Direct lineage conversion of postnatal mouse cortical astrocytes to oligodendrocyte lineage cells

Justine Bajohr; Erica Y Scott; Arman Olfat; Mehrshad Sadria; Kevin Lee; Maria Fahim; Hiba T Taha; Daniela Lozano Casasbuenas; Ann Derham; Scott A Yuzwa; Gary D Bader; Maryam Faiz

doi:10.7554/eLife.98632.2

eLife Assessment

This study provides a useful advance in generating mouse oligodendrocytes by direct lineage conversion from cortical astrocytes. The authors demonstrate that Sox10 converts astrocytes to MBP+ oligodendrocytes, whereas Olig2 expression converts astrocytes to PDFRalpha+ oligodendrocyte progenitor cells. The data supporting the conclusions are solid, but there are concerns regarding select figures and the absence of functional validation.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.98632.2.sa2

Significance of findings

useful: Findings that have focused importance and scope

landmark
fundamental
important
valuable
useful

Strength of evidence

solid: Methods, data and analyses broadly support the claims with only minor weaknesses

exceptional
compelling
convincing
solid
incomplete
inadequate

During the peer-review process the editor and reviewers write an eLife assessment that summarises the significance of the findings reported in the article (on a scale ranging from landmark to useful) and the strength of the evidence (on a scale ranging from exceptional to inadequate). Learn more about eLife assessments

Abstract

Oligodendrocyte lineage cells (OLCs) are lost in many CNS diseases. Here, we investigate the generation of new OLCs via ectopic expression of Sox10, Olig2 or Nkx6.2 in mouse postnatal astrocytes. Using stringent analyses including, Aldh1l1-astrocyte fate mapping and live cell imaging we confirm that Sox10 and Olig2, but not Nkx6.2, convert Aldh1l1^pos astrocytes to induced OLCs (iOLCs). With single cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) we uncover the molecular signatures of iOLCs. Transcriptomic analysis of Sox10- and control cultures over time reveals a clear trajectory from astrocytes to iOLCs. Finally, perturbation models CellOracle and Fatecode support the idea that Sox10 drives cells towards a terminal iOLC fate. Altogether, this multidimensional analysis shows bonafide conversion of astrocytes to iOLCs using Sox10 or Olig2 and provides a foundation for astrocyte DLR strategies to promote OLC repair.

Introduction

Oligodendrocytes (OLs) are best known as the myelinating cells of the central nervous system (CNS). OLs ensheath neuronal axons to enable fast propagation of action potentials. Consequently, the loss or dysfunction of OLs results in impaired neurological function that is characteristic of many types of CNS disease and injury. Multiple sclerosis (MS), Alzheimer’s Disease, spinal cord injury, white matter stroke and cerebral palsy are all characterized by oligodendrocyte failure. Thus, therapeutic strategies aimed at replacing OLs are of significant clinical interest (1).

Direct lineage reprogramming (DLR) aims to generate new target cells lost to disease via the forced conversion of donor cells. Typically, DLR is performed by the overexpression of transcription factors (TFs). Early pioneering work from the Tesar Lab demonstrated fibroblast to induced oligodendrocyte progenitor cell (iOPC) conversion by ectopic expression of Olig2, Sox10, and Nkx6.2; determinants of OL cell fate in the embryonic brain (2). The combination of Sox10 and Olig2 was also later used to generate iOPCs from pericytes (3). Therapeutically, however, these newly generated iOPCs still require transplantation into the brain. Therefore, methods to reprogram endogenous CNS cells would be advantageous.

In parallel, astrocytes, CNS-resident cells, have emerged as donor cells in DLR strategies aimed at generating new neurons (4–7). Astrocytes are an attractive donor cell type for OL conversion given their shared neural origin (8,9). Astrocytes may already have relevant epigenetic marks and active TFs that could make DLR faster or more efficient (10–13). In addition, closely related cells may require fewer TFs for conversion. Indeed, conversion of astrocytes to an induced oligodendrocyte-like cell was suggested using Sox10 alone (14). Therefore, we reasoned that single ‘Tesar’ factors, Olig2, Sox10, or Nkx6.2, could be used to force astrocyte conversion to new, induced oligodendrocyte lineage cells (iOLCs).

The OL lineage is comprised of oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (OPCs) that give rise to committed oligodendrocyte progenitors (COPs). These COPs differentiate into mature OLs (mOLs), comprising at least 6 different states (15). Of interest, during OL development, Olig2, Sox10, and Nkx6.2 show different temporal expression and play different roles in OL fate specification. Olig2, long considered an OL lineage fate determinant (16), is also expressed in astrocytes (17,18), which suggests a broad role in early glial commitment (19,20). Sox10 is important throughout OL development; Sox10 promotes early OL lineage specification by re-inducing Olig2 (21) and by inhibiting Sufu (22), but is also required for OL survival following myelination (23,24). In contrast, Nkx6.2 is expressed late in OL development, with myelin genes Mbp and Mog, and plays a role in regulating myelination (25,26). Given the unique roles of each of these TFs in development, we further hypothesized that each of these single factors would have varying efficiency in generating iOLCs.

Recent controversy in the field of astrocyte to neuron DLR in vivo (27) has highlighted the need for rigorous reporting of DLR outcomes. In a landmark study using astrocyte fate mapping strategies, the authors suggested that off-target transduction of endogenous cells was misrepresented as DLR (27). Therefore, it is important that new DLR paradigms utilize fate mapping, and stringent, multi-faceted analysis to determine the origin of the newly generated cells.

Here, we used lentiviral delivery of Olig2, Sox10, or Nkx6.2 to investigate single TF conversion of postnatal (P0-P5) GFAP+ cortical astrocytes to iOLCs. Lineage tracing experiments using Aldh1l1-CreERT2;Ai14 mice confirmed that Sox10 and Olig2 directly convert Aldh1l1+ astrocytes to iOLCs. Moreover, live cell imaging, single cell RNA sequencing (scRNA seq) and deep learning methods support the findings that iOLCs can be generated from astrocytes following TF delivery. Altogether, these findings show bonafide astrocyte to iOLC DLR and lay the groundwork for future studies utilizing DLR for diseases involving OLC dysfunction and loss.

Methods

Animals

All experiments were performed in accordance with approved Animal Use Protocols (AUP 20012151, 25-0389H) from the Division of Comparative Medicine at the University of Toronto. P0-P5 Ai14 (B6;129S6-Gt(ROSA)26Sor^{tm14(CAG-tdTomato)Hze}/J, RRID:IMSR_JAX:007908) and Ai14;Ald1l1-CreERT2 mice (Ai14 crossed to B6N.FVB-Tg(Aldh1l1-cre/ERT2)1Khakh/J [RRID:IMSR_JAX:031008]) were used to generate postnatal astrocyte cultures.

Cell Culture

Cortical astrocytes were isolated from male and female P0-P5 mice as previously described (28). Briefly, mice were decapitated, followed by the removal of the skull and meninges. Cortices were dissected, pooled, and mechanically dissociated in astrocyte media [DMEM (Gibco Catalogue No. 10569-010), 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Gibco Catalogue No. 10082147) and 1% penicillin/streptomycin (Gibco Catalogue No. 15140122)]. Cells were cultured in flasks pre-coated with 10 µg/ml poly-d-lysine (Sigma Catalogue No. P6407), and incubated at 37^°C, 5% CO2. Media was changed the day following isolation and every other day thereafter. Once the cells reached 80% confluency, typically after 6 days, flasks were placed on an orbital shaker for 30 minutes to remove contaminating microglia. Astrocyte media was replaced. For Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2 cultures, 1uM 4-OHT was added to the astrocyte media at this step. Fflasks were returned to the orbital shaker overnight, followed by vigorous shaking for one minute to remove contaminating OLCs. Media was removed and astrocytes were incubated in TrypLE Express Enzyme (Gibco Catalogue No. 12604013) for 5 minutes at 37°C, 5% CO2 to lift off the astrocytes. To inactivate the enzyme, astrocyte media was added at a 3:1 ratio (media:TrypLE). Cell suspension was collected and centrifuged at 300 x g for 5 minutes. Following removal of the supernatant, the pellet was resuspended in astrocyte media. Cells were then plated on poly-l-ornithine/laminin coated coverslips at either 50,000 or 70,000 cells/well in 24 well plates and incubated at 37°C, 5% CO2. For live cell analysis, cells were plated at 10,000 cells/ well in 96 well plates with poly-l-ornithine/laminin coating. For poly-l-ornithine/laminin coating, 0.1mg/ml poly-l-ornithine (Sigma Catalogue No. P4957) was added to dishes overnight at 37°C, washed 3 times with 1X phosphate buffered saline (PBS), and then dishes were incubated for two hours at 37°C with 10 µg/ml laminin (Sigma Catalogue No. L2020).

Reprogramming

Lentiviral particles were purchased from VectorBuilder. For Ai14 reprogramming, LV-hGFAP::Sox10-P2A-Cre, LV-hGFAP::Olig2-P2A-Cre, LV-hGFAP::Nkx6.2-P2A-Cre, and control LV-hGFAP::BFP-T2A-Cre were used. For Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2 reprogramming, LV-hGFAP::Sox10-P2A-zsGreen, LV-hGFAP::Olig2-P2A-zsGreen, LV-hGFAP::Nkx6.2-P2A-zsGreen and control LV-hGFAP::zsGreen were used. A multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 100 was used for all experiments. Virus-containing astrocyte media was placed on the cells and left overnight. Viral media was replaced with fresh astrocyte media one day post transduction (DPT). Three DPT, cells were switched to OPC differentiation media (2) [DMEM/F12/Glutamax (Gibco Catalogue No. 11330032), 1X N2 (Gibco Catalogue No. 17502048), 1X B27 without vitamin A (Gibco Catalogue No. 17504044), 200 ng/ml SHH (R&D Systems Catalogue No. 464-SH), 20 ng/ml FGF (R&D Systems Catalogue No. 3139-FB), 4 ng/ml PDGF (Sigma Catalogue No. SRP3228)]. At 10 DPT, the cells were switched to OL differentiation media (2) [DMEM/F12/Glutamax, 1X N2, 1X B27 without vitamin A, 40 ng/ml T3 (T2877 Catalogue No. Sigma), 200 ng/ml SHH, 100 ng/ml Noggin (R&D Systems Catalogue No. 1967-NG), 10 µM cAMP (Sigma Catalogue No. A9501), 100 ng/ml IGF (R&D Systems Catalogue No. 791-MG), 10 ng/ml NT3 (Sigma Catalogue No. SRP6007)].

Live Cell Analysis

Astrocytes isolated from Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2 mice were plated in 96 well plates, transduced and imaged every hour from 7 to 12DPT using the Apotome live cell system (Zeiss). 25 z-stack tiled images per well were captured with brightfield as well as the 488nm and 568nm fluorescent wavelength. Images were stitched to create a continuous video for each well. At 12DPT, cells were fixed and stained for OLC markers to confirm fate. Each well was then re-imaged at this final timepoint and OLC+ reprogrammed cells were matched to the live cell video and retrospectively analyzed for starting cell morphology and fluorescent expression. To characterize starting cell morphology, an analysis was first performed on 70 Aldh1l1+tdTomato+ astrocytes in tamoxifen-labelled Aldh1l1-CreERT2;Ai14 cultures and 70 PDGFRa+ OPCs from iOLC cultures (Table S1). Astrocyte and OPC paramenters were established for cell size, nucleus size, number of branches and branch thickness (Supplemental Figure 1). These parameters were then used to characterize starting cells as astrocytes or OPCs.

Immunocytochemistry

Cells were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) (Sigma Catalogue No. P6148) for 20 minutes followed by three washes with 1X PBS. Cell membranes were permeabilized with 0.1% Triton-X-100 (Sigma Catalogue No. X100) for 10 minutes at room temperature, followed by three washes with 1X PBS, and then blocked with 5% milk for one hour at room temperature. Cells were incubated with primary antibodies in 1X PBS overnight at 4^°C, washed three times with 1X PBS, and then incubated with secondary antibodies and DAPI (Sigma Catalogue No. D9542) in 1X PBS at room temperature for one hour. Following three final 1X PBS washes, coverslips were mounted on glass slides (Fisher Scientific Catalogue No. 125523) with Mowiol mounting solution (Sigma Catalogue No. 81381). For staining of membrane bound proteins (O4, PDGFRa), no permeabilization step with Triton-X-100 was performed. Primary antibodies: mouse anti-SOX10 (RRID:AB_10844002, 1:250), rabbit anti-PDGFRa (RRID:AB_2892065, 1:500), mouse anti-O4 (RRID:AB_357617, 1:1000) and rat anti-MBP RRID:AB_305869, 1:50).

Secondary antibodies: anti-mouse IgG 488 (Invitrogen Catalogue No. A32723) and 647 (Invitrogen Catalogue No. A32728), anti-mouse IgM heavy chain 488 (Invitrogen Catalogue No. A21042) and 647 (Invitrogen Catalogue No. A21238), anti-rabbit 488 IgG (Invitrogen Catalogue No. A11034) and 647 (Invitrogen Catalogue No. A32733), anti-rat IgG 488 (Invitrogen Catalogue No. A21208) and 647 (Invitrogen Catalogue No. A21247) all at 1:1000.

Microscopy and Image Analysis

Ffluorescent images for quantification were taken on an LSM 880 Elyra Superresolution and LSM 900 (Zeiss) using a 20x objective and Zen Blue software (Zeiss). Post-acquisition linear adjustments of brightness for all channels were made to micrographs using the Zen Blue software in Figure 1C, Figure 2E-G and Supplemental Figure 5D. For quantification, ten regions of interest were selected at random for each well. Images were analyzed using ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, RRID:SCR_003070). Reprogramming efficiency was calculated as a measure of total OLC marker⁺reporter⁺DAPI⁺ cells over total reporter⁺DAPI⁺cells.

*Sox10, Olig2* and *Nkx6*.2 convert GFAP+ cells to oligodendrocyte lineage cells.
**(A)** Experimental design and timeline. **(B)** Quantification of PDGFRa⁺tdTomato⁺iOPCs, O4⁺tdTomato⁺ iCOPs and MBP⁺tdTomato⁺ iOLs at 8 (n=5), 10 (n=4), 12 (n=5) and 14 (n=7) days post transduction (DPT). Data are presented as mean ± SEM, each data point represents one individual cell culture experiment; at each time point and for each cell type marker, a matched pairs one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis (d8, d10, d12) or one-way ANOVA (d14) was performed with Dunnet’s post testing (*= p<0.05, *** = p< 0.001). **(C)** Representative images of PDGFRa⁺tdTomato⁺,O4⁺tdTomato⁺ and MBP⁺tdTomato⁺ cells at 12DPT. Single channel images are shown of the boxed cells (arrows indicate double positive cells). Scale bar = 50um. **(D)** UMAP clustering of *Olig2*-, *Sox10*-, *Nkx6*.2- and control (Cre) transduced cells at 14DPT **(E)** UMAP of (D) overlayed with treatment (*Olig2*-, *Sox10*-, *Nkx6*.2- and control (Cre)) **(F)** Proportion analysis of clusters found in *Olig2*-, *Sox10*-, *Nkx6*.2-, and control (Cre) transduced cells. **(G)** Heatmap of top upregulated genes from each cluster in (D).

Lineage tracing confirms true conversion of astrocytes to oligodendrocyte lineage cells.
**(A)** Experimental design, timeline and outcomes. **(B)** Quantification of tdTomato⁺zsGreen⁺PDGFRa⁺ iOPCs at 12DPT (n= 3). Data are presented as mean ± SEM, each data point represents one individual cell culture, a paired t-test was performed (** = p<0.01). **(C)** Quantification of tdTomato⁺zsGreen⁺O4⁺ iCOPs at 14DPT (n = 4). Data are presented as mean ± SEM, each data point represents one individual cell culture, a Wilcoxon test was performed (ns). **(D)** Quantification of tdTomato⁺zsGreen⁺MBP⁺ iOLs at 12DPT (n= 4 for *Sox10, Nkx6*.2, n= 3 for *Cre*). Data are presented as mean ± SEM, each data point represents one individual cell culture, a one-way ANOVA with Dunnet’s post testing was performed (* = p<0.05). **(E)** Representative image of PDGFRa⁺tdTomato⁺zsGreen⁺ cells 12DPT. Single channel images are shown of the boxed cells (arrows indicate triple positive cells, scale bar = 50um (merge) and 20um (single channel)). **(F)** Representative image of MBP⁺tdTomato⁺zsGreen⁺ cells 12DPT. Single channel images are shown of the boxed cells (arrows indicate triple positive cells, scale bar = 50um (merge) and 20um (single channel)). **(G)** Representative tdTomato⁺zsGreen⁺ cell with astrocyte-like morphology at onset (7DPT) and OLC expression at the end (12DPT) of live cell tracking (arrow indicates tracked cell, scale bar = 50um).

scRNA-seq capture and processing

At 14DPT, LV-hGFAP::Sox10-P2A-Cre, LV-hGFAP::Olig2-P2A-Cre, LV-hGFAP::Nkx6.2-P2A-Cre, and control LV-hGFAP::BFP-T2A-Cre cultures were processed using the BD Rhapsody System (BD Biosciences) and then sequenced. For single-cell isolation, an average of 9813.75 viable cells were captured in wells at cell load (Table S2). The BD Rhapsody scanner reported an average multiplet rate of 10.13% and an average number of wells with viable cells and a bead of 7081.5 (Table S2). Detailed metrics for each sample can be found in Table S2. Samples were down-sampled to 2500 cells and carried through and converted to cDNA using the BD Rhapsody WTA Reagent Kit (Becton Dickinson Canada, Catalogue No. 633802). Each cell was sequenced at approximately 100 million reads per cell (at least 2×150 bp paired-end reads) on a Novaseq (Donnelly Sequencing Centre, University of Toronto).

In addition, LV-GFAP::Sox10 and control LV-GFAP::Cre cultures were collected prior to transduction, at 3DPT and 8DPT, and processed using the BD Rhapsody System (BD Biosciences) and then sequenced. For single-cell isolation, an average of 10263.8 viable cells were captured in wells at cell load (Table S3). The BD Rhapsody scanner reported an average multiplet rate of 6.86% and an average number of wells with viable cells and a bead of 7785 (Table S3). Detailed metrics for each sample can be found in Table S3. Samples were down-sampled to 2500 cells and carried through and converted to cDNA using the BD Rhapsody WTA Reagent Kit (Becton Dickinson Canada, Catalogue No. 633802). Each cell was sequenced at approximately 100 million reads per cell (at least 2×150 bp paired-end reads) on a Novaseq (Donnelly Sequencing Centre, University of Toronto).

scRNA-seq analysis

Fastq files were first demultiplexed with Kallisto (29) (RRID:SCR_016582)(v0.48.0) and Bustools (30) (RRID:SCR_018210)(V 0.41.0) using supplied whitelists (Data S1) with the - BDWTA option and aligning to GRCm38.96 with Cre sequence appended to the end. Bustools (30) was then used to generate gene count tables. Cells were plotted based upon UMI counts per barcode, thresholds were selected based on inflection point of UMI count per barcode plots. These thresholds produced read and gene count distributions that were comparable between all treatment groups (Supplemental Figure 2A, Supplemental Figure 6A). Gene count tables were made into S4 objects, scaled, normalized and dimensions reduced (PCA then UMAP) using the Seurat (31) package (RRID:SCR_016341) (v4.1). Clusters identified as microglia and as vascular and leptomeningeal cells (VLMCs) (Supplemental Figure 2B-C [cluster 8], Supplemental Figure 6B-C [cluster 6 and 8]) were removed prior to further analysis.

Gene markers for oligodendrocyte lineage cells were adopted from studies observing in vivo mouse oligodendrocyte lineage cells across several areas in young and mature CNS tissues (15). These markers were converted into percent expression of each UMAP cluster using the PercentageFeatureSet function from Seurat (31), with further gene resolution displayed by heatmaps created using ComplexHeatmap (32)(RRID:SCR_017270) (v12.13.1). An additional set of gene markers, demonstrating similar, but less resolved, conclusions was also used from an in vitro rat study looking at OLCs from the cortex (33). Stacked violin cluster dot plots were made with scCustomize (34)(RRID:SCR_024675)(v2.1.2). For pseudotime and trajectory analysis Slingshot (35) (RRID:SCR_017012)(v2.3.1) and Monocle3 (36–40) (RRID:SCR_018685) were used. For in silico Sox10 perturbation, CellOracle (41) (v0.14.0) was used. Plots were produced using ggplot2 (RRID:SCR_014601)(v3.3.5) and figure generating scripts were run in R studio (v4.2.0), with demultiplexing using Kallisto (29) and Bustools (30) run on a Compute Canada HPC cluster. All scripts used for processing of scRNA-seq data and for figure generation can be found at github.com/eyscott/Bajor_BDRhapsodyData_DLR.

Deep-learning analysis

Fatecode (44) was used to identify key genes for cellular transition. To optimize the autoencoder and subsequent classifier configuration, a grid search was conducted to systematically evaluate various combinations of hyperparameters. These included: latent layer size, number of nodes in the first and second layers of the autoencoder, classifier architecture, and type of activation function. The grid search aimed to identify the hyperparameters that minimized a combined reconstruction and classification loss function, signifying the optimal performance for our specific dataset. Perturbations on the latent space were performed and cell classifications as well as genes associated with each perturbation were obtained.

Statistical Analysis

Percentage values were transformed using the arcsine square root transformation and assessed for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilks test. When distribution and variance were equal, a matched pairs one-way ANOVA ([Ai14:D8, D10, D12 O4, D12 MBP], [Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2: D12 MBP zsGreen+, D12 MBP tdTomato+) or one-way ANOVA ([Ai14:D14], [Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2: D12 MBP zsGreen+,tdTomato+]), or paired t-test ([Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2: D12 PDGFRa zsGreen+tdTomato+, D12 PDGFRa tdTomato+, O4 zsGreen+, O4 tdTomato+]) was performed to compare reprogramming efficiency of TF groups to a control group (Ai14: LV-GFAP::Cre, Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2: LV-GFAP::zsGreen). When transformed values did not follow a Gaussian distribution, a Kruskal-Wallis test (Ai14: D12 PDGFRa, D14 PDGFRa) or Wilcoxon test (Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2: PDGFRa zsGreen+, O4 zsGreen+tdTomato+) was performed to compare reprogramming efficiency to a control group (Ai14: LV-GFAP::Cre, Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2: LV-GFAP::zsGreen). In both cases, Dunnett’s post-hoc testing was performed to correct for multiple comparisons. Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05. Values are presented as mean ± SEM. The statistical software used for transformation, distribution, variance, ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, t-test, Wilcoxon test and Dunnett’s analysis was GraphPad Prism version 9.0.1 (RRID:SCR_002798).

Results

iOLCs are generated following expression of Olig2, Sox10 or Nkx6.2

To investigate astrocyte to OLC conversion, we established postnatal, cortical astrocyte cultures from Ai14 mice. To understand the purity of our cultures, we quantified the numbers of contaminating OLCs. Quantification of SOX10+, O4+ and MBP+ OLCs showed less than 2.5% in our cultures (Supplemental Figure 3A).

To examine the reprogramming potential of Olig2, Sox10, and Nkx6.2, we transduced Ai14 astrocytes with either LV-GFAP::Olig2, LV-GFAP::Sox10, LV-GFAP::Nkx6.2 or a control LV-GFAP::Cre (Figure 1A). When we quantified the numbers of tdTomato+ cells that co-expressed OPC (PDGFRa), COP (O4) or OL (MBP) markers at 8 and 10 DPT, no differences were seen in any of the TF-transduced cultures compared to controls (Figure 1B). By 12 DPT, Olig2-cultures showed an increase in the percentage of tdTomato⁺PDGFRa⁺ OPCs (p = 0.0309, H-statistic: 7.514), whereas Sox10- and Nkx6.2-cultures showed an increase in tdTomato⁺MBP⁺ OLs (Sox10: p = 0.0004, Nkx6.2: p = 0.0108, F statistic = 13.28, degrees of freedom =3) (Figure 1B-C). No differences were seen in the percentage of tdTomato⁺O4⁺ COPs in any condition at 12DPT (Figure 1B). However, by 14DPT we observed an increase in the percentage of tdTomato⁺O4⁺ COPs in Sox10- cultures when compared to controls (p = 0.0213, F statistic = 3.512, degrees of freedom = 3) (Figure 1B-C). Finally, to understand whether a longer time in culture could increase the number of MBP+ OLs, we cultured cells for an additional 8 days and analyzed the percent of tdTomato⁺MBP⁺ cells at 22 DPT. No differences were seen in tdTomato⁺MBP⁺ OLs in any condition compared to controls (Supplemental Figure 3B). Altogether, these findings suggest that Olig2, Sox10 and Nkx6.2 increase the percentage of iOLCs relative to controls in Ai14 astrocyte cultures.

Canonical OLC cluster found in TF-treated cells following scRNA-seq

To further characterize Olig2-, Sox10-, Nkx6.2- and control cultures, we performed scRNA-seq at 14DPT (Figure 1A). Clustering analysis showed the appearance of nine clusters (Figure 1D). We then used proportion analysis to identify clusters that were unique to TF-treated samples. Clusters 3 and 8 were predominantly comprised of cells from TF-induced cultures (Figure 1E-F). The top 10 genes marking each cluster in Figure 1D are highlighted in Figure 1G. Canonical OLC genes such as Mbp, Plp1, Bcas1 and Cldn11 were expressed in clusters 3 and 8 (Figure 1G), further suggesting that the increase in iOLCs is a result of TF delivery.

Next, we compared the molecular profiles of clusters 3 and 8 to established OL lineage datasets. First, we used OLC specific annotations of mouse fetal and adult OLCs derived from Marques et al (15) to bin the data. We found that cluster 3 was characterized by COP signatures, while cluster 8 was characterized by COP, newly formed oligodendrocyte (nfOL) and myelin forming oligodendrocyte (mfOL) signatures (Supplemental Figure 4A). We also used OLC annotations of in vitro OLCs derived from Dugas et al (33) to bin the data. Again, we saw that cluster 8 was characterized by OL signatures, but cluster 3 was not. (Supplemental Figure 4B). Altogether, these findings further support the observation of increased OLC generation in TF-induced Ai14 cultures (Figure 1B).

Bonafide astrocyte to OLC conversion is confirmed with astrocyte fate mapping

We had previously observed contaminating OLCs in our cultures and the presence of tdTomato⁺OLC marker⁺ cells in our Cre controls. Therefore, to confirm the origin of these newly generated OLCs, we performed astrocyte fate mapping using Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2 cultures, the current gold standard in the field (27). Prior to transduction, post-natal cortical Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2 astrocyte cultures were treated with 1uM 4-OHT to permanently label all Aldh1l1 expressing cells with tdTomato (Figure 2A). Cultures were transduced with LV-GFAP::Sox10-zsGreen, LV-GFAP::Olig2-zsGreen, LV-GFAP::Nkx6.2-zsGreen or a LV-GFAP::zsGreen control (Figure 2A). Any OLCs that were directly converted by a TF from these Aldh1l1 expressing astrocytes would therefore express zsGreen and tdTomato (Figure 2A). To understand whether the OPCs generated from Olig2 overexpression were the product of astrocyte reprogramming, we quantified the percentage of PDGFRa+zsGreen⁺tdTomato⁺ cells at 12DPT. We observed an increase in PDGFRa⁺zsGreen⁺tdTomato⁺ OPCs compared to controls, confirming the astrocytic origin of iOPCs (Figure 2B,E). To assess the origin of Sox10-induced COPs we quantified the percentage of O4⁺zsGreen⁺tdTomato⁺ cells at 14DPT. No increase was observed in Sox10 cultures compared to controls (Figure 2C). Finally, to determine the origin of OLs generated by Sox10 or Nkx6.2, we quantified the percentage of MBP⁺zsGreen⁺tdTomato⁺ OLs at 12DPT. We observed an increase of MBP⁺zsGreen⁺tdTomato⁺ OLs generated by Sox10, but not from Nkx6.2 (Figure 2D,F). This suggests that Olig2 and Sox10 reprogram Aldh1l1 astrocytes to iOLCs, while Nkx6.2-derived OLs and Sox10-derived COPs previously observed (Figure 1B), are not the result of Aldh1l1 astrocyte conversion. To further confirm these findings, we performed live cell imaging of Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2 Sox10-treated and control cultures from 7DPT to 12DPT. At 12DPT, we observed tdTomato⁺zsGreen⁺ cells that co-expressed OLC markers (PDGFRa/O4/MBP+) and showed OPC-like morphologies (small nucleus, multiple thin branches) (Figure 2G, Supplemental Figure 1). When we tracked these cells back to 7DPT, we found that they showed a characteristic astrocyte morphology (large cell body and nucleus, with minimal branching) (Figure 2G, Supplemental Figure 1, Supplemental Video 1). Taken together, these findings further demonstrate bonafide astrocyte to iOLC conversion.

We also examined the numbers of Aldh1l1⁺ non-transduced (tdTomato⁺only) cells, as well as Aldh1l1^neg virally transduced (zsGreen⁺ only) cells (Supplemental Figure 5). No difference in the percentage of OLC marker⁺tdTomato⁺zsGreen^neg was seen between TF-treated and control cultures (Supplemental Figure 5). However, when we examined zsGreen⁺tdTomato^neg cells, we observed an interesting increase in the percentage of MBP⁺zsGreen⁺tdTomato^neg OLs at 12DPT in Sox10-treated cells compared to controls (Supplemental Figure 5C). When we analyzed our live cell imaging experiment to understand the origin of these cells, we found examples of tdTomato^negzsGreen⁺OLCmarker⁺ cells that arose from a tdTomato^neg cell (Supplemental Figure 5D). These tdTomato^neg cells did not have OPC morphology 7DPT (Supplemental Figure 1,5D, Supplemental Video 2). Rather, they showed morphologies typical of astrocytes (Supplemental Figure 1,5D, Supplemental Video 2), suggesting the conversion of an astrocyte-like Aldh1l1^neg cell.

Characterization of Sox10-mediated DLR using scRNA-seq

Given that Sox10 increased the number of mOLs from Aldh1l1 astrocytes (Figure 2D,F), we next probed the mechanisms underlying Sox10-mediated reprogramming. We performed scRNA-sequencing at three additional timepoints (D0 prior to transduction, 3DPT, and 8DPT) on Cre-control and Sox10-treated cultures. For analysis, we combined cells from D0, 3DPT, 8DPT and 14DPT (Supplemental Figure 6B). We excluded cells with microglia and VLMC markers (Supplemental Figure 6C). Clustering analysis of the remaining cells showed the appearance of 10 distinct clusters (Figure 3A). We characterized these clusters based on expression of genes associated with astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and NG2 cells, as well as proliferation markers (Figure 3B-C).

First, we examined the molecular identities of cells in our starting cultures. D0 cells were found in clusters 1, 3, 5 and 9 and showed expression of canonical astrocyte markers, including Slc1a3, Aqp4, Atp1b2, Glul and Gfap (Figure 3B,D). Of interest, clusters 1, 3 and 5 showed expression of Aldh1l1, but this gene was absent in cluster 9 (Figure 3B), which could explain the conversion of tdTomato^neg cells observed in our fate mapping experiments (Supplemental Figure 5). Altogether, this suggests that early postnatal cultures are heterogeneous and comprised of distinct astrocyte-like populations (clusters).

Characterization of DLR using scRNA-seq shows terminal oligodendrocyte cluster of cells at day 14 driven by *Sox10*.
**(A)** UMAP clustering of *Sox10* and *Cre* control treated cells from prior to transduction, as well as 3, 8 and 14DPT **(B)** Canonical astrocyte gene expression (log-normalized, y-axis) separated by cluster (x-axis) and coloured by timepoint and treatment group. **(C)** Canonical gene expression (log-normalized, y-axis) of NG2 glia, VLMC, OLC, microglia and proliferation, separated by cluster (x-axis) and coloured by timepoint and treatment group. **(D)** UMAP clustering from (A) overlayed with timepoint and treatment group **(E)** Slingshot lineage analysis of *Sox10* and *Cre* control treated clusters overlaid with UMAP embeddings. **(F)** Monocle3 lineage analysis of *Sox10* and *Cre* control treated clusters overlaid on UMAP plot and coloured by pseudotime predictions. **(G)** The number of cells (y-axis) per cluster (x-axis) originating from each of the coloured timepoint+treatmentgroups. **(H)** CellOracle modeling of *in silico Sox10* knock out (KO) overlaid onto UMAP plot. Arrows indicate trajectory prediction with *Sox10* KO. **(I)** CellOracle modeling of *in silico Sox10* knock in (KI) overlaid onto UMAP plot. Arrows indicate trajectory prediction with *Sox10* KI **(J)** Clustered, top differentially expressed genes (dots, y-axis) between 14DPT *Sox10 (D14_S*, Beige, left) and *Cre (D14_C*, Blue, right) control treated cells from cluster 6. Size of dot is scaled to percent of cells in the cluster expressing that gene, colour of dot represents the average scaled expression of the gene across cells. **(K)** Predicted cell types following Fatecode perturbation on node 16 of the latent layer in the *Sox10* and control treated dataset. Blue represents the number of cells prior to perturbation. Orange (overlayed) represents the number of cells following perturbation.

To understand the cell fate transitions that occur over the reprogramming timecourse, we performed trajectory analysis with Slingshot (35) (Figure 3E) and Monocle3 (36–40) (Figure 3F). Slingshot and Monocle3 both reconstructed trajectories with clusters 6 and 4 as terminal branches (Figure 3E-F). We then examined the origin of cells comprising each cluster. As expected, the clusters formulating earlier roots of the Monocle3 branches (clusters 0, 1, 3, 9) were primarily comprised of D0, 3DPT, and 8DPT timepoints (Figure 3G). Clusters 6 and 4, were predominantly comprised of 14DPT samples, and in particular, cells from Sox10-treated samples (D14_S) (Figure 3G). Analysis of the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) at these branches showed that cluster 6 and branch 14 of the Monocle3 trajectory were enriched in the OLC genes Sox10 (21–24) (p- and q-value=0), Bcas1 (45) (p- and q-value=0), and Omg (46,47) (p- and q-value=0 (Supplemental Figure 7A). In contrast, cluster 4 and the Monocle trajectory branch 11 showed expression of the genes Lcn2 (p- and q-value=0) and lgfbp5 (p- and q-value=0), (Supplemental Figure 7B) previously shown to be expressed in reactive astrocytes (48–50). All Monocle3-derived differentially expressed genes can be found in Data S2. Altogether, these analyses suggest that the trajectory to branch 14/cluster 6 represents the path of astrocyte to OLC conversion.

To determine how Sox10 would influence the gene regulatory network of cells in clusters 6 and 4, we performed in silico perturbation of Sox10 using CellOracle (41). in silico knock out (KO) of Sox10 predicted a large shift away from a cluster 6 identity and little change away from the identity of cluster 4 (Figure 3H). In agreement, in silico knock in (KI) of Sox10 showed a large shift towards a cluster 6 identify and little change towards a cluster 4 identity (Figure 3I). This suggests that leaf 14 and cluster 6 represent cells with a gene regulatory network most affected by Sox10.

As cluster 6 was comprised of both Sox10-treated and Cre-control cells, we then performed a differential gene expression analysis of 14DPT Cre-control and Sox10-treated cells within this cluster. 175 DEGs were found, with the top genes (expressed in at least 50% of Cluster 6, Sox10-treated cells and with a difference of at least 0.5 pct between Cre-control and Sox10-treated cultures) clustered and provided in a dotplot (Figure 3J). This analysis highlighted that genes including Omg, Bcas1, Pdgfra, Cldn11 (51), and Sox10 are enriched in Sox10-treated cells compared to Cre-control cells, suggesting that Sox10-treated cells are more representative of OLCs than the Cre-control cells exposed to OPC and OL media alone.

Understanding the genetic drivers of astrocyte to OLC DLR

Our analysis showed that Sox10 was important for determining the OLC identity of cluster 6. We specifically chose Sox10 based on its role in OLC fate specification and development (21–24). To understand whether there might be other [better] candidate genes that would promote an OLC identity, we used an unbiased, deep learning perturbation model, Fatecode (44), to predict genes that would allow cells to shift from a cluster 4 identity (astrocytes at 14DPT, not fully reprogrammed) to a cluster 6 identity (OLCs at 14DPT, end state of DLR). Following training of the Fatecode model on our Sox10 and Cre-control treated DLR dataset, we identified perturbation on node 16 of the latent layer as one which increased the number of cells in cluster 6 whilst simultaneously reducing the number of cells in clusters 0, 2, 4, 5 and 7. (Figure 3K). Given that the total number of cells in the dataset does not change, this suggests that the perturbation on node 16 of the latent layer was pushing cells that did not reprogram (astrocytes at 8 and 14DPT) towards a reprogrammed (OLCs at 14DPT) fate. To identify the genes driving this shift,we ranked the absolute value of gene expression changes to obtain a list of 3000 genes involved in this perturbation, with the top 40 genes listed in Table S4. Strikingly, we observed that Sox10 was ranked as the ninth most correlated gene and the top TF driving this shift (Table S4). This supports our previous findings that suggest Sox10 drives astrocyte to iOLC DLR. Additionally, we observed genes important for myelination (Plp1, Mbp) (52), as well as other TFs previously identified with OLC differentiation and myelination (Sox3 (53), Klf9 (54)) as integral to this shift (Table S4). Taken together, these findings further support the importance of Sox10 in reprogramming astrocytes to iOLCs and identify additional genes and TFs that may be ideal candidates for astrocyte to iOLC reprogramming.

Discussion

Here, we show astrocyte to iOLC conversion with Sox10 or Olig2 using a battery of experimental tools, including astrocyte fate mapping, live cell imaging, scRNA-seq timecourse and unbiased deep learning. While previous studies demonstrated the generation of iOLCs from different types of somatic cells using combinations of Sox10, Olig2 and Nkx6.2 (2,3,55), ours is the first to compare the individual reprogramming ability of each these TFs in astrocytes. Using Aldh1l1-based fate-mapping, we found that that Sox10 and Olig2 convert Aldh1l1⁺ astrocytes to iOLCs.

In contrast to Sox10 and Olig2, Nkx6.2 was unable to convert Aldh1l1⁺astrocytes to new iOLCs. Unlike Sox10 and Olig2, which define oligodendrocyte identity and continue to shape their gene regulatory network throughout life (56), Nkx6.2 may be unable to direct a stable iOLC identity. In support of this, previous work investigating pericyte to OL reprogramming found that inclusion of Nkx6.2 in their reprogramming cocktail was refractory to reprogramming (3). In addition to observing the activation of genes unrelated to oligodendrogenesis, genes required for OPC identity were downregulated when cells were transduced with Nkx6.2 (3).

In a previous study, Khanghahi et al. investigated Sox10-mediated astrocyte to OLC conversion. Ectopic expression of Sox10 in astrocytes in vitro led to an increase in OPCs at 21DPT (14), a different OLC type and longer time to conversion than we observed in our study. Although similar experimental designs were used in both studies (cortical P3-P5 astrocytes cultured in OPC media in Khanghahi et al. versus P0-P5 cortical astrocytes cultured in OPC followed by OL media in our study), these discrepancies may be due to the use of different viral delivery strategies and metrics of reprogramming. In our study, we used lentiviral delivery of Sox10-P2A-zsGreen under the control of the long (2178bp) hGFAP promoter (57). In addition, we used Ai14;Aldh1l1-CreERT2 mice and quantified only the iOLCs with an astrocyte origin (based on tdTomato⁺OLC marker⁺expression). In contrast, in the Khanghahi et al. study, the authors used a SFFV promoter to deliver Sox10-IRES-GFP and reported the number of GFP+ iOLCs in their Sox10-transduced cultures. Without an astrocyte specific promoter and stringent lineage tracking, it is difficult to conclude that iOPCs were the result of astrocyte conversion. A non-specific delivery strategy could instead hit a contaminating, perhaps more distantly related cell that would need more time to convert.

In this regard, a recent study suggested that the conversion reported in studies of in vivo astrocyte to neuron DLR (6,58,59) was not true reprogramming, but rather the result of erroneous labelling of endogenous neurons due to technical confounds (27). As a result, the DLR community has advocated for the stringent validation of DLR paradigms. In this study, we first examined astrocyte to iOLC conversion in Ai14 cells. This enabled the permanent labeling of transduced cells and therefore, the tracking of those cells through the DLR timecourse. To then validate our findings, we used Aldh1l1-astrocyte fate mapping, which highlighted a lack of conversion with Nkx6.2.

When performing our lineage tracing experiments, we also discovered a subpopulation of cells (Aldh1l1-tdTomato^negzsGreen⁺OLCmarker⁺) that was converted by Sox10 at a high reprogramming efficiency (Supplemental Figure 5C). scRNA-seq analysis of cells prior to conversion also showed a cluster with low Aldh1l1 expression compared to the other astrocyte clusters, but with similar levels of Gfap expression (Figure 3B), which could explain its transduction by the LV-GFAP::Sox10. These Aldh1l1^loGfap^hi cells were predominantly characterized by mature astrocyte markers but also showed expression of genes found in NG2 glia (Cspg, Pdgfra) (Figure 3B-C). Curiously, this population did not show expression of proliferation marker Mki67 (Figure 3C), in contrast to previous studies showing that astrocyte-like NG2 glia are proliferative (60,61). Of interest, one study reported high co-expression of Gfap, Cspg4 and Pdgfra in early postnatal astrocytes (62). This leads to the intriguing idea that these cells represent a population of Aldh1l1^loexpressing astrocytes. If so, Aldh1l1-fate-mapping would underestimate reprogramming efficiencies. The presence of these Aldh11l^lo cells shows that astrocyte cultures are heterogeneous and that different types of astrocytes or astrocyte-like cells may be suitable targets for DLR. Further studies using scRNA barcoding and CellOracle to profile the different types of astrocytes that are amenable to reprogramming will be beneficial in designing more specific and tailored DLR strategies.

Conversion of Aldh1l1^pos astrocytes to PDGFRa⁺tdTomato⁺zsGreen⁺ iOPCs using Olig2 occurred at a relatively low rate, with an average conversion efficiency of 16.75% cells. This conversion was even lower for the generation of mature MBP⁺tdTomato⁺zsGreen⁺OLs by Sox10, with an average conversion efficiency of 2.83%. This may suggest that although Sox10 may generate more mature OLCs, it can only do this in a select number of ‘elite’ donor cells. Alternatively, the absence of a substrate to myelinate in our cultures may preclude the true reprogramming ability of Sox10. OL survival in vitro and in vivo has been shown to be dependent on the presence of axons (63). Furthermore, previous studies have shown that mRNA expression of myelin genes is increased when OLs are cultured in the presence of neurons (64), and differentiation of OPCs can be induced with bead or nanofiber scaffolding (65,66). However, additional factors, or the discovery of “better” TFs may also allow for increased reprogramming efficiency. It remains to be determined whether the genes predicted by Fatecode in this study will improve the efficiencies of OLC generation. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the extent of iOLC generation must be balanced with the extent of astrocyte loss as many studies have shown that widespread loss of astrocytes can be detrimental (67,68).

Investigation of the reprogramming trajectory of Sox10 and Cre-control treated cells showed a bifurcation, where the cells either converted to iOLCs or remained as astrocytes (Figure 3F). It remains to be determined if this is a genetic hurdle or a metabolic hurdle, similar to studies of astrocyte to neuron conversion (69). Future studies investigating the genes that characterize the ‘tipping point’ of conversion will be useful in identifying the mechanisms of astrocyte to iOLC reprogramming. A clearer understanding of how different astrocyte types convert to iOLCs and the mechanisms that underly the reprogramming processes will help us identify the best DLR paradigm for therapeutic applications.

Data availability

RNA sequence data is deposited in GEO (accession number GSE263185). Genetables are provided as a Cyvers link through the Github page (see methods) housing the scripts used in the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Dr. Lindsey Fiddes at the Microscope Imaging Facility for assistance with live cell imaging. Next-generation sequencing was performed at the Donnelly Sequencing Facility. J.B. was supported by the Baden Havard Endowment Fund, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship and the MITACs Accelerate Fellowship. This work was supported by grants to M.F. from CIHR (PJT-175254), Medicine by Design (Cycle 2 Funding), Temerty Foundation (Pathway Grant), Ontario Institute of Regenerative Medicine (Kickstart Innovation Investment Program), the Stem Cell Network (Early Career Researcher Jump Start Award), the Connaught Foundation (Innovation Grant), CFA-JELF program for microscopy infrastructure, and to S.A.Y. from the CFI-JELF program for scRNA-seq related infrastructure.

Additional information

Author contributions

Conceptualization, M.F.; Methodology, J.B., G.D.B., M.F.; Software, E.Y.S., M.S.; Formal Analysis, J.B., E.Y.S., M.S., S.A.Y., M.F.; Investigation, J.B., E.Y.S., A.O., M.S., K.L., M. Fahim, H.T.T., D.L.C., A.D., and S.A.Y.; Writing - Original Draft, J.B. and E.Y.S.; Writing - Review and Editing, M.F.; Visualization, J.B., E.Y.S., M.S.; Supervision, G.D.B., M.F.; Funding Acquisition, S.A.Y., M.F.

Funding

University of Toronto (Baden Havard Endowment Fund)

University of Toronto (Ontario Graduate Scholarship)

Mitacs (Accelerate Fellowship)

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Medicine by Design

Temerty Family Foundation

Ontario Institute for Regenerative Medicine

Stem Cell Network

Connaught Foundation

CFI-JELF

Additional files

Supplemental figures and videos

Supplemental Table 1. Astrocyte and oligodendrocyte progenitor morphology characterization.

Supplemental Table 2. 14DPT scRNA seq cell collection metrics.

Supplemental Table 3. Pre-transduction, 3 and 8DPT scRNA seq cell collection metrics.

Supplemental Table 4. Top 40 genes associated with Fatecode perturbation on node 16 of the latent layer.

Data S1. BD Rhapsody Whole Transcriptome Analysis whitelist.

Data S2. Monocle3-derived differentially expressed genes.

References

1.
1. Bajohr J
2. Faiz M.
2020Direct Lineage Reprogramming in the CNS
In:
1. Turksen K
, editors. Cell Biology and Translational Medicine, Volume 6: Stem Cells: Their Heterogeneity, Niche and Regenerative Potential Cham: Springer International Publishing pp. 31–48
https://doi.org/10.1007/5584_2019_374 Google Scholar
2.
1. Najm FJ
2. Lager AM
3. Zaremba A
4. Wyatt K
5. Caprariello AV
6. Factor DC
7. et al.
2013Transcription factor-mediated reprogramming of fibroblasts to expandable, myelinogenic oligodendrocyte progenitor cellsNat Biotechnol 31:426–33Google Scholar
3.
1. Kim KP
2. Li C
3. Bunina D
4. Jeong HW
5. Ghelman J
6. Yoon J
7. et al.
2021Donor cell memory confers a metastable state of directly converted cellsCell Stem Cell 28:1291–1306Google Scholar
4.
1. Heinrich C
2. Blum R
3. Gascón S
4. Masserdotti G
5. Tripathi P
6. Sánchez R
7. et al.
2010Directing astroglia from the cerebral cortex into subtype specific functional neuronsPLoS Biol 8:e1000373Google Scholar
5.
1. Heins N
2. Malatesta P
3. Cecconi F
4. Nakafuku M
5. Tucker KL
6. Hack MA
7. et al.
2002Glial cells generate neurons: the role of the transcription factor Pax6Nat Neurosci 5:308–15Google Scholar
6.
1. Guo Z
2. Zhang L
3. Wu Z
4. Chen Y
5. Wang F
6. Chen G.
2014In vivo direct reprogramming of reactive glial cells into functional neurons after brain injury and in an Alzheimer’s disease modelCell Stem Cell 14:188–202Google Scholar
7.
1. Liu Y
2. Miao Q
3. Yuan J
4. Han S
5. Zhang P
6. Li S
7. et al.
2015Ascl1 Converts Dorsal Midbrain Astrocytes into Functional Neurons In VivoJ Neurosci 35:9336–55Google Scholar
8.
1. Levison SW
2. Goldman JE
1993Both oligodendrocytes and astrocytes develop from progenitors in the subventricular zone of postnatal rat forebrainNeuron 10:201–12Google Scholar
9.
1. Kriegstein A
2. Alvarez-Buylla A.
2009The glial nature of embryonic and adult neural stem cellsAnnu Rev Neurosci 32:149–84Google Scholar
10.
1. Masserdotti G
2. Gascón S
3. Götz M.
2016Direct neuronal reprogramming: learning from and for developmentDevelopment 143:2494–510Google Scholar
11.
1. Harmanseder E.
2021Epigenetic memory in reprogrammingCurrent Opinion in Genetics & Development 70:24–31Google Scholar
12.
1. Bussmann LH
2. Schubert A
3. Manh TPV
4. Andres LD
5. Desbordes SC
6. Parra M
7. et al.
2009A Robust and Highly Eficient Immune Cell Reprogramming SystemCell Stem Cell 5:554–66Google Scholar
13.
1. Xie H
2. Ye M
3. Feng R
4. Graf T.
2004Stepwise reprogramming of B cells into macrophagesCell 117:663–76Google Scholar
14.
1. Mokhtarzadeh Khanghahi A
2. Satarian L
3. Deng W
4. Baharvand H
5. Javan M.
2018In vivo conversion of astrocytes into oligodendrocyte lineage cells with transcription factor Sox10; Promise for myelin repair in multiple sclerosisPLoS One 13:e0203785Google Scholar
15.
1. Marques S
2. Zeisel A
3. Codeluppi S
4. van Bruggen D
5. Mendanha Falcão A
6. Xiao L
7. et al.
2016Oligodendrocyte heterogeneity in the mouse juvenile and adult central nervous systemScience 352:1326–9Google Scholar
16.
1. Zhou Q
2. Wang S
3. Anderson DJ
2000Identification of a novel family of oligodendrocyte lineage-specific basic helix-loop-helix transcription factorsNeuron 25:331–43Google Scholar
17.
1. Wang H
2. Xu L
3. Lai C
4. Hou K
5. Chen J
6. Guo Y
7. et al.
2021Region-specific distribution of Olig2-expressing astrocytes in adult mouse brain and spinal cordMolecular Brain 14:36Google Scholar
18.
1. Bufo A
2. Vosko MR
3. Ertürk D
4. Hamann GF
5. Jucker M
6. Rowitch D
7. et al.
2005Expression pattern of the transcription factor Olig2 in response to brain injuries: Implications for neuronal repairProc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:18183–8Google Scholar
19.
1. Marshall CAG
2. Novitch BG
3. Goldman JE
2005Olig2 directs astrocyte and oligodendrocyte formation in postnatal subventricular zone cellsJ Neurosci 25:7289–98Google Scholar
20.
1. Tatsumi K
2. Isonishi A
3. Yamasaki M
4. Kawabe Y
5. Morita-Takemura S
6. Nakahara K
7. et al.
2018Olig2-Lineage Astrocytes: A Distinct Subtype of Astrocytes That Difers from GFAP AstrocytesFront Neuroanat 12:8Google Scholar
21.
1. Liu Z
2. Hu X
3. Cai J
4. Liu B
5. Peng X
6. Wegner M
7. et al.
2007Induction of oligodendrocyte differentiation by Olig2 and Sox10: evidence for reciprocal interactions and dosage-dependent mechanismsDev Biol 302:683–93Google Scholar
22.
1. Pozniak CD
2. Langseth AJ
3. Dijkgraaf GJP
4. Choe Y
5. Werb Z
6. Pleasure SJ
2010Sox10 directs neural stem cells toward the oligodendrocyte lineage by decreasing Suppressor of Fused expressionProc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:21795–800Google Scholar
23.
1. Takada N
2. Kucenas S
3. Appel B.
2010Sox10 is necessary for oligodendrocyte survival following axon wrappingGlia 58:996–1006Google Scholar
24.
1. Stolt CC
2. Rehberg S
3. Ader M
4. Lommes P
5. Riethmacher D
6. Schachner M
7. et al.
2002Terminal diferentiation of myelin-forming oligodendrocytes depends on the transcription factor Sox10Genes Dev 16:165–70Google Scholar
25.
1. Awatramani R
2. Scherer S
3. Grinspan J
4. Collarini E
5. Skof R
6. O’Hagan D
7. et al.
1997Evidence That the Homeodomain Protein Gtx Is Involved in the Regulation of Oligodendrocyte MyelinationJ Neurosci 17:6657–68Google Scholar
26.
1. Cai J
2. Zhu Q
3. Zheng K
4. Li H
5. Qi Y
6. Cao Q
7. et al.
2010Co-localization of Nkx6.2 and Nkx2.2 Homeodomain Proteins in Diferentiated Myelinating OligodendrocytesGlia 58:458–68Google Scholar
27.
1. Wang LL
2. Serrano C
3. Zhong X
4. Ma S
5. Zou Y
6. Zhang CL
2021Revisiting astrocyte to neuron conversion with lineage tracing in vivoCell 184:5465–5481Google Scholar
28.
1. McCarthy KD
2. de Vellis J.
1980Preparation of separate astroglial and oligodendroglial cell cultures from rat cerebral tissueJ Cell Biol 85:890–902Google Scholar
29.
1. Bray NL
2. Pimentel H
3. Melsted P
4. Pachter L.
2016Near-optimal probabilistic RNA-seq quantificationNat Biotechnol 34:525–7Google Scholar
30.
1. Melsted P
2. Booeshaghi AS
3. Liu L
4. Gao F
5. Lu L
6. Min KH
7. et al.
2021Modular, efficient and constant-memory single-cell RNA-seq preprocessingNat Biotechnol 39:813–8Google Scholar
31.
1. Hao Y
2. Hao S
3. Andersen-Nissen E
4. Mauck WM
5. Zheng S
6. Butler A
7. et al.
2021Integrated analysis of multimodal single-cell dataCell 184:3573–3587Google Scholar
32.
1. Gu Z
2. Eils R
3. Schlesner M.
2016Complex heatmaps reveal patterns and correlations in multidimensional genomic dataBioinformatics 32:2847–9Google Scholar
33.
1. Dugas JC
2. Tai YC
3. Speed TP
4. Ngai J
5. Barres BA
2006Functional genomic analysis of oligodendrocyte differentiationJ Neurosci 26:10967–83Google Scholar
34.
1. Marsh S.
2021scCustomize: Custom Visualizations & Functions for Streamlined Analyses of Single Cell SequencingZenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5706430
35.
1. Street K
2. Risso D
3. Fletcher RB
4. Das D
5. Ngai J
6. Yosef N
7. et al.
2018Slingshot: cell lineage and pseudotime inference for single-cell transcriptomicsBMC Genomics 19:477Google Scholar
36.
1. Trapnell C
2. Cacchiarelli D
3. Grimsby J
4. Pokharel P
5. Li S
6. Morse M
7. et al.
2014The dynamics and regulators of cell fate decisions are revealed by pseudotemporal ordering of single cellsNat Biotechnol 32:381–6Google Scholar
37.
1. Qiu X
2. Mao Q
3. Tang Y
4. Wang L
5. Chawla R
6. Pliner HA
7. et al.
2017Reversed graph embedding resolves complex single-cell trajectoriesNat Methods 14:979–82Google Scholar
38.
1. Cao J
2. Spielmann M
3. Qiu X
4. Huang X
5. Ibrahim DM
6. Hill AJ
7. et al.
2019The single cell transcriptional landscape of mammalian organogenesisNature 566:496–502Google Scholar
39.
1. Traag VA
2. Waltman L
3. van Eck NJ
2019From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communitiesSci Rep 9:5233Google Scholar
40.
1. Levine JH
2. Simonds EF
3. Bendall SC
4. Davis KL
5. Amir E ad D
6. Tadmor M
7. et al.
2015Data-driven phenotypic dissection of AML reveals progenitor-like cells that correlate with prognosisCell 162:184–97Google Scholar
41.
1. Kamimoto K
2. Stringa B
3. Hofmann CM
4. Jindal K
5. Solnica-Krezel L
6. Morris SA
2023Dissecting cell identity via network inference and in silico gene perturbationNature 614:742–51Google Scholar
42.
1. Wickham H.
2009ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data AnalysisNew York, NY: Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3 Google Scholar
43.
1. R Core Development Team
2020RStudio: Integrated Development for Rhttp://www.rstudio.com/
44.
1. Sadria M
2. Layton A
3. Goyal S
4. Bader GD
2022Fatecode: Cell fate regulator prediction using classification autoencoder perturbationbioRxiv :2022.12.16.520772https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.16.520772 Google Scholar
45.
1. Fard MK
2. van der Meer F
3. Sánchez P
4. Cantuti-Castelvetri L
5. Mandad S
6. Jäkel S
7. et al.
2017BCAS1 expression defines a population of early myelinating oligodendrocytes in multiple sclerosis lesionsSci Transl Med 9:eaam7816Google Scholar
46.
1. Vourc’h P
2. Andres C.
2004Oligodendrocyte myelin glycoprotein (OMgp): evolution, structure and functionBrain Res Brain Res Rev 45:115–24Google Scholar
47.
1. Mikol DD
2. Stefansson K.
1988A phosphatidylinositol-linked peanut agglutinin-binding glycoprotein in central nervous system myelin and on oligodendrocytesJ Cell Biol 106:1273–9Google Scholar
48.
1. Bi F
2. Huang C
3. Tong J
4. Qiu G
5. Huang B
6. Wu Q
7. et al.
2013Reactive astrocytes secrete lcn2 to promote neuron deathProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:4069–74Google Scholar
49.
1. Liddelow SA
2. Guttenplan KA
3. Clarke LE
4. Bennett FC
5. Bohlen CJ
6. Schirmer L
7. et al.
2017Neurotoxic reactive astrocytes are induced by activated microgliaNature 541:481–7Google Scholar
50.
1. Lee WH
2. Wang GM
3. Seaman LB
4. Vannucci SJ
1996Coordinate IGF-I and IGFBP5 Gene Expression in Perinatal Rat Brain after Hypoxia-IschemiaJ Cereb Blood Flow Metab 16:227–36Google Scholar
51.
1. Morita K
2. Sasaki H
3. Fujimoto K
4. Furuse M
5. Tsukita S.
1999Claudin-11/OSP-based Tight Junctions of Myelin Sheaths in Brain and Sertoli Cells in TestisJ Cell Biol 145:579–88Google Scholar
52.
1. Kister A
2. Kister I.
2023Overview of myelin, major myelin lipids, and myelin-associated proteinsFront Chem 10Google Scholar
53.
1. Hofmann SA
2. Hos D
3. Kuspert M
4. Lang RA
5. Lovell-Badge R
6. Wegner M
7. et al.
2014Stem cell factor Sox2 and its close relative Sox3 have differentiation functions in oligodendrocytesDevelopment 141:39–50Google Scholar
54.
1. Dugas JC
2. Ibrahim A
3. Barres BA
2012The T3-induced gene KLF9 regulates oligodendrocyte differentiation and myelin regenerationMol Cell Neurosci 50:45–57Google Scholar
55.
1. Yang N
2. Zuchero JB
3. Ahlenius H
4. Marro S
5. Ng YH
6. Vierbuchen T
7. et al.
2013Generation of oligodendroglial cells by direct lineage conversionNat Biotechnol 31:434–9Google Scholar
56.
1. Sock E
2. Wegner M.
2021Using the lineage determinants Olig2 and Sox10 to explore transcriptional regulation of oligodendrocyte developmentDev Neurobiol 81:892–901Google Scholar
57.
1. Lee Y
2. Messing A
3. Su M
4. Brenner M.
2008GFAP promoter elements required for regionspecific and astrocyte-specific expressionGlia 56:481–93Google Scholar
58.
1. Chen YC
2. Ma NX
3. Pei ZF
4. Wu Z
5. Do-Monte FH
6. Keefe S
7. et al.
2020A NeuroD1 AAV-Based Gene Therapy for Functional Brain Repair after Ischemic Injury through In Vivo Astrocyte-to-Neuron ConversionMolecular Therapy 28:217–34Google Scholar
59.
1. Qian H
2. Kang X
3. Hu J
4. Zhang D
5. Liang Z
6. Meng F
7. et al.
2020Reversing a model of Parkinson’s disease with in situ converted nigral neuronsNature 582:550–6Google Scholar
60.
1. Janeckova L
2. Knotek T
3. Kriska J
4. Hermanova Z
5. Kirdajova D
6. Kubovciak J
7. et al.
2024Astrocytelike subpopulation of NG2 glia in the adult mouse cortex exhibits characteristics of neural progenitor cellsGlia 72:245–73Google Scholar
61.
1. Kirdajova D
2. Valihrach L
3. Valny M
4. Kriska J
5. Krocianova D
6. Benesova S
7. et al.
2021Transient astrocyte-like NG2 glia subpopulation emerges solely following permanent brain ischemiaGlia 69:2658–81Google Scholar
62.
1. Rusnakova V
2. Honsa P
3. Dzamba D
4. Ståhlberg A
5. Kubista M
6. Anderova M.
2013Heterogeneity of Astrocytes: From Development to Injury - Single Cell Gene ExpressionPLOS One 8:e69734Google Scholar
63.
1. Barres BA
2. Jacobson MD
3. Schmid R
4. Sendtner M
5. Raf MC
1993Does oligodendrocyte survival depend on axons?Current Biology 3:489–97Google Scholar
64.
1. Macklin W b.
2. Weill C l.
1986Deininger P l. Expression of myelin proteolipid and basic protein mRNAS in cultured cellsJournal of Neuroscience Research 16:203–17Google Scholar
65.
1. Rosenberg SS
2. Kelland EE
3. Tokar E
4. De La Torre AR
5. Chan JR
2008The geometric and spatial constraints of the microenvironment induce oligodendrocyte differentiationProