Brain Repair: Gatekeeping astrocyte identity

New findings cast doubt on whether suppressing the RNA-binding protein PTBP1 can force astrocytes to become dopaminergic neurons.
  1. Alexis Cooper  Is a corresponding author
  2. Benedikt Berninger  Is a corresponding author
  1. Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, King's College London, United Kingdom
  2. The Francis Crick Institute, United Kingdom
  3. University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Germany

As a cell acquires its final identity, it usually closes the door on the other cellular fates it could have adopted. Valiant guardian mechanisms ensure that this gate remains shut, even as a plethora of signals threaten to crack it open once more. These processes are particularly crucial for cells from highly related lineages – such as astrocytes and neurons, two types of brain cells that derive from the same progenitor cells.

In the past 15 years, work has shown that astrocytes, which belong to a class of non-neuronal cells that support and fine-tune the activity of nerve cells, can be converted into neurons if they are forced to express neurogenic transcription factors (Götz and Bocchi, 2021). In some brain regions such as the mouse striatum, injury can even re-activate a neurogenic programme which is otherwise suppressed (Magnusson et al., 2014). This raises the intriguing possibility that specific mechanisms help to safeguard the identity of astrocytes; these processes could also be harnessed to awaken neurogenic potential in astrocytes and help repair neural damage.

A top-selling candidate for gatekeeping the astrocyte-to-neuron conversion is the RNA-binding PTBP1 which, in vitro, inhibits neuronal fate by ensuring that a master repressor of neuronal genes remains active (Makeyev et al., 2007). The discovery of these regulatory interactions suggested that simply downregulating PTBP1 could release the brake on a neurogenic programme in non-neuronal cells (Xue et al., 2013; Figure 1A). In fact, two recent bodies of work suggest that when PTBP1 is knocked down, mouse astrocytes can turn into dopaminergic neurons with remarkable efficiency (Qian et al., 2020, Zhou et al., 2020). This class of nerve cells degenerates in Parkinson’s disease, and both studies reported a drastic amelioration of motor deficits in a mouse model of this condition, with enormous implications for new brain therapies. Now, in eLife, Mingtao Li and colleagues at Sun Yat-sen University – including Weizhao Chen as first author – report results that question these findings (Chen et al., 2022).

Deactivating PTBP1 in astrocytes fails to convert the cells into neurons.

(A) The hypothesis tested by Chen et al. is that the protein PTBP1 stops astrocytes (pale pink) from becoming neurons (grey). (B) Adeno-associated viruses (green) can deliver the genetic information necessary to deactivate PTBP1 in astrocytes which have been genetically tagged (red). This potentially allows the cells to be converted into dopaminergic neurons which still carry the tag (red) reflecting that they have originated from astrocytes, as well as the viral label (green). (C) Chen et al. used a mouse model in which astrocyte origin could be traced to investigate whether knocking down PTBP1 using adeno-associated viruses may lead to the cells becoming dopaminergic neurons (DA carrying the red tag); this turned out not to be the case (red cross). Instead, dopaminergic neurons carrying the viral signal (green-only cells) were identified, which did not originate from astrocytes. (D) Similar experiments were conducted in a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease. In this instance, a toxin was introduced to kill endogenous dopaminergic neurons and render resting astrocytes reactive; in this injury-triggered state, astrocytes exhibit features associated with stem cells. Deactivating PTBP1 in reactive astrocytes again failed to turn them into neurons, and the mice still exhibited motor deficits.

The team focused on whether the seemingly converted dopaminergic cells truly derived from astrocytes, using a transgenic mouse line that faithfully reports the origin of astrocytes. PTBP1 was successfully knocked down in astrocytes by using adeno-associated viruses, viral vectors that contain the information necessary to suppress the protein only in astrocytes (Figure 1B).

Dopaminergic neurons carrying the viral label were identified, but to the team’s surprise, none of these were positive for the genetic tag that marked astrocyte origin (Figure 1C). This data strongly suggests that these neurons have not emerged from converted astrocytes, but that instead the viral vectors had lost their original specificity. This adds to recent, baffling observations, which highlighted that adeno-associated viruses designed to activate the expression of neuronal conversion factors only in astrocytes, fail to attain the required specificity (Wang et al., 2021).

