Introduction
At Bridge Informatics, we regularly attend leading scientific conferences to stay at the forefront of emerging technologies. By engaging directly with the researchers shaping the field, we ensure we’re delivering the most innovative and effective solutions to our clients.
Bridge Informatics’ Data Scientist Alissa Cait recently attended North America’s first dedicated single-cell and spatial biology conference, True North Spatial 2026 (TNS2026).
Across talks and discussions, one recurring idea stood out:
There is a temptation, whenever a powerful new technology arrives, to declare the old one obsolete. In biology, that temptation has been especially strong around single-cell and spatial omics.
But if the TNS2026 conference made one thing clear, it’s that the field has matured past that framing. The conversation is no longer “which platform wins.” It’s about knowing which tool to reach for, and when.
This post is for researchers navigating an increasingly crowded toolkit. Read on to see what four speakers at True North Spatial 2026 taught us about choosing the right platform for the right question.
Converging Platforms, Stronger Biology
Take Yongfu Wang’s presentation on Stereo-seq and the human basal ganglia. His team profiled seven million cells across multiple donors… a dataset so large it required stitching together both Stereo-seq and MERFISH platforms. Crucially, the two technologies arrived at similar results. That wasn’t a problem; it was the point. Having orthogonal platforms that converge on the same biology is exactly what gives a field confidence in its findings. Wang noted that:
- Stereo-seq excels in resolution, coverage area, and whole-transcriptome capture, including non-coding RNA
- MERFISH brings complementary antibody-based targeting
Neither is universally superior. Both earned a seat at the table.
Filling Gaps, Not Replacing Workflows
The same logic played out in Erica Scott‘s presentation on DISCO (Digital Microfluidic Isolation of Single Cells for Omics). Scott, who is also a Data Scientist at Bridge Informatics, highlighted how DISCO isn’t trying to replace bulk sequencing or standard single-cell workflows. It’s filling a gap: hypothesis-driven, morphology- and location-guided isolation of specific cells from tissue sections, with the researcher making deliberate choices about what to capture and why. Scott described it as a way to “reinstall the researcher into the experimental and capture procedure.” The platform pairs with downstream tools – 10x Chromium, ddPCR, RNA-FISH – rather than competing with them.
The Importance of Sample-Specific Design
Emilia Luca‘s work on the inner ear underscored a third dimension of the toolkit idea: sample-specific optimization. The cochlea is encased in the densest bone in the human body. Getting usable spatial data required a custom decalcification protocol for Xenium, an optimized 10x multiome workflow for fresh frozen tissue, and a 300-gene custom panel designed specifically for vestibular structures. There is no one-size-fits-all approach here. The toolkit has to be assembled per experiment.
Connecting Scales with New Technologies
Even Sabrina Leslie‘s single-molecule work on lipid nanoparticles, ostensibly a different field entirely, echoed the same philosophy. Her CLiC technology captures individual LNP particles in microwells and tracks them over time, revealing structural heterogeneity invisible to bulk measurements. She described plans to layer this single-particle data over multiomics readouts, connecting structure to function across scales. Different tools, different resolutions, same question.
A Field Learning Its Own Language
What the True North Spatial community seems to be building is not a monoculture around any one platform, but a genuine methodological vocabulary.
Researchers are learning the tradeoffs:
- Stereo-seq versus MERFISH
- DISCO versus standard dissociation
- Xenium versus custom panels
That fluency — more than any single breakthrough — is what will make spatial biology genuinely useful for medicine.
The Toolkit Is the Point
The toolkit is the point. The question is whether researchers have the training to use it well….. which, judging by the workshops running upstairs, is exactly what the field is working on next.
Ready to explore how single-cell and spatial tools can work for your research? Click here to schedule a free introductory call with a member of our team.
PS – this is the first of three articles Alissa Cait is publishing on her thoughts after attending TNS2026. Visit https://www.bridgeinformatics.com/blog for the entire series!