Ptbp1 is not required for retinal neurogenesis and cell fate specification

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The researchers sought to determine whether Ptbp1, an RNA-binding protein formerly thought to be a master regulator of neuronal differentiation, is required for retinal neurogenesis and cell fate specification. They used a conditional knockout mouse line to remove Ptbp1 in retinal progenitors and analyzed the results using bulk RNA-seq, single-cell RNA-seq, immunohistochemistry, and EdU labeling. Their findings show that Ptbp1 deletion has no effect on retinal development, since no defects were found in retinal lamination, progenitor proliferation, or cell type composition. Although bulk RNA-seq indicated changes in RNA splicing and increased expression of late-stage progenitor and photoreceptor genes in the mutants, and single-cell RNA-seq detected relatively minor transcriptional shifts in Müller glia, the overall phenotypic impact was low. As a result, the authors conclude that Ptbp1 is not required for retinal neurogenesis and development, thus contradicting prior statements about its important role as a master regulator of neurogenesis. They argue for a reassessment of this stated role. While the findings are strong in the setting of the retina, the larger implications for other areas of the CNS require more investigation. Furthermore, questions about potential reimbursement from Ptbp2 warrant further research.

Strengths:

This study calls into doubt the commonly held belief that Ptbp1 is a critical regulator of neurogenesis in the CNS, particularly in retinal development. The adoption of a conditional knockout mouse model provides a reliable way for eliminating Ptbp1 in retinal progenitors while avoiding the off-target effects often reported in RNAi experiments. The combination of bulk RNA-seq, scRNA-seq, and immunohistochemistry enables a thorough examination of molecular and cellular alterations at both embryonic and postnatal stages, which strengthens the study's findings. Furthermore, using publicly available RNA-Seq datasets for comparison improves the investigation of splicing and expression across tissues and cell types. The work is well-organized, with informative figure legends and supplemental data that clearly show no substantial phenotypic changes in retinal lamination, proliferation, or cell destiny, despite identified transcriptional and splicing modifications.

Weaknesses:

The retina-specific method raises questions regarding whether Ptbp1 is required in other CNS locations where its neurogenic roles were first proposed. The claim that Ptbp1 is "fully dispensable" for retinal development may be toned down, given the transcriptional and splicing modifications identified. The possibility of subtle or transitory impacts, such as ectopic neuron development followed by cell death, is postulated, but not completely investigated. Furthermore, as the authors point out, the compensating potential of increased Ptbp2 warrants additional exploration. Although the study performs well in transcriptome and histological analyses, it lacks functional assessments (such as electrophysiological or behavioral testing) to determine if small changes in splicing or gene expression affect retinal function. While 864 splicing events have been found, the functional significance of these alterations, notably the 7% that are neuronal-enriched and the 35% that are rod-specific, has not been thoroughly investigated. The manuscript might be improved by describing how these splicing changes affect retinal development or function.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Ptbp1 has been proposed as a key regulator of neuronal fate through its role in repressing neurogenesis. In this study, the authors conditionally inactivated Ptbp1 in mouse retinal progenitor cells using the Chx10-Cre line. While RNA-seq analysis at E16 revealed some changes in gene expression, there were no significant alterations in retinal cell type composition, and only modest transcriptional changes in the mature retina, as assessed by immunofluorescence and scRNAseq. Based on these findings, the authors conclude that Ptbp1 is not essential for cell fate determination during retinal development.

Strengths:

Despite some effects of Ptbp1 inactivation (initiated around E11.5 with the onset of Chx10-Cre activity) on gene expression and splicing, the data convincingly demonstrate that retinal cell type composition remains largely unaffected. This study is highly significant since it challenges the prevailing view of Ptbp1 as a central repressor of neurogenesis and highlights the need to further investigate, or re-evaluate, its role in other model systems and regions of the CNS.

Weaknesses:

A limitation of the study is the use of the Chx10-Cre driver, which initiates recombination around E11. This timing does not permit assessment of Ptbp1 function during the earliest phases of retinal development, if expressed at that time.