Chen et al. then checked whether the manipulation could be successful if done on a type of astrocyte that may be more prone to changing its identity. These ‘reactive’ astrocytes emerge in damaged tissues, where they start to display traits present in neural stem cells (Sirko et al., 2013). A toxin was used to kill dopaminergic neurons as PTBP1 was suppressed in reactive astrocytes, yet even this scenario failed to turn the cells into neurons (Figure 1D). Conducting this manipulation in a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease also did not lead to improvements in the animals’ motor deficits. How this negative finding can be reconciled with earlier studies showing that these symptoms were corrected upon PTBP1 deactivation will require further clarification.

Taken together, the work by Chen et al. strongly argues against PTBP1 being the sole gatekeeper between astrocyte and neuronal fates, while also stressing the importance of rigorous genetic lineage tracing when conducting in vivo reprogramming. Still, given the powerful control that PTBP1 exerts on the molecular switch that represses neuronal genes, it would be premature to fully move away from studying the impact of this protein on astrocyte identity and function.

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alexis Cooper

    Alexis Cooper is in the Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, King's College London and the Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom

    For correspondence
    alexis.cooper@kcl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2182-0046
  2. Benedikt Berninger

    Benedikt Berninger is in the Centre for Developmental Neurobiology and the MRC Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, King's College London, the Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom and the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany

    For correspondence
    benedikt.berninger@kcl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2652-2782

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: June 20, 2022 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2022, Cooper and Berninger

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 547
    Page views
  • 137
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Alexis Cooper
  2. Benedikt Berninger
(2022)
Brain Repair: Gatekeeping astrocyte identity
eLife 11:e80232.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80232

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Matthew P Bostock, Anadika R Prasad ... Vilaiwan M Fernandes
    Research Article Updated

    Defining the origin of neuronal diversity is a major challenge in developmental neurobiology. The Drosophila visual system is an excellent paradigm to study how cellular diversity is generated. Photoreceptors from the eye disc grow their axons into the optic lobe and secrete Hedgehog (Hh) to induce the lamina, such that for every unit eye there is a corresponding lamina unit made up of post-mitotic precursors stacked into columns. Each differentiated column contains five lamina neuron types (L1-L5), making it the simplest neuropil in the optic lobe, yet how this diversity is generated was unknown. Here, we found that Hh pathway activity is graded along the distal-proximal axis of lamina columns, and further determined that this gradient in pathway activity arises from a gradient of Hh ligand. We manipulated Hh pathway activity cell autonomously in lamina precursors and non-cell autonomously by inactivating the Hh ligand and by knocking it down in photoreceptors. These manipulations showed that different thresholds of activity specify unique cell identities, with more proximal cell types specified in response to progressively lower Hh levels. Thus, our data establish that Hh acts as a morphogen to pattern the lamina. Although this is the first such report during Drosophila nervous system development, our work uncovers a remarkable similarity with the vertebrate neural tube, which is patterned by Sonic Hh. Altogether, we show that differentiating neurons can regulate the neuronal diversity of their distant target fields through morphogen gradients.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Anadika R Prasad, Inês Lago-Baldaia ... Vilaiwan M Fernandes
    Research Article Updated

    Neural circuit formation and function require that diverse neurons are specified in appropriate numbers. Known strategies for controlling neuronal numbers involve regulating either cell proliferation or survival. We used the Drosophila visual system to probe how neuronal numbers are set. Photoreceptors from the eye-disc induce their target field, the lamina, such that for every unit eye there is a corresponding lamina unit (column). Although each column initially contains ~6 post-mitotic lamina precursors, only 5 differentiate into neurons, called L1-L5; the ‘extra’ precursor, which is invariantly positioned above the L5 neuron in each column, undergoes apoptosis. Here, we showed that a glial population called the outer chiasm giant glia (xgO), which resides below the lamina, secretes multiple ligands to induce L5 differentiation in response to epidermal growth factor (EGF) from photoreceptors. By forcing neuronal differentiation in the lamina, we uncovered that though fated to die, the ‘extra’ precursor is specified as an L5. Therefore, two precursors are specified as L5s but only one differentiates during normal development. We found that the row of precursors nearest to xgO differentiate into L5s and, in turn, antagonise differentiation signalling to prevent the ‘extra’ precursors from differentiating, resulting in their death. Thus, an intricate interplay of glial signals and feedback from differentiating neurons defines an invariant and stereotyped pattern of neuronal differentiation and programmed cell death to ensure that lamina columns each contain exactly one L5 neuron.