-FISH
Copper Sulfate (CuSO₄)	Used with H₂O₂ to attenuate chlorophyll autofluorescence in cyanobacteria by replacing Mg²⁺ in pigments.	Both
Formamide	A denaturant used to control stringency in hybridization buffers. Its concentration is critical for specificity.	Both
Validated HCR Hairpins	Pre-validated initiator/amplifier pairs ensure efficient polymerization and minimal self-aggregation.	HCR-FISH

Both CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH are powerful techniques that require careful optimization to manage the background inherent to their amplification mechanisms. The choice between them should be guided by sample type and specific background challenges.

• CARD-FISH remains highly sensitive but requires meticulous optimization of permeabilization, probe concentration, and the tyramide reaction to control enzymatic background. It is particularly susceptible to interference from endogenous peroxidases.
• HCR-FISH offers a more flexible system with easier multiplexing and is inherently free from enzymatic background. Its main challenge, non-specific adsorption to environmental debris, is being addressed through protocol refinements in hybridization buffers and sample pretreatment [11] [10] [19].

Future developments, such as the integration of these methods into unified platforms like OneSABER [15], promise to give researchers greater control over signal amplification and background, further solidifying the role of amplified FISH techniques in challenging microbiological and diagnostic applications.

In the evolving landscape of molecular detection technologies, the optimization of buffer components represents a critical frontier for enhancing assay performance. This guide provides a comparative analysis of how dextran sulfate and blocking reagents shape the sensitivity, specificity, and practical application of two prominent signal amplification techniques: Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (CARD-FISH) and Hybridization Chain Reaction-FISH (HCR-FISH). By synthesizing experimental data across diverse biological samples—from microbial sediments to mammalian tissues—we demonstrate that the molecular properties of these reagents fundamentally influence detection efficacy. Dextran sulfate's role as a volume exclusion agent must be carefully balanced against its potential for enzymatic inhibition, while strategic selection of blocking reagents is paramount for reducing non-specific background in complex samples. This systematic evaluation equips researchers with the framework to select and optimize buffer components for specific research contexts, ultimately enhancing the reliability and reproducibility of spatial genomics and microbiological assays.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) methodologies have revolutionized our capacity to visualize and quantify nucleic acids within their native spatial contexts. Among the most powerful advancements are signal amplification strategies such as CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH, which enable detection of targets with low abundance, a common challenge in environmental microbiology and single-cell transcriptomics. While probe design and amplification mechanics receive significant attention, the critical influence of buffer components—particularly dextran sulfate and blocking reagents—on assay performance is often underestimated. These components collectively govern hybridization kinetics, signal-to-noise ratios, and methodological feasibility across sample types.

CARD-FISH (also known as Tyramide Signal Amplification) utilizes horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled probes to deposit multiple fluorescent tyramide molecules at target sites, offering substantial signal amplification [7]. In contrast, HCR-FISH employs enzyme-free, triggered self-assembly of fluorescent DNA hairpins, providing a more modular system with easier probe design [10] [3]. The buffer formulations for these techniques must address their distinct biochemical requirements: CARD-FISH necessitates cell permeabilization for HRP-probe entry and inactivation of endogenous peroxidases [7] [10], whereas HCR-FISH requires optimization of hybridization stringency and prevention of non-specific hairpin assembly [3].

Within this framework, dextran sulfate functions as a volume-excluding agent that accelerates hybridization kinetics by increasing effective probe concentration, while blocking reagents minimize non-specific binding of probes and amplifiers to non-target molecules. This article systematically compares the roles of these buffer components across CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH platforms, providing researchers with experimental data, optimized protocols, and practical guidelines for method selection and troubleshooting.

Fundamental Mechanisms and Workflows

The core mechanisms of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH dictate their respective buffer requirements. CARD-FISH involves: (1) sample permeabilization to facilitate entry of large HRP-labeled probes, (2) hybridization with HRP-conjugated oligonucleotide probes, (3) catalytic deposition of multiple fluorescent tyramide molecules, and (4) signal detection [7]. Critical buffer considerations include permeabilization agents (lysozyme or proteinase K) and peroxidase inhibitors to control background.

HCR-FISH employs: (1) hybridization with initiator probes complementary to target RNA, (2) introduction of metastable fluorescent DNA hairpins, (3) target-triggered hybridization chain reaction forming amplified fluorescent polymers, and (4) signal detection [10] [3]. Key buffer requirements focus on maintaining hairpin stability while facilitating controlled assembly, often using dextran sulfate and formamide for stringency control.

The table below summarizes core differences in their amplification strategies and buffer implications:

Table 1: Fundamental Comparison of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH Techniques

Parameter	CARD-FISH	HCR-FISH
Amplification Mechanism	Enzyme-mediated (HRP) tyramide deposition	Enzyme-free hybridization chain reaction
Probe Size	Large (~40 kDa HRP conjugates) [10]	Small (standard oligonucleotides) [3]
Critical Buffer Components	Permeabilization agents (lysozyme/proteinase K), peroxidase blockers, tyramide substrate	DNA hairpins, stringency regulators (formamide), dextran sulfate
Sample Compatibility Issues	Requires cell wall permeabilization; endogenous peroxidase interference [7] [10]	Hairpin stability in complex samples; non-specific amplification [3]
Typical Amplification Factor	High (26-41x vs standard FISH) [10]	Moderate (up to 8x vs standard FISH) [10]
Protocol Duration	Longer (including permeabilization and peroxidase inactivation)	Shorter (avoiding enzymatic steps) [3]

Visual Workflow Comparison

The following diagram illustrates the key procedural steps and critical buffer intervention points for both CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH methodologies:

Diagram 1: Comparative Workflows of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH (Max Width: 760px)

The Role of Dextran Sulfate: Molecular Weight and Concentration Considerations

Mechanism of Action

Dextran sulfate, a sulfated polysaccharide, functions primarily through molecular crowding effects that enhance hybridization kinetics. By occupying volume in the hybridization solution, dextran sulfate effectively increases the local concentration of nucleic acid probes, accelerating their encounter rate with target sequences. This volume exclusion mechanism is particularly valuable for FISH applications where target accessibility is limited, such as in intact cells or tissue sections with diffusion barriers.

Molecular Weight Optimization

Recent research has revealed that the molecular weight of dextran sulfate critically determines its functionality and potential interference with enzymatic reactions. The Cassini method development for spatial transcriptomics demonstrated that high-molecular-weight dextran sulfate (>500 kDa), while effective for blocking non-specific binding in antibody applications, severely inhibits enzymatic amplification reactions including rolling circle amplification [37]. This inhibition presents a fundamental incompatibility with CARD-FISH and other enzyme-dependent detection systems.

In response, researchers developed a modified immunostaining buffer employing low-molecular-weight dextran sulfate (~4 kDa), which maintained efficient blocking specificity while preserving enzymatic activity [37]. This critical distinction enables simultaneous detection of RNA via enzymatic amplification and protein markers via immunostaining in multimodal assays.

Concentration Optimization in HCR-FISH

For HCR-FISH applications, dextran sulfate concentration significantly impacts signal intensity and hybridization efficiency. In standardized HCR-FISH protocols for environmental samples, dextran sulfate is typically incorporated at concentrations ranging from 2-10% in the hybridization buffer [10] [3]. However, the optimal concentration must be determined empirically for different sample types, as excessive dextran sulfate can increase viscosity to impractical levels and potentially promote non-specific background in complex matrices like sediments.

Table 2: Dextran Sulfate Optimization Across Methodologies

Method	Optimal MW	Typical Concentration	Primary Function	Compatibility Notes
CARD-FISH	Not typically used	N/A	N/A	Incompatible with HRP enzymatic reaction
HCR-FISH	500 kDa (standard)	2-10%	Accelerate hybridization kinetics	Compatible with enzyme-free amplification
Multimodal Assays	~4 kDa (low MW)	Optimized per application	Block non-specific antibody binding	Preserves enzymatic activity in parallel reactions [37]
Marine Sediment HCR-FISH	500 kDa	10%	Enhance signal in challenging samples	Critical for microbial detection in environmental samples [3]

Blocking Reagents: Strategies for Reducing Background Signal

Blocking Challenges by Sample Type

Blocking reagents are essential for minimizing non-specific probe binding and reducing background fluorescence, with optimal strategies varying significantly across sample types. In microbial ecology, sediment and soil samples present particular challenges due to abiotic adsorption of probes to mineral particles and organic matter [3]. This non-specific binding can generate false-positive signals that obscure true detection, especially concerning when sample biomass is low.

For CARD-FISH, a critical blocking step involves inactivation of endogenous peroxidases using hydrogen peroxide, preventing nonspecific tyramide deposition [7] [10]. However, this treatment may degrade target nucleic acids if improperly optimized [3]. Additionally, permeabilization regimens must be carefully calibrated to allow HRP-probe entry without compromising cellular integrity.

Advanced Blocking Formulations

The development of the Cassini method introduced a specialized immunostaining buffer that reconciles the conflicting requirements of antibody blocking and enzymatic compatibility [37]. Traditional blocking buffers for DNA-conjugated antibodies employed high-molecular-weight dextran sulfate, which provided excellent specificity but inhibited downstream enzymatic amplification. The Cassini buffer replaces this with low-molecular-weight dextran sulfate (~4 kDa), maintaining blocking efficiency while preserving enzymatic activity for simultaneous RNA and protein detection.

For HCR-FISH in environmental samples, researchers have successfully incorporated blocking reagents directly into hybridization and amplification buffers, including dextran sulfate and denatured salmon sperm DNA, to minimize nonspecific hairpin binding [10] [3]. This approach is particularly valuable for sediment samples where abiotic particles can adsorb DNA probes, leading to false-positive signals.

Experimental Data and Performance Comparison

Detection Sensitivity in Environmental Samples

Comparative studies demonstrate distinct performance characteristics for CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH across sample types. In ultra-oligotrophic environments like alpine karst aquifers and bottled mineral water, CARD-FISH achieved an average detection efficiency of 83% of total prokaryotic cells (normalized to DAPI counts), significantly outperforming conventional FISH (15%) [7]. This high sensitivity makes CARD-FISH particularly valuable for low-biomass applications where target rRNA content is minimal.

HCR-FISH shows more variable performance depending on protocol optimization. In its standard formulation, HCR-FISH provides up to 8-fold higher sensitivity than conventional FISH [10], but comprehensive optimization can enhance this further. The quickHCR-FISH protocol, incorporating modified buffers with blocking reagents and dextran sulfate, achieved detection efficiencies comparable to CARD-FISH for marine bacterioplankton while avoiding lengthy permeabilization steps [10].

Quantitative Comparison of Method Performance

The table below summarizes key performance metrics from published studies comparing optimized protocols:

Table 3: Experimental Performance Metrics of CARD-FISH vs. HCR-FISH

Performance Metric	CARD-FISH	HCR-FISH	Experimental Context
Detection Efficiency	83% (avg. in groundwater) [7]	~70-80% (optimized protocol) [3]	Percentage of DAPI-counted cells detected
Signal Amplification	26-41x vs standard FISH [10]	Up to 8x vs standard FISH [10]	Fold-increase in fluorescence intensity
Time to Result	>8 hours (including permeabilization)	~1 hour (quickHCR-FISH) [10]	Post-fixation processing time
False Positive Rate	Low (with peroxidase blockade)	Moderate (requires optimization) [3]	Non-specific signal in complex matrices
Short RNA Detection	Limited	Effective (with TDDN-FISH variant) [38]	Detection of targets <100 nt
Multiplexing Capacity	Limited	Moderate to high [15] [37]	Simultaneous detection of multiple targets

Protocol Optimization Data

Experimental data reveal that buffer component optimization substantially enhances HCR-FISH performance. When detecting Escherichia coli with the universal bacterial probe EUB338, increasing initiator probe concentration from 1 μmol/L to 10 μmol/L in the hybridization buffer (containing dextran sulfate) dramatically improved signal intensity and cell visualization [3]. Similarly, incorporating blocking reagents directly into amplification buffers reduced non-specific hairpin assembly in marine sediment samples, a previously problematic matrix for HCR-FISH application [3].

For CARD-FISH, proteinase K permeabilization significantly improved detection of Planctomycetales compared to lysozyme treatment in groundwater samples [7], highlighting how sample-specific optimization of buffer components directly influences detection capabilities.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH methodologies requires strategic selection of core reagents. The following table outlines critical components and their functions:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Buffer Optimization

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function	Technique Compatibility
Volume Exclusion Agents	Dextran sulfate (500 kDa), Dextran sulfate (~4 kDa)	Accelerate hybridization kinetics	HCR-FISH (high MW), Multimodal assays (low MW) [37]
Blocking Reagents	Denatured salmon sperm DNA, BSA, tRNA	Reduce non-specific probe binding	CARD-FISH & HCR-FISH
Permeabilization Agents	Lysozyme, Proteinase K, Mutanolysin	Enable probe entry into cells	Primarily CARD-FISH [7]
Enzyme Inhibitors	Hydrogen peroxide, Levamisol	Inhibit endogenous enzymes	CARD-FISH (peroxidase blockade)
Stringency Control	Formamide, Salts (NaCl)	Control hybridization specificity	CARD-FISH & HCR-FISH
Signal Generators	Fluorescent tyramides, DNA hairpins	Amplified signal production	CARD-FISH (tyramides), HCR-FISH (hairpins)

Method Selection Guide and Future Directions

Context-Dependent Method Recommendation

Selection between CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH should be guided by experimental priorities and sample characteristics. CARD-FISH remains preferable for maximum sensitivity in low-biomass samples or when detecting targets with extremely low rRNA content, despite its more complex protocol and permeabilization requirements [7]. HCR-FISH offers advantages when studying Gram-positive bacteria with difficult-to-permeabilize cell walls, when avoiding enzymatic steps is desirable, or when developing modular probe systems for multiple targets [10] [3].

For modern spatial genomics applications requiring simultaneous detection of RNA and protein targets, the Cassini method and related approaches demonstrate how optimized buffer formulations with low-molecular-weight dextran sulfate enable multimodal analysis without compromising enzymatic amplification [37].

Emerging Innovations and Future Outlook

Recent technological advances continue to refine the role of buffer components in hybridization assays. The OneSABER platform establishes a unified framework using single probe types compatible with multiple signal development methods, reducing reagent costs and implementation barriers [15]. Similarly, TDDN-FISH (Tetrahedral DNA Dendritic Nanostructure-FISH) employs enzyme-free DNA nanostructures for rapid, sensitive RNA detection while avoiding challenges associated with enzymatic amplification [38].

Future developments will likely focus on standardized buffer systems that maintain performance across diverse sample types, simplified workflows that increase accessibility for non-specialist researchers, and enhanced multiplexing capabilities for comprehensive spatial omics profiling. The critical understanding of buffer component functions, particularly dextran sulfate molecular properties and blocking reagent selection, will remain fundamental to these advancements, enabling researchers to extract maximum biological insight from increasingly complex experimental systems.

Sample Pretreatment Methods for Challenging Matrices Like Sediments and Tissues

The evaluation of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) techniques for detecting microorganisms in environmental and clinical samples reveals a critical truth: success is largely determined during the initial sample preparation stages. When comparing Hybridization Chain Reaction FISH (HCR-FISH) with Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH (CARD-FISH), their fundamental technological differences demand distinct pretreatment approaches, particularly for challenging matrices like marine sediments and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues. While CARD-FISH provides exceptional signal amplification through enzymatic tyramide deposition, it requires extensive permeabilization to accommodate large horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled probes [10] [9]. In contrast, HCR-FISH utilizes smaller probes and enzyme-free amplification, offering advantages for samples where preserving cellular integrity or avoiding complex pretreatment is prioritized [10] [3]. This guide objectively compares pretreatment methodologies within the broader context of evaluating HCR-FISH versus CARD-FISH sensitivity, providing researchers with experimental data and protocols to inform their methodological selections.

Technical Comparison of HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH

Table 1: Fundamental comparison between HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH technologies

Feature	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH
Signal Amplification Mechanism	Enzyme-free, hybridization chain reaction creating nucleic acid polymers [3]	Enzyme-dependent (horseradish peroxidase) catalyzing tyramide deposition [9]
Probe Size	Smaller oligonucleotide probes [3]	Large HRP-labeled probes (~40 kDa) [9]
Key Pretreatment Challenges	Reducing abiotic particle adsorption; optimizing initiator probe concentration [3]	Permeabilization for probe entry; endogenous peroxidase inactivation [10] [9]
Typical Signal Amplification	Up to 8-fold higher than standard FISH [10]	26- to 41-fold higher than standard FISH [10]
Processing Time	Shorter protocol; avoids enzymatic steps [3]	Longer due to permeabilization and enzymatic amplification [9]
Best Suited Matrices	Sediments, tissues with permeability concerns [3]	Oligotrophic habitats, low rRNA content cells [10]

Table 2: Comparative performance in environmental and clinical samples

Sample Type	HCR-FISH Performance	CARD-FISH Performance	Key Experimental Findings
Marine Sediments	Successfully applied after protocol optimization; false positives reduced with proper detachment methods [3]	Problematic due to requirement for strong permeabilization and issues with sediment impurities [3]	Optimized HCR-FISH enabled microbial visualization in sediments where CARD-FISH application was unsuccessful due to strong false-positive signals [3]
Marine Seawater	Effective for detecting microorganisms with low rRNA content [10]	Established for oligotrophic habitats; requires permeabilization optimization [10]	quickHCR-FISH protocol demonstrated as a viable alternative to CARD-FISH for marine seawater samples [10]
FFPE Tissues	Compatible with standardized pretreatment protocols [39]	Compatible with standardized pretreatment protocols [39]	One-fits-all pretreatment protocol facilitated FISH on FFPE tissues with 93% success rate across 3881 patient samples [39]
Eukaryotic Cells	Successfully adapted for yeast detection with enzymatic cell wall hydrolysis [40]	Requires extensive permeabilization optimization for different eukaryotic groups [4]	HCR-MISH effectively targeted eukaryotic cells in artificial prokaryote-eukaryote mixtures [40]

Sample-Specific Pretreatment Protocols

Marine Sediment Pretreatment for HCR-FISH

The application of HCR-FISH to marine sediments requires careful optimization to overcome challenges of false-positive signals and probe adsorption to abiotic particles. Buongiorno et al. (2021) developed an optimized protocol through systematic testing of various detachment methods, extraction methods, and hybridization buffer formulations [3].

Experimental Protocol:

• Sample Fixation: Fix sediment samples in 3% paraformaldehyde for 1 hour at 30°C [40]
• Cell Detachment: Apply optimized detachment method (e.g., centrifugation with detergent)
• Permeabilization: Partial enzymatic treatment for difficult-to-lyse cells (gram-positive bacteria, yeast)
• Hybridization Buffer Optimization: Use buffer containing blocking reagent and dextran sulfate to reduce non-specific binding
• Initiator Probe Concentration: Increase to 10 μmol/L for clear signal intensity [3]
• HCR Amplification: Incubate with amplifier probes H1 and H2 for chain reaction assembly

Key Experimental Findings: The original HCR-FISH protocol using 1 μmol/L initiator probe concentration produced unclear signals on E. coli. Increasing concentration to 10 μmol/L resulted in significantly more intensive and clearer cell signals [3]. The selection of HCR initiator/amplifier pairs also critically affected hybridization efficiency and specificity, with two of five tested sets showing superior performance [3].

Tissue Sample Pretreatment for FFPE and Frozen Tissues

The "one-fits-all" pretreatment protocol demonstrates that standardized methods can effectively handle diverse tissue types while maintaining optimal hybridization efficiency [39].

Experimental Protocol:

• Sectioning: Cut FFPE sections at 4-5μm, fresh frozen sections at 6-8μm
• Deparaffinization: For FFPE samples, incubate at 72°C for 10 minutes, followed by xylene treatment
• Dehydration: Ethanol series (100%, 96%, 70%) for 2 minutes each
• Pretreatment Solution: Citrate buffer (pH 6.0) with 1.3mL of 1M HCl and 0.65mL of 4% pepsin
• Proteolytic Digestion: Incubate at 37°C for 5-15 minutes (optimize duration based on tissue type and fixation)
• Dehydration: Repeat ethanol series (70%, 96%, 100%) for 2 minutes each
• Denaturation and Hybridization: Proceed with FISH protocol specific to HCR or CARD methodology

Quality Assessment Parameters: Optimal samples show strong specific signals, intact nuclear membranes, minimal autofluorescence, and homogeneous DAPI staining [39]. In validation studies encompassing 3881 patient samples, this approach achieved 93% success rate across 38 different FISH probes from three commercial manufacturers [39].

Permeabilization Methods for CARD-FISH

The fundamental challenge in CARD-FISH stems from the large size of HRP-labeled probes (~40 kDa), requiring extensive permeabilization treatments that must be carefully optimized for different sample types [9].

Experimental Protocol:

• Fixation Optimization: Test both cross-linking (paraformaldehyde) and denaturing (ethanol) fixatives
• Agarose Embedding: Immobilize cells in low-melting point agarose to prevent loss during permeabilization
• Enzymatic Treatments:
  • Lysozyme: For hydrolyzing 1,4-beta-linkages in peptidoglycans (Gram-negative bacteria)
  • Achromopeptidase: For effective digestion of Gram-positive bacterial cell walls
  • Proteinase K: For general protein digestion in tissues and eukaryotic cells
• Endogenous Peroxidase Inactivation: Treat with 0.15-3% Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ in methanol for 30 minutes
• Hybridization: Use lower probe concentrations (0.1 μM) to reduce background [9]

Experimental Considerations: The optimal permeabilization range is often narrow, requiring careful titration. Planctomycetes in marine sediments and methanogens with S-layers can sometimes be detected without treatments, but most prokaryotic cells require pretreatment [9]. For eukaryotic cells, additional enzymatic treatments for cell wall hydrolysis are necessary [40].

Visualization of Methodologies

Figure 1: Comparative workflow of sample pretreatment for HCR-FISH versus CARD-FISH

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential reagents for sample pretreatment in challenging matrices

Reagent/Material	Function	Application in HCR-FISH	Application in CARD-FISH
Paraformaldehyde	Cross-linking fixative	Standard fixation (1-4%) [10] [40]	Standard fixation (1-4%); requires optimization [9]
Ethanol	Denaturing fixative	Alternative fixation method [9]	Often provides better permeability [9]
Lysozyme	Peptidoglycan hydrolysis	Optional for difficult cells [3]	Essential for most prokaryotes [9]
Proteinase K	General protein digestion	Limited application	Critical for tissue permeabilization [39]
Low-melting Point Agarose	Cell immobilization	Optional	Essential to prevent cell loss during permeabilization [9]
Dextran Sulfate	Volume exclusion agent	Included in hybridization buffer [10]	Enhances signal localization in tyramide reaction [9]
Hydrogen Peroxide	Endogenous peroxidase inactivation	Not required	Essential pretreatment step [9]
Blocking Reagent	Reduces non-specific binding	Critical for reducing false-positives in sediments [3]	Minimizes background fluorescence [9]

The comparative analysis of sample pretreatment methods for HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH reveals that methodological selection should be guided by sample matrix characteristics and research objectives. HCR-FISH offers distinct advantages for sediment samples and situations where preserving cellular integrity is paramount, with simpler protocols and reduced pretreatment requirements. Conversely, CARD-FISH provides superior signal amplification for low-biomass samples but demands extensive optimization of permeabilization conditions. The development of standardized protocols such as the "one-fits-all" pretreatment for clinical tissues demonstrates that consistent methodology across sample types is achievable, though matrix-specific optimizations remain necessary. As both technologies continue to evolve, their application to increasingly complex samples will undoubtedly yield further refinements in pretreatment methodologies, enhancing our ability to visualize and identify microorganisms across diverse challenging environments.

Direct Comparison: Sensitivity Metrics, Specificity, and Validation Benchmarks

This guide provides a direct comparison of the quantitative sensitivity between Hybridization Chain Reaction-Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (HCR-FISH) and Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH (CARD-FISH) for detecting ribosomal RNA (rRNA) in microbial research. Based on experimental data, HCR-FISH emerges as a highly sensitive alternative to CARD-FISH, offering comparable detection limits with significant practical advantages in protocol flexibility and cell integrity preservation.

Detection and quantification of ribosomal RNA copies are fundamental to microbial ecology, pathology, and drug development. The sensitivity of detection methods directly impacts researchers' ability to identify and study microorganisms with low metabolic activity or those present in minimal quantities. This guide objectively compares two prominent signal amplification techniques—HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH—evaluating their performance characteristics, limitations, and optimal applications through experimental data.

Technical Comparison: HCR-FISH vs. CARD-FISH

Table 1: Core methodological comparison between CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH

Feature	CARD-FISH	HCR-FISH
Signal Amplification Mechanism	Enzyme-mediated (horseradish peroxidase) tyramide deposition [11]	Enzyme-free hybridization chain reaction with DNA hairpins [11]
Probe Size	Large (~40 kDa HRP-labeled probes) [11]	Smaller oligonucleotide probes [11]
Typical Signal Enhancement	26- to 41-fold higher than standard FISH [10]	Up to 8-fold higher than standard FISH [10]
Cell Permeabilization Requirements	Requires enzymatic permeabilization [10]	Less dependent on strong permeabilization [10]
Endogenous Enzyme Inactivation	Requires Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ treatment [11]	Not required [11]
Protocol Flexibility	Probe changes require new enzymatic conjugation	Same amplifier pairs work with different initiator probes [11]

Quantitative Sensitivity Limits

Table 2: Experimentally determined detection limits of rRNA-based detection methods

Method	Target	Sample Matrix	Detection Limit	Reference Experimental Setup
HCR-FISH	Bacterial 16S rRNA	Marine seawater & sediments	Equivalent to CARD-FISH for oligotrophic habitats [10]	Gramella forsetii; marine environmental samples; quickHCR-FISH protocol with modified buffers [10]
CARD-FISH	Bacterial 16S rRNA	Marine seawater & sediments	Established reference for environmental samples [10]	Standard CARD-FISH with HRP-labeled probes and tyramide signal amplification [10]
rRNA-targeted RT-qPCR	16S/23S rRNA	Human feces	10³ cells per gram [41]	Group/species-specific primers for 16S or 23S rRNA; 5-hour protocol [41]
rRNA-targeted RT-qPCR	16S/23S rRNA	Human peripheral blood	2 cells per ml [41]	Same as above; correlation with CFU count from 100 to 10⁵ CFU [41]

Experimental Protocols for Sensitivity Assessment

HCR-FISH quickHCR-FISH Protocol

The improved quickHCR-FISH protocol demonstrates significantly enhanced performance characteristics [10]:

• Sample Preparation: Fix cells in paraformaldehyde (4%) for 6 hours at 4°C, then store in ethanol/PBS at -20°C
• Hybridization Buffer Modification: Addition of blocking reagent and dextran sulfate to hybridization and amplification buffers
• Probe Design: Use of double-labeled amplifier probes to increase signal intensity
• Hybridization: Initator probe concentration of 10 μmol/L (increased from original 1 μmol/L)
• Amplification: Reduced amplification time achieved through buffer optimization

This protocol modification resulted in stronger signals and better probe accessibility for Gram-negative bacteria and was successfully applied to marine seawater and sediment samples [10].

CARD-FISH Reference Protocol

The established CARD-FISH protocol involves more complex processing steps [11] [10]:

• Cell Permeabilization: Enzymatic treatment to facilitate entry of large HRP-labeled probes
• Endogenous Peroxidase Inactivation: Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ treatment to reduce false positives
• Hybridization: HRP-labeled probe incubation
• Signal Amplification: Tyramide incubation requiring optimization for each sample type

rRNA-targeted RT-qPCR Protocol

For comparative purposes, the rRNA-targeted reverse transcription-quantitative PCR method provides exceptional sensitivity [41]:

• RNA Extraction: Isolation of total RNA from sample matrices
• Reverse Transcription: Conversion of rRNA to cDNA using group- or species-specific primers
• qPCR Amplification: Quantification with analytical curves linear up to 10⁻³ cell per RT-PCR
• Quantification: Correlation with CFU counts over range from 100 to 10⁵ CFU

Molecular Mechanisms of Detection

The diagram above illustrates the fundamental difference in amplification mechanisms between HCR-FISH (enzyme-free) and CARD-FISH (enzyme-dependent), which directly impacts their practical application in sensitivity analysis.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential research reagents for rRNA detection sensitivity studies

Reagent/Category	Function	Application Notes
Blocking Reagent	Reduces non-specific binding	Critical in HCR-FISH for sediment samples to prevent false positives [11]
Dextran Sulfate	Molecular crowding to enhance hybridization	Improves signal intensity in quickHCR-FISH protocol [10]
Formamide	Denaturant for stringency control	Concentration optimization crucial for specific vs. non-specific hybridization balance [11]
Paraformaldehyde	Cell fixation and rRNA preservation	Standard concentration 4%; 6-hour fixation optimal for marine samples [10]
HRP-Labeled Probes	Primary detection in CARD-FISH	Large size (~40 kDa) requires permeabilization optimization [11]
DNA Hairpin Amplifiers	Signal amplification in HCR-FISH	Same amplifier pairs work with different initiator probes for cost efficiency [11]
Tyramide Reagents	Signal deposition in CARD-FISH	Requires concentration and incubation time optimization per sample type [10]

Discussion and Research Implications

The quantitative sensitivity data demonstrates that HCR-FISH, particularly the quickHCR-FISH protocol, achieves detection sensitivity comparable to CARD-FISH while addressing several practical limitations. The 8-fold increase in sensitivity over standard FISH with HCR-FISH makes it suitable for detecting microorganisms in oligotrophic habitats like marine seawater and sediments [10].

For drug development applications where cellular integrity and minimal processing are priorities, HCR-FISH offers distinct advantages due to its smaller probe size that doesn't require extensive permeabilization and the absence of endogenous enzyme inactivation steps [11]. However, for applications requiring the highest possible signal amplification, CARD-FISH's 26-41 fold increase over standard FISH may still be preferable despite its more complex protocol [10].

The exceptional sensitivity of rRNA-targeted RT-qPCR (detection down to 2 cells/ml in blood) establishes a benchmark for molecular detection limits, though this method provides quantification rather than spatial information [41].

HCR-FISH represents a significant advancement in rRNA detection sensitivity, combining robust signal amplification with practical protocol advantages. While CARD-FISH remains the established method for maximum signal amplification, HCR-FISH offers researchers a compelling alternative that maintains high sensitivity while reducing procedural complexity and preserving cellular integrity. The choice between these methods should be guided by specific research requirements including sensitivity thresholds, sample type, and need for spatial resolution versus absolute quantification.

The ability to discriminate single-nucleotide variations (SNVs) represents a critical frontier in molecular diagnostics and genetic research. While Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (CARD-FISH) has been a valuable tool for signal amplification in nucleic acid detection, its utility in SNV discrimination is limited. In contrast, advanced forms of Hybridization Chain Reaction-FISH (HCR-FISH) have emerged as powerful alternatives that address this challenge with exceptional precision. This guide provides a comparative analysis of the specificity of these techniques, with a focus on their operational principles, performance metrics, and experimental requirements for discriminating single-nucleotide variants.

Performance Comparison Table

The following table summarizes the key performance characteristics of SNV discrimination techniques:

Method	Detection Principle	Signal-to-Background Ratio	Single-Base Discrimination	Multiplexing Capacity	Best Applications
CARD-FISH	Enzyme-mediated tyramide deposition	Moderate	Limited	Low (serial processing)	Detection of abundant targets
Standard HCR-FISH	Initiator-triggered hybridization chain reaction	Variable	Limited	High (parallel processing)	General signal amplification
High-Fidelity amp-FISH	Binary hairpin probes with masked initiators	High (≈60-fold suppression)	Excellent	Moderate	SNV detection, cancer diagnostics
Split-Initiator HCR (v3.0)	Cooperative probes with initiator halves	High (≈50-fold suppression)	Good	High	mRNA imaging, whole-mount embryos
Allele-Specific HCR	Solid-phase hybridization with allele-specific probes	High (0.7% mutant detection)	Excellent	High	Clinical genotyping, point-of-care

Table 1: Performance comparison of FISH-based methods for SNV discrimination

Quantitative Specificity Data

The following table presents experimental specificity metrics for advanced HCR-FISH methods:

Method	Background Suppression	False Positive Rate	Detection Limit	Reference Sample
High-Fidelity amp-FISH	60-fold reduction vs standard HCR	0.6 ± 0.3 spots/cell vs 1.5 ± 0.6 for passive probes [42]	Single mRNA molecules	GFP-transfected HeLa cells
Split-Initiator HCR (v3.0)	50-fold suppression in situ [2]	Minimal with unoptimized probe sets	Single-molecule resolution	Whole-mount chicken embryos
Allele-Specific HCR	Distinguished mutant fractions as low as 0.7% [43]	High specificity against single-base mismatches	10³ copies of genomic DNA	Human cancer biopsies

Table 2: Quantitative specificity metrics of advanced HCR-FISH methods

Experimental Protocols for High-Specificity HCR-FISH

High-Fidelity amp-FISH Protocol

The high-fidelity amp-FISH protocol employs binary hairpin probes that undergo target-mediated conformational changes to unmask HCR initiators [42]:

Day 1: Sample Preparation and Hybridization

• Fixation: Fix cells (e.g., HeLa cells) in 4% formaldehyde for 10 minutes at room temperature
• Permeabilization: Treat with 0.5% Triton X-100 for 5 minutes
• Hybridization:
  • Prepare hybridization buffer: 30% formamide, 5× SSC, 9 mM citric acid, 0.1% Tween-20, 50 μg/mL heparin, 1× Denhardt's solution
  • Add binary hairpin probes (arm-donating and arm-acceptor hairpins) at 50 nM final concentration
  • Hybridize overnight at 37°C

Day 2: Signal Amplification and Detection

• Washes: Remove excess probes with three 15-minute washes in 30% formamide, 5× SSC at 37°C
• HCR Amplification:
  • Prepare HCR hairpins (H1 and H2 labeled with Cy5) in 5× SSCT buffer
  • Add hairpins at 50 nM final concentration
  • Incubate for 2 hours at room temperature in the dark
• Final Washes: Remove unreacted hairpins with three 10-minute washes in 5× SSCT
• Imaging: Mount samples and image using epifluorescence or confocal microscopy

Split-Initiator HCR (v3.0) Protocol

The third-generation HCR protocol uses split-initiator probes for automatic background suppression [2]:

Probe Design and Preparation

• Split-Initiator Probes: Design pairs of probes (25 nt each) that bind adjacent sites on the target mRNA, with each probe carrying half of the HCR initiator sequence
• HCR Hairpins: Engineer DNA HCR hairpins with 12-nt toeholds/loops and 24-bp stems for optimal performance in permissive conditions

In Situ Hybridization Procedure

• Sample Preparation: Fix whole-mount chicken embryos in 4% PFA overnight at 4°C
• Permeabilization: Treat with proteinase K (10 μg/mL) for 15-45 minutes
• Hybridization:
  • Use large, unoptimized split-initiator probe sets (20+ probe pairs)
  • Hybridize in permissive conditions (0% formamide, room temperature) for 12-16 hours
• Amplification:
  • Apply HCR hairpins simultaneously for all targets
  • Incubate for 4-6 hours at room temperature
• Imaging: Image using standard fluorescence microscopy or confocal microscopy

Mechanism of High-Specificity HCR-FISH

High-Fidelity amp-FISH Mechanism

Diagram 1: High-fidelity amp-FISH target recognition mechanism

The high-fidelity amp-FISH mechanism employs a sophisticated system of interacting hairpin binary probes that combine three specificity-enhancing concepts [42]:

• Binary Probe Requirement: Two different probes must hybridize next to each other on the target sequence to generate a signal
• Conformational Reorganization: The arm-donating hairpin undergoes a molecular beacon-like structural change only when bound to its perfectly complementary target sequence
• Toehold Strand-Displacement: The bound probes interact through a target-mediated strand-displacement reaction that unmasks a sequestered HCR initiator sequence

This multi-layered approach ensures that only perfectly matched targets trigger amplification, as any probes bound nonspecifically at unintended sites cannot interact productively due to strong intramolecular hybrids within the arm-donating hairpins.

Split-Initiator HCR (v3.0) Mechanism

Diagram 2: Split-initiator HCR background suppression mechanism

The split-initiator HCR (v3.0) mechanism provides automatic background suppression through a cooperative probe system [2]:

• Split-Initiator Design: Each standard probe carrying a full HCR initiator is replaced with a pair of cooperative split-initiator probes that each carry half of the HCR initiator sequence
• Cooperative Initiation: Probe pairs that hybridize specifically to adjacent binding sites on the target mRNA colocalize the two halves of the initiator, enabling HCR activation
• Background Suppression: Individual probes that bind nonspecifically cannot colocalize initiator halves and therefore cannot trigger HCR amplification

This approach eliminates the need for extensive probe optimization and enables the use of large, unoptimized probe sets while maintaining high signal-to-background ratios.

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential reagents and their functions for implementing high-specificity HCR-FISH methods:

Reagent Category	Specific Products/Components	Function	Implementation Notes
Binary Hairpin Probes	Arm-donating and arm-acceptor hairpins [42]	Target recognition with conditional initiator unmasking	Require careful design of complementary arm sequences
Split-Initiator Probes	Paired probes with initiator halves [2]	Cooperative target binding with background suppression	Enable use of unoptimized probe sets
HCR Hairpin Systems	Fluorescently labeled H1 and H2 hairpins [44]	Signal amplification through hybridization chain reaction	DNA hairpins with 12-nt toeholds/loops and 24-bp stems recommended
Hybridization Buffers	Formamide-free buffers for permissive conditions [44]	Maintain hybridization stringency while enabling HCR polymerization	Permissive conditions (0% formamide, room temperature) enable high-gain HCR
Detection Systems	Cy5, Alexa Fluor dyes [42]	Signal detection and visualization	Fluorophore choice depends on microscope capabilities and multiplexing needs

Table 3: Essential research reagents for high-specificity SNV detection

The evolution of HCR-FISH technologies has transformed our ability to discriminate single-nucleotide variations with exceptional specificity. While CARD-FISH remains useful for general signal amplification applications, advanced HCR-FISH methods including high-fidelity amp-FISH and split-initiator HCR (v3.0) offer superior performance for SNV discrimination through innovative probe designs that provide automatic background suppression. These methods combine multiple specificity-enhancing mechanisms—including binary probe requirements, conformational reorganization, and cooperative initiator activation—to achieve false positive suppression of 50-60-fold compared to conventional approaches. The availability of detailed experimental protocols and well-characterized reagent systems makes these techniques accessible for researchers investigating allelic expression imbalance, somatic mutations in cancer, and other applications requiring single-nucleotide resolution.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has established itself as a canonical tool for visualizing targeted cells in environmental microbiology research and mapping gene expression patterns in complex biological samples [11] [15]. By labelling 16S rRNA or mRNA targets, FISH enables phylogenetic distinction of microbes at the single-cell level and spatial mapping of gene expression within morphological contexts [11] [44]. However, the widespread application of traditional FISH has been impeded by limitations in signal intensity, particularly when targeting less active microbial cells with inadequate rRNA quantities or when working with highly autofluorescent samples like whole-mount vertebrate embryos [11] [44].

To address these challenges, signal amplification methods have been developed, with Catalyzed Reporter Deposition FISH (CARD-FISH) and Hybridization Chain Reaction FISH (HCR-FISH) emerging as two prominent approaches [11] [44]. CARD-FISH, the longer-established method, relies on a horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled DNA probe to catalyze the deposition of tyramide signal amplification (TSA) in the target vicinity [11] [45]. While significantly increasing fluorescence signal, this method presents limitations including the large molecular weight (~40 kDa) of HRP that impedes cellular penetration, necessitating extra permeabilization steps [11]. Additionally, the required Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ treatment for inactivation of intracellular peroxidase may degrade nucleic acids [11] [3].

In contrast, HCR-FISH represents a more recent innovation that employs an enzyme-free, isothermal amplification approach [11] [44]. This method utilizes initiator probes that trigger self-assembly of fluorescent hairpin amplifiers into tethered polymerization chains [44] [45]. The fundamental differences in mechanism between these approaches create distinct advantages and limitations that researchers must consider when selecting a method validation approach for combining with other imaging and molecular techniques.

Fundamental Mechanisms and Technical Principles

CARD-FISH Mechanism

The CARD-FISH method operates through an enzyme-mediated catalytic process. A DNA probe labeled with horseradish peroxidase (HRP) hybridizes to the target sequence. Subsequent application of fluorescence-labeled tyramide substrates in the presence of hydrogen peroxide triggers an enzymatic reaction where the HRP catalyzes the conversion of tyramide into highly reactive radical intermediates that covalently bind to electron-rich amino acids in nearby proteins [11] [45]. This deposition creates localized signal accumulation at the target site. The requirement for Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ to inactivate intracellular peroxidases poses a risk of nucleic acid degradation, potentially compromising target integrity [11] [3].

HCR-FISH Mechanism

HCR-FISH employs a fundamentally different, enzyme-free mechanism based on conditional self-assembly of nucleic acid hairpins [44] [45]. The process begins with initiator probes complementary to target RNAs hybridizing to their targets, leaving initiator sequences unpaired [11]. These initiator sequences then trigger a chain reaction in which two species of metastable fluorophore-labeled DNA hairpins undergo sequential nucleation and opening to self-assemble into long, nicked double-stranded amplification polymers [44]. This process is isothermal, enzyme-free, and maintains sharp signal localization because the amplification polymers remain tethered to their initiators [44] [45].

Figure 1: Comparative workflow mechanisms of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH technologies

Performance Comparison and Experimental Data

Direct Performance Metrics

Extensive experimental comparisons between HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH reveal significant differences in performance characteristics that impact their utility for combination with other imaging and molecular techniques.

Table 1: Quantitative Performance Comparison of HCR-FISH vs. CARD-FISH

Performance Parameter	HCR-FISH	CARD-FISH	Experimental Context
Signal-to-Background Ratio	15-609 (median: 90) [45]	Not quantified in studies	FFPE tissue sections, whole-mount embryos
Multiplexing Capability	Simultaneous multiplexing [44] [45]	Serial amplification required [45]	Whole-mount zebrafish embryos
Spatial Resolution	Sharp subcellular localization [44] [45]	Diffusion-induced resolution loss [45]	Intact vertebrate embryos
Sample Penetration	Deep penetration [44]	Limited by enzyme size [11]	Marine sediments, whole-mount embryos
Protocol Duration	~2 days [11]	5 days for 3-plex [44]	Whole-mount vertebrate embryos
Quantitative Capability	Linear signal response [45]	Qualitative [45]	Subcellular resolution imaging

HCR-FISH demonstrates a significant advantage in multiplexing applications due to the availability of orthogonal HCR amplifiers that operate independently within the same sample [44] [45]. This enables researchers to simultaneously map multiple target mRNAs or proteins using a unified two-stage protocol where all probes are introduced in parallel during the detection stage, followed by parallel introduction of all HCR amplifiers in the amplification stage [44]. In contrast, CARD-FISH requires serial amplification for multiple targets due to the lack of orthogonal deposition chemistries, leading to progressively lengthier protocols that can extend to 5 days for mapping just three target mRNAs [44].

The quantitative capability of HCR-FISH represents another distinct advantage, as the amplified HCR signal scales approximately linearly with the number of target molecules, enabling accurate and precise RNA relative quantitation with subcellular resolution [45]. This quantitative performance is maintained across diverse sample types, including highly autofluorescent whole-mount vertebrate embryos and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections [45]. CARD-FISH, in comparison, typically produces qualitative rather than quantitative results [45].

Method Validation Through Combination with Advanced Imaging Techniques

Both HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH have been validated through integration with other high-resolution imaging techniques, though HCR-FISH demonstrates particular advantages in these combined approaches.

Table 2: Validation Through Combination with Other Imaging Techniques

Combined Technique	Compatibility with HCR-FISH	Compatibility with CARD-FISH	Application Examples
Nanoscale SIMS (NanoSIMS)	High (preserved target integrity) [11]	Moderate (risk of nucleic acid degradation) [11]	Cell-level spatial structure of microbial communities [11]
BONCAT	High (enzyme-free preservation) [11]	Limited (potential interference)	Metabolic activity assessment
Raman Microscopy	High [11]	Moderate	Chemical profiling of single cells
Electron Microscopy	Demonstrated with nanoparticles [11]	Not demonstrated	Ultra-structural localization

The preservation of target integrity in HCR-FISH, attributable to the absence of enzymatic treatments that might degrade nucleic acids, makes it particularly suitable for combination with techniques requiring intact cellular components [11]. Additionally, the smaller probe size of HCR-FISH (compared to antibody-enzyme conjugates) enables superior penetration in challenging samples like marine sediments [11] [3].

Recent innovations have further expanded HCR applications to include unified protein and RNA imaging. Research demonstrates that HCR signal amplification can be extended to immunohistochemistry (IHC) through two complementary approaches: HCR 1°IHC using primary antibody probes directly labeled with HCR initiators, and HCR 2°IHC using unlabeled primary antibodies detected by initiator-labeled secondary antibodies [45]. This creates a unified framework for simultaneous quantitative protein and RNA imaging with one-step HCR signal amplification performed for all targets simultaneously [45].

Experimental Protocols and Method Optimization

Critical Protocol Components for HCR-FISH

Successful implementation of HCR-FISH requires careful optimization of several protocol components, particularly when applied to challenging samples like marine sediments or whole-mount embryos.

Initiator Probe Concentration represents a critical optimization parameter. Research demonstrates that increasing initiator probe concentration from the original 1 μmol/L to 10 μmol/L significantly improves signal intensity and clarity in bacterial samples [11] [3]. This optimization was found to be more impactful than modifications to fixation procedures, hybridization temperature, formamide concentration, or moisture levels [3].

HCR Amplifier Design has evolved substantially, with next-generation DNA HCR amplifiers now optimized for maximum free energy benefit per polymerization step while preserving kinetic trapping properties [44]. Engineering efforts have yielded DNA hairpins with 12-nt toeholds/loops and 24-bp stems that provide dramatic improvements in signal gain while reducing reagent costs and improving durability compared to earlier RNA-based amplifiers [44].

Permissive Hybridization Conditions have been established for DNA HCR in situ amplification, enabling successful implementation in 0% formamide at room temperature without increased background from nonspecific reagent binding [44]. This represents a significant departure from standard practice in traditional FISH and earlier HCR implementations that required stringent conditions to minimize background [44].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for HCR-FISH Implementation

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function and Optimization Guidelines
Initiator Probes	DNA oligonucleotides (~35-45 nt) with initiator sequences [15]	Target binding; optimal concentration 10 μmol/L [11]
HCR Hairpins	Metastable DNA hairpins H1 and H2 [44]	Signal amplification; 12-nt toeholds/loops with 24-bp stems recommended [44]
Hybridization Buffer	Varied formulations with formamide [11]	Stringency control; permissive conditions (0% formamide) possible [44]
Fluorophores	Alexa488, Alexa647 [45]	Signal detection; compatible with highly autofluorescent samples [45]
Permeabilization Agents	Detergents, enzymes [11]	Cellular access; less intensive than CARD-FISH requirements [11]
Counterstains	DAPI with image processing enhancement [11]	Cell identification; specialized processing distinguishes microbial cells from abiotic particles [11]

Applications Across Sample Types

The performance differences between HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH become particularly evident when applied to challenging sample types:

Marine Sediments and Environmental Samples: HCR-FISH has been successfully optimized for detecting microbes in marine sediments, where traditional FISH approaches struggle with low signal intensity and false-positive signals [11] [3]. Critical optimizations include specialized sample pretreatment methods, modified hybridization buffers, and image processing methods that enhance DAPI signals of microbial cells against abiotic particles [11].

Whole-Mount Vertebrate Embryos: HCR-FISH enables multiplexed mapping of mRNA expression in intact zebrafish embryos, achieving deep sample penetration, high signal-to-background, and sharp subcellular signal localization [44] [45]. The ability to simultaneously detect multiple targets in a single specimen using orthogonal HCR amplifiers addresses a longstanding challenge in developmental biology research [44].

FFPE Tissue Sections: Both HCR-FISH and HCR-IHC applications have been demonstrated in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded mouse brain and human breast tissue sections, achieving high signal-to-background ratios ranging from 15-609 with a median of 90 across 21 protein imaging scenarios [45].

The method validation approaches combining HCR-FISH with other imaging and molecular techniques demonstrate clear advantages over CARD-FISH in most application scenarios, particularly when multiplexing, quantitative analysis, and subcellular resolution are priorities. The enzyme-free, isothermal mechanism of HCR-FISH provides superior signal localization while preserving target integrity for subsequent analyses.

The development of next-generation DNA HCR amplifiers has substantially improved signal gain while reducing costs and improving reagent durability [44]. Furthermore, the recent extension of HCR to protein detection (HCR IHC) creates a unified framework for simultaneous quantitative imaging of proteins and RNAs within the same sample [45].

For researchers designing studies that combine in situ hybridization with other imaging and molecular techniques, HCR-FISH represents the more versatile and powerful approach, particularly for complex, multiplexed experiments in challenging samples. CARD-FISH may retain utility in specialized applications where its particular signal amplification mechanism offers unique benefits, but HCR-FISH generally provides superior performance for most contemporary research applications requiring combination with other advanced imaging technologies.

In the field of microbial ecology and diagnostic pathology, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) enables researchers to identify and visualize microorganisms within their native environments. However, the practical application of this powerful technique is often hampered by challenges related to sensitivity and specificity, particularly in complex samples. Oligotrophic habitats like marine waters, sediments, and certain tissue types contain microorganisms with low ribosomal RNA content, rendering them nearly undetectable by standard FISH protocols [10]. Furthermore, these samples often exhibit high autofluorescence or contain abiotic particles that adsorb probes non-specifically, generating false-positive signals that complicate accurate interpretation [11] [3].

To overcome these limitations, signal amplification methods have been developed. This guide objectively compares two prominent approaches: Catalyzed Reporter Deposition FISH (CARD-FISH) and Hybridization Chain Reaction FISH (HCR-FISH). We focus specifically on their performance concerning autofluorescence and background challenges, supported by experimental data from recent studies.

Technology Comparison: Mechanisms and Workflows

Key Technological Differences

The core difference between CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH lies in their amplification mechanisms. CARD-FISH relies on an enzyme-driven deposition of fluorescent tyramide, while HCR-FISH employs an enzyme-free, isothermal nucleic acid amplification system.

• CARD-FISH uses horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled oligonucleotide probes. After hybridization, the enzyme catalyzes the deposition of numerous fluorescently labeled tyramide molecules onto nearby proteins, dramatically amplifying the signal [10] [11].
• HCR-FISH utilizes DNA initiator probes that bind the target rRNA. These initiators then trigger a cascade of hybridization events between two fluorescently labeled DNA hairpin molecules (amplifiers), forming a large polymer at the target site [11] [2].

Visualizing the Workflows

The distinct protocols and their pain points are illustrated in the following workflow diagrams.

Diagram 1: CARD-FISH workflow and key challenges.

Diagram 2: HCR-FISH workflow and its v3.0 background suppression mechanism.

Performance Data in Complex Samples

Quantitative Comparison of Key Metrics

The following table summarizes experimental data comparing the performance of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH in challenging samples.

Table 1: Experimental Performance Comparison of CARD-FISH vs. HCR-FISH

Performance Metric	CARD-FISH	Standard HCR-FISH	Improved/quickHCR-FISH	Experimental Context & Citation
Signal Increase	26- to 41-fold higher than standard FISH [10]	Up to 8-fold higher than standard FISH [10]	Comparable to CARD-FISH [10]	Gram-negative bacteria & marine samples [10]
Background Suppression	N/A	High false-positive rates on sediment particles [11] [3]	~50-60 fold suppression with split-initiator probes (v3.0) [2]	Marine sediments & whole-mount chicken embryos [11] [2]
Probe Permeability	Poor; requires harsh permeabilization due to large HRP-Probe (~40 kDa) [10] [11]	Good; smaller probes facilitate cell entry [11]	Excellent; optimized for Gram-positive bacteria [10]	Pure cultures & environmental samples [10] [11]
Hands-on Time	High; lengthy protocol with multiple intricate steps [46]	Moderate [11]	Lower; simplified and automated protocols available [46]	Clinical lab automation study [46]

Addressing Autofluorescence and False Positives

Autofluorescence and non-specific binding are critical challenges in complex samples like sediments and tissues.

• HCR-FISH Optimization: One study optimized HCR-FISH for marine sediments by increasing the initiator probe concentration to 10 μmol/L and refining the hybridization buffer with blocking reagents. This significantly reduced false-positive signals caused by probe adsorption to abiotic particles [11] [3]. Furthermore, an image-processing method was developed to enhance DAPI staining of microbial cells against autofluorescent particles, providing a more reliable reference [11].
• Third-Generation HCR: The development of HCR v3.0 with split-initiator probes directly tackles amplified background. In this system, two separate probes, each carrying half of the initiator sequence, must hybridize adjacently on the target mRNA to form a complete initiator and trigger the amplification cascade. A single probe binding non-specifically cannot initiate HCR, providing automatic background suppression. Gel studies demonstrated typical suppression of non-specific amplification by approximately 60-fold [2].

Experimental Protocols for Challenging Samples

Optimized HCR-FISH Protocol for Marine Sediments

This protocol, adapted from optimization studies, is designed to maximize signal-to-noise in environmental samples [11] [3].

• Sample Fixation and Pretreatment:

  • Fix samples with paraformaldehyde (PFA) [10].
  • For sediments, apply detachment methods (e.g., sonication) to separate cells from particles.
  • Treat fixed samples with lysozyme (10 mg/mL at 37°C for 1 hour) to permeabilize Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacterial cell walls [10] [11].

• Hybridization:

  • Hybridization Buffer: 900 mM NaCl, 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 0.01% SDS, and a variable concentration of formamide (depending on probe stringency requirements). The addition of a blocking reagent (e.g., 1% w/v Blocking Reagent) and dextran sulfate is critical to reduce non-specific binding [10] [11].
  • Initiator Probe Concentration: Use a final concentration of 10 μmol/L in the hybridization buffer, a key increase from earlier protocols (1 μmol/L) that significantly boosts signal intensity [11] [3].
  • Incubate at the appropriate hybridization temperature (e.g., 46°C) for several hours or overnight [11] [30].

• Washing:

  • Wash with a pre-warmed buffer to remove unbound probes. A common buffer is: 215 mM NaCl, 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 5 mM EDTA, and 0.01% SDS [11].

• Signal Amplification:

  • Amplification Buffer: Use a buffer containing 75-150 mM NaCl, 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 0.01% SDS, and the same blocking reagent and dextran sulfate as in the hybridization buffer [10].
  • Add fluorescently labeled DNA hairpins (H1 and H2) to the amplification buffer.
  • Incubate in the dark at room temperature for at least 4-8 hours. Overnight incubation can further boost signal in thick samples [11] [30].

• Counterstaining and Imaging:

  • Counterstain with DAPI. Use image processing to differentiate microbial cells from autofluorescent abiotic particles [11].
  • Wash and mount samples for microscopy.

CARD-FISH Protocol for Oligotrophic Waters

This standard protocol highlights steps critical for managing background in low-biomass samples [10].

• Permeabilization:

  • This is a critical and sample-specific step. After PFA fixation, embed cells in agarose and dry on slides.
  • Treat with lysozyme (10 mg/mL at 37°C for 1 hour) for most bacteria. For Gram-positive bacteria, additional treatment with proteinase K or achromopeptidase may be necessary [10].

• Endogenous Peroxidase Inactivation:

  • Incubate samples with Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ (e.g., 0.15% Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ in methanol for 30 minutes) to inactivate endogenous peroxidases that would otherwise cause false-positive signals [10] [11]. This step can degrade target nucleic acids.

• Hybridization with HRP-Labeled Probe:

  • Hybridize with the HRP-labeled probe in a suitable buffer at 35°C for several hours [10].

• Tyramide Signal Amplification:

  • Incubate with fluorescently labeled tyramide in the presence of Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚. The incubation time must be optimized for each sample type to prevent excessive background from diffusion of the reactive tyramide radicals [10].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Reagents for HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH Experiments

Reagent / Solution	Critical Function	Example & Note
Paraformaldehyde (PFA)	Fixative; preserves cellular morphology and immobilizes nucleic acids.	Typically used at 4% concentration. A key first step for both protocols [10] [11].
Lysozyme	Permeabilization agent; digests bacterial cell walls.	Essential for CARD-FISH and often needed for HCR-FISH (10 mg/mL) [10] [11].
Formamide	Denaturant; controls hybridization stringency.	Concentration varies by probe; higher % increases stringency and reduces off-target binding [11].
Blocking Reagent	Reduces non-specific adsorption of probes.	Critical addition to HCR-FISH buffers for sediment samples (e.g., from Roche) [10] [11].
HCR Initiator Probes	Target-binding DNA probes that trigger the HCR cascade.	Designed to be universal for 16S rRNA. Concentration of 10 μmol/L is optimal [11] [3].
HCR Amplifier Hairpins	Fluorescently labeled DNA hairpins that polymerize for signal amplification.	Hairpins H1 and H2 are pre-validated for different initiator systems (e.g., B1, B2, B3) [2] [27].
HRP-Labeled Probe	The probe that carries the horseradish peroxidase enzyme.	Large molecule size necessitates harsh permeabilization [10] [11].
Fluorescent Tyramide	The substrate for HRP; numerous molecules are deposited per probe.	Signal can diffuse away from the original target site, reducing resolution [10] [11].
Hydrogen Peroxide (Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚)	Inactivates endogenous peroxidases in samples.	Required for CARD-FISH but can damage target nucleic acids [10] [11].

Both CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH provide the signal amplification necessary to detect microbes in complex, challenging samples where standard FISH fails.

• CARD-FISH has been a gold standard for its high sensitivity, demonstrated in oligotrophic marine waters. However, its drawbacks—including harsh permeabilization requirements, potential for target degradation during peroxidase inactivation, and signal diffusion—can exacerbate background and autofluorescence issues [10] [11].
• HCR-FISH, particularly in its optimized and third-generation forms, emerges as a powerful alternative. Its enzyme-free, isothermal nature offers superior probe penetration and preserves RNA targets. The development of split-initiator probes (HCR v3.0) directly addresses the critical challenge of amplified background, providing robust performance even with large, unoptimized probe sets in highly autofluorescent samples like whole-mount embryos and sediments [11] [2]. Protocol optimizations, such as increased probe concentration and modified buffers, have further solidified its utility for environmental microbiology [11] [3].

For new studies in complex samples where autofluorescence and background are primary concerns, HCR-FISH v3.0 presents a compelling choice, combining high sensitivity with inherent mechanisms for background suppression. CARD-FISH remains a highly sensitive option but requires careful optimization and handling to mitigate its inherent limitations in these challenging contexts.

Within the field of environmental microbiology and spatial transcriptomics, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a cornerstone technique for identifying and visualizing microorganisms or specific RNA molecules within their native context. Signal amplification is often necessary to detect targets with low abundance, and two prominent methods have emerged: Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH (CARD-FISH) and Hybridization Chain Reaction-FISH (HCR-FISH). Evaluating these techniques through the lens of throughput and accessibility—encompassing protocol duration, cost, and equipment requirements—is critical for researchers selecting the optimal method for their projects. This guide objectively compares CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH by synthesizing current experimental data, providing a clear framework for decision-making.

Core Technology and Mechanism Comparison

The fundamental difference between CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH lies in their signal amplification mechanisms. CARD-FISH relies on an enzyme-driven process, whereas HCR-FISH is an enzyme-free, nucleic acid-based method.

CARD-FISH Signaling Pathway

The CARD-FISH method utilizes a horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled oligonucleotide probe. Upon hybridization to the target RNA, the HRP enzyme catalyzes the deposition of numerous fluorescently labeled tyramide molecules onto nearby proteins, leading to a localized, high-intensity signal [11] [7]. A critical prerequisite for this method is the permeabilization of the cell to allow the large HRP-labeled probes to enter, as well as the inactivation of endogenous peroxidases to prevent false-positive results [11] [10].

HCR-FISH Signaling Pathway

HCR-FISH is an isothermal, enzyme-free amplification method [47]. It uses an unlabeled "initiator" probe that binds to the target. This initiator then triggers a cascading, self-assembly reaction between two species of fluorescently labeled DNA hairpins, forming a long, tethered polymer chain that accumulates at the target site [11]. This mechanism keeps the amplification product localized, preserving subcellular resolution, and allows for independent, orthogonal amplifier sets to be used for multiplexing different targets simultaneously [47].

The diagram below illustrates the key procedural steps and decision points for each method.

Quantitative Performance Comparison

The core technological differences translate directly into varying performance outcomes regarding protocol duration, detection efficiency, and multiplexing capability.

Protocol Duration and Multiplexing Efficiency

A significant advantage of HCR-FISH is its streamlined workflow and compatibility with high-level multiplexing. Experimental data shows that CARD-FISH protocols are inherently sequential, making multiplexing cumbersome. For example, 2-plex imaging in whole-mount zebrafish embryos can take up to 4 days, and 3-plex imaging in chicken embryos can take 5 days due to the need for serial amplification rounds [47]. In contrast, the enzyme-free, orthogonal nature of HCR amplifiers allows for simultaneous one-step amplification of multiple targets. This enables 10-plex imaging of RNA and protein targets in a single experiment without a proportional increase in protocol time [47]. Furthermore, newer iterations like quickHCR-FISH have been developed specifically to shorten amplification times, and the recently described TDDN-FISH (an advanced DNA nanostructure-based method) is reported to be approximately eightfold faster per round than HCR-FISH [48] [10].

Detection Sensitivity and Efficiency

Detection sensitivity is paramount when studying targets with low abundance, such as microorganisms in oligotrophic environments or low-expression RNA transcripts.

Table 1: Comparative Detection Efficiency of FISH Methods

Method	Sample Type	Target	Detection Efficiency (vs. DAPI counts)	Key Finding	Source
CARD-FISH	Ultra-oligotrophic alpine karst aquifer water	Prokaryotic populations	83% (Average)	Substantially higher recovery than conventional FISH.	[7]
CARD-FISH	Bottled natural mineral water	Prokaryotic populations	89% (Average)	Suitable for ultra-oligotrophic conditions.	[7]
Conventional FISH	Ultra-oligotrophic alpine karst aquifer water	Prokaryotic populations	15% (Average)	Low efficiency for low-activity cells.	[7]
HCR-FISH	Marine sediments	Microbes with low rRNA	Up to 8-fold higher than standard FISH	Potential alternative to CARD-FISH for low rRNA content.	[10]

The data in Table 1 demonstrates that CARD-FISH provides a substantial enhancement in detection efficiency over conventional FISH in low-biomass environments [7]. HCR-FISH also offers a significant sensitivity boost compared to standard FISH, making it a viable and more accessible alternative to CARD-FISH for many applications, particularly where enzyme inactivation and permeabilization are problematic [11] [10].

Experimental Protocols in Practice

To ensure reproducibility, detailed methodologies from key comparative studies are outlined below.

Detailed CARD-FISH Protocol for Oligotrophic Water Samples

This protocol, adapted for ultra-oligotrophic ground and drinking water, highlights the critical steps for achieving high detection efficiency [7].

• Sample Preparation: Water samples (60-90 ml) are fixed with paraformaldehyde (2-4% final concentration) for 14-18 hours at 4°C. Cells are then collected onto 0.2-μm polycarbonate filters, washed, and stored at -20°C.
• Permeabilization: Filters are embedded in an agarose matrix. A directed enzymatic permeabilization (using lysozyme or proteinase K) is performed to enable the penetration of the large HRP-labeled probes into the cells. This step is crucial and must be optimized for different sample types.
• Endogenous Peroxidase Inactivation: Samples are treated with hydrogen peroxide (Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚) to inactivate endogenous cellular peroxidases, thereby reducing background signal.
• Hybridization: Filters are incubated with HRP-labeled oligonucleotide probes (e.g., EUB338 for Bacteria) in hybridization buffer at appropriate temperatures.
• Signal Amplification: The HRP catalyzes the deposition of fluorescently labeled tyramide onto proteins adjacent to the hybridization site.
• Counterstaining and Imaging: Cells are counterstained with DAPI and visualized via epifluorescence microscopy.

Detailed HCR-FISH Protocol for Environmental Samples

This optimized protocol for marine sediments addresses challenges like false-positive signals [11].

• Sample Fixation and Pretreatment: Cells are fixed with paraformaldehyde. For complex samples like sediments, various detachment and extraction methods are tested to reduce abiotic particle adsorption and false positives.
• Hybridization with Initiator Probe: Samples are hybridized with an unlabeled initiator probe. The optimal probe concentration was found to be 10 μmol/L, significantly higher than in traditional FISH, to ensure clear and intense signals.
• Washing: Excess initiator probes are removed with a stringent wash buffer.
• HCR Amplification: Fluorescently labeled DNA hairpin amplifiers (Probes A and B) are added simultaneously. The initiator probe triggers the self-assembly of these hairpins into a fluorescent polymer at the target site. This step is isothermal and does not require enzymes.
• Counterstaining and Imaging: An image processing method is used to enhance DAPI signals against abiotic particles. Samples are then imaged using epifluorescence or confocal microscopy.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH relies on a set of key reagents and materials. The table below lists essential components for setting up these experiments.

Table 2: Essential Reagents and Materials for CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH

Item	Function in Protocol	Example/Note
Paraformaldehyde	Fixative for preserving cell morphology and nucleic acids.	Typically used at 2-4% concentration.
Permeabilization Enzymes	Facilitates entry of large probes into cells.	CARD-FISH critical: Lysozyme, Proteinase K.
HRP-labeled Oligonucleotide Probes	Binds target rRNA; contains enzyme for signal generation.	Core reagent for CARD-FISH.
Fluorescently Labeled Tyramide	Deposits locally upon HRP catalysis for signal amplification.	Core reagent for CARD-FISH.
Hydrogen Peroxide (Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚)	Inactivates endogenous peroxidases to reduce background.	Critical for CARD-FISH specificity.
HCR Initiator Probes	Unlabeled DNA probes that bind the target and initiate HCR.	Core reagent for HCR-FISH.
HCR Hairpin Amplifiers	Fluorescently labeled DNA hairpins that self-assemble into polymers.	Core reagent for HCR-FISH; sold in sets (A & B).
Formamide	Component of hybridization buffer to control stringency.	Used in both protocols; concentration is optimized.
Dextran Sulfate	Added to hybridization buffer to increase probe effective concentration.	Used in quickHCR-FISH to boost signal [10].
Blocking Reagent	Reduces non-specific binding of probes.	Used in quickHCR-FISH to lower background [10].

The choice between CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH involves a direct trade-off between ultimate sensitivity and practical accessibility.

• CARD-FISH is a powerful and established method that delivers exceptionally high detection efficiency in the most challenging, oligotrophic samples [7]. However, this comes at the cost of a lengthier, more complex protocol that requires careful optimization of permeabilization and inactivation steps. Its sequential nature limits its throughput for highly multiplexed studies [47].
• HCR-FISH offers a streamlined, enzyme-free alternative that is inherently faster and more amenable to high-level multiplexing [47]. While its absolute signal intensity may be lower than CARD-FISH in some extreme cases, its performance is sufficient for a wide range of applications, including the detection of microbes with low ribosomal content in environmental samples [11] [10]. Its simpler workflow and lower barrier to implementation make it highly accessible.

For research focused on maximizing the detection of single, low-abundance targets in ultra-oligotrophic systems, CARD-FISH remains the gold standard. For projects requiring multiplexed target detection, quantitative analysis, and higher throughput with a more accessible and robust protocol, HCR-FISH presents a compelling and powerful alternative.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a cornerstone technique for detecting and identifying microorganisms in their natural context. For targets with low abundance of ribosomal RNA, signal amplification is essential. This guide objectively compares two powerful amplification methods: Catalyzed Reporter Deposition-FISH (CARD-FISH) and the hybridization chain reaction-FISH (HCR-FISH). We focus on their application in environmental and clinical settings, providing experimental data and protocols to inform method selection.

Both CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH are designed to overcome the limited sensitivity of traditional FISH, particularly for detecting microorganisms with low cellular rRNA content in oligotrophic habitats like marine water [10]. However, they achieve signal amplification through fundamentally different biochemical principles.

CARD-FISH relies on an enzyme-mediated deposition of fluorescent tyramides. A probe labeled with horseradish peroxidase (HRP) hybridizes to the target. Subsequently, in the presence of hydrogen peroxide, the HRP catalyzes the conversion of fluorescently labeled tyramide into a radical intermediate that deposits rapidly and binds covalently to electron-rich residues of proteins near the hybridization site [9]. This deposition can yield a 26- to 41-fold higher fluorescence signal than standard FISH [10].

HCR-FISH is an enzyme-free, isothermal method based on triggered self-assembly. A DNA "initiator" probe binds to the target rRNA. This initiator then triggers a cascading hybridization event between two stable, fluorescently labeled DNA hairpin molecules (Amplifier A and B). The hairpins open and assemble into a long nicked double-stranded DNA polymer, tethered to the initiator site, which carries hundreds of fluorophores [11] [45].

The table below summarizes the core mechanistic differences.

Table 1: Fundamental comparison of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH mechanisms.

Feature	CARD-FISH	HCR-FISH
Amplification Principle	Enzyme-catalyzed radical deposition	Enzyme-free, triggered self-assembly
Key Reagents	HRP-labeled probe, Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚, Tyramide-Fluor	Initiator probe, DNA hairpin amplifiers
Signal Localization	Diffusible radical; can diffuse from enzyme site [45]	Tethered DNA polymer; high subcellular resolution [45]
Typical Signal Gain	26-41x over standard FISH [10]	~8x over standard FISH [10]

The following diagram illustrates the key steps and reagents involved in the HCR-FISH workflow.

Diagram 1: HCR-FISH experimental workflow.

Quantitative Performance Comparison in Environmental Samples

Environmental samples like marine seawater and sediments present a significant challenge due to small cell sizes, low rRNA content, and the presence of inhibitory substances. The performance of CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH in these matrices is critical for microbial ecology studies.

Sensitivity and Detection Rates

Studies directly comparing the two methods in marine environments have found their sensitivity to be comparable for many applications. One study reported that detection rates with HCR-FISH were comparable to CARD-FISH for coastal picoplankton and sediment when viewed via epifluorescence microscopy [23]. The improved quickHCR-FISH protocol was demonstrated as a viable alternative to CARD-FISH for identifying environmental microorganisms in marine seawater and sediment samples [10].

Impact on Downstream Genome Analysis

A critical consideration for targeted metagenomics is the effect of the FISH protocol on DNA integrity for subsequent sequencing. A pipeline developed for targeted metagenomics of environmental bacteria found that cell fixation was a key factor.

Table 2: Impact of FISH method and fixation on downstream genome sequencing.

Factor	CARD-FISH	HCR-FISH
Typical Fixative	Paraformaldehyde (cross-linking) [9]	Ethanol (denaturing) [23]
DNA Damage Concern	High (Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ radical reaction; cross-linking) [23]	Low (enzyme-free, no cross-linking fixative)
Genome Assembly Quality	Formaldehyde-fixed cells failed to yield sufficient MDA product [23]	Ethanol-fixed cells yielded good quality metagenome-assembled genomes [23]

The following diagram outlines the optimized HCR-FISH and sorting pipeline for genome recovery.

Diagram 2: HCR-FISH and FACS pipeline for genomics.

Experimental Protocols for Environmental Samples

Optimized HCR-FISH Protocol for Sediments

Extensive optimization of HCR-FISH for complex sediment samples has been performed [11] [3]. Key modifications to earlier protocols include:

• Initiator Probe Concentration: Increasing the initiator probe concentration in the hybridization buffer from 1 μmol/L to 10 μmol/L was critical to generate a clear, intensive signal sufficient to identify individual cells [11] [3].
• Hairpin Selection: Screening of five sets of HCR initiator/amplifier pairs is recommended, as performance varies. Two sets showed high hybridization efficiency and specificity for the tested bacterium (Escherichia coli) and archaeon (Methanococcoides methylutens) [11].
• Sample Pretreatment: A combination of detachment methods (e.g., ultrasonic bath) and extraction methods (e.g., Nycodenz density gradient centrifugation) helps reduce false-positive signals from abiotic particle absorption in sediments [11].
• Buffer Composition: Modification of hybridization and amplification buffers with blocking reagent and dextran sulfate, similar to CARD-FISH protocols, improves signal intensity and localization [10].

CARD-FISH Protocol for Environmental Microbes

The standard CARD-FISH protocol requires careful optimization to balance signal and background [9]:

• Permeabilization: This is a critical, laborious step due to the large size of the HRP-labeled probe (~40 kDa). Enzymatic treatments (e.g., lysozyme) are commonly used after immobilizing cells on slides with a low-melting-point agarose overlay to prevent cell loss.
• Signal Enhancement: Adding dextran sulfate (10-30%) and blocking reagent to the CARD working solution improves signal intensity and localization while minimizing background.
• Reducing Background: Using a lower probe concentration (0.1 μM) than in standard FISH is necessary to reduce nonspecific fluorescent signals. Washing at elevated temperatures (45-60°C) after the CARD reaction can reduce spotty background [9].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagent Solutions

The table below lists key reagents and their functions for implementing CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH protocols.

Table 3: Key research reagents for CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH.

Reagent / Solution	Function	Application / Note
Horseradish Peroxidase (HRP)	Enzyme for catalyzing tyramide deposition	CARD-FISH
Fluorescently Labeled Tyramide	Substrate for deposition; the amplified signal	CARD-FISH
Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚	Cofactor for the HRP-catalyzed reaction	CARD-FISH; can damage nucleic acids [23]
DNA Initiator Probe	Oligonucleotide that binds target rRNA and triggers HCR	HCR-FISH
Fluorescent DNA Hairpins (H1/H2)	Amplifier probes that self-assemble into a polymer	HCR-FISH; require design of orthogonal sets [11]
Dextran Sulfate	Volume exclusion agent, concentrates reagents	Used in hybridization/amplification buffers for both methods [10] [9]
Lysozyme	Enzyme that hydrolyzes peptidoglycan for cell wall permeabilization	Critical for CARD-FISH; often needed for HCR-FISH of Gram-positive bacteria [9]
Low-Melting-Point Agarose	Embedding medium to prevent cell loss during processing	Used in both methods, especially with harsh permeabilization [9]

The choice between CARD-FISH and HCR-FISH is context-dependent, guided by the experimental goals and sample type.

• CARD-FISH remains a highly sensitive standard, particularly when maximum signal amplification is the primary goal and DNA integrity for downstream sequencing is not a concern. Its main drawbacks are the potential for DNA damage, the need for extensive permeabilization optimization, and signal diffusion limiting resolution.
• HCR-FISH offers several distinct advantages for a growing number of applications. It is a true alternative, particularly when strong cell permeabilization or radical reactions should be avoided [10]. Its benefits are multifaceted: better preservation of nucleic acids for subsequent genome sequencing [23], easier multiplexing due to the availability of orthogonal amplifier sets [45], and higher spatial resolution due to tethered amplification polymers. The enzyme-free, one-step amplification for multiple targets also simplifies the workflow for multiplexed studies [45].

In conclusion, while CARD-FISH has historically been the gold standard for sensitive detection in autofluorescent samples, HCR-FISH has emerged as a robust, flexible, and less destructive alternative. Its superior performance in maintaining DNA integrity for genomics and its inherent multiplexing capabilities make it increasingly suitable for modern, targeted studies in both environmental and clinical microbiology.

Conclusion

The choice between HCR-FISH and CARD-FISH represents a critical strategic decision that balances sensitivity requirements with practical experimental constraints. While CARD-FISH demonstrates superior absolute sensitivity with 26- to 41-fold higher signal amplification than conventional FISH, HCR-FISH offers significant advantages in specificity, ease of use, and compatibility with delicate samples due to its smaller probes and enzyme-free mechanism. The emerging trend toward techniques like high-fidelity amp-FISH that combine the benefits of both methods points to a future of increasingly precise and accessible in situ detection technologies. For biomedical research and drug development, this evolution promises enhanced capability for detecting low-abundance biomarkers, identifying somatic mutations in cancer biopsies, and validating single-cell sequencing data with spatial context, ultimately accelerating the translation of basic research into clinical applications.

References

• 1. Nonlinear hybridization chain reaction-based functional ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956566320308009]
• 2. Third-generation in situ hybridization chain reaction [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6031405/]
• 3. Optimizing the hybridization chain reaction-fluorescence in ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42995-021-00098-8]
• 4. CARD-FISH in the Sequencing Era: Opening a New ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2021.640066/full]
• 5. CARD-FISH for Environmental Microorganisms [https://www.creative-bioarray.com/services/card-fish-for-environmental-microorganisms.htm]
• 6. HCRâ„¢ Gold RNA-FISH [https://www.molecularinstruments.com/hcr-gold-rnafish]
• 7. and drinking water - PMC - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3160464/]
• 8. Proximity-dependent initiation of hybridization chain reaction [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8294]
• 9. CARD-FISH for Environmental Microorganisms [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4070690/]
• 10. Rapid and sensitive identification of marine bacteria by an ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0723202015000958]
• 11. Optimizing the hybridization chain reaction-fluorescence in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10077247/]
• 12. Tyramide Signal Amplification [https://biotium.com/technology/primary-secondary-antibody-conjugates/tyramide-signal-amplification/]
• 13. TSA and Other Peroxidase-Based Signal Amplification ... [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/references/molecular-probes-the-handbook/ultrasensitive-detection-technology/tyramide-signal-amplification-technology.html]
• 14. Hybridization Chain Reaction Fluorescence In Situ ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10949069/]
• 15. One probe fits all: a highly customizable modular RNA in situ ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12148028/]
• 16. Use of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) in Diagnosis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7221545/]
• 17. CARD-FISH: Illuminating Microbial Diversity [https://www.creative-bioarray.com/support/card-fish-illuminating-microbial-diversity.htm]
• 18. Quantification of Target Molecules Needed To Detect ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2519275/]
• 19. Integrating double-labeling HCR-FISH into a ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235218642400258X]
• 20. HCR RNA-FISH — Galloway Lab Protocols documentation [https://gallowaylabmit.github.io/protocols/en/latest/protocols/biochem_and_analytics/hcr.html]
• 21. Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization and Catalyzed Reporter ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC123953/]
• 22. Protocol to investigate gene expression heterogeneity in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666166725006185]
• 23. A pipeline for targeted metagenomics of environmental bacteria [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-020-0790-7]
• 24. High-fidelity amplified FISH for the detection and allelic discrimination of single mRNA molecules - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31221755/]
• 25. High-fidelity amplified FISH (amp-FISH) for sensitive and specific in situ detection of RNA - Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey [https://www.researchwithrutgers.com/en/publications/high-fidelity-amplified-fish-amp-fish-for-sensitive-and-specific-/]
• 26. Imaging biofilms using fluorescence in situ hybridization [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2023.1195803/full]
• 27. A rapid and sensitive, multiplex, whole mount RNA ... [https://plantmethods.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13007-023-01108-9]
• 28. Preclinical validation of fluorescence in situ hybridization ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360021034031]
• 29. Guidance for Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization Testing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1867444/]
• 30. Tips to Boost Performance in Your HCRâ„¢ RNA ... [https://www.hcrimaging.com/articles/boost-performance]
• 31. Optimization of hybridization chain reaction for imaging ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11446410/]
• 32. A simple and fast optical clearing method for whole-mount ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12342960/]
• 33. 3D exploration of gene expression in chicken embryos ... [https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-024-01922-0]
• 34. Poly(A) probe HCR RNA-FISH specifically marks pyriform ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12616890/]
• 35. An Improved Protocol for Quantification of Freshwater ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC154517/]
• 36. A simple protocol for attenuating the auto-fluorescence of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167701216300082]
• 37. Cassini: streamlined and scalable method for in situ ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63798-0]
• 38. Tetrahedral DNA dendritic nanostructure-enhanced FISH for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12537822/]
• 39. One-fits-all Pretreatment Protocol Facilitating Fluorescence ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31236139/]
• 40. Eukaryotic Cell Capture by Amplified Magnetic in situ ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8591292/]
• 41. Sensitive Quantitative Detection of Commensal Bacteria by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1797142/]
• 42. High-fidelity amplified FISH for the detection and allelic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6628817/]
• 43. Discrimination of Single-Nucleotide Variants Based on an ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8961872/]
• 44. Next-Generation in Situ Hybridization Chain Reaction [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4046802/]
• 45. Hybridization chain reaction enables a unified approach to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8645210/]
• 46. Automation of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40962484/]
• 47. HCR spectral imaging: 10-plex, quantitative, high- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10941662/]
• 48. Tetrahedral DNA dendritic nanostructure-enhanced FISH ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64294-1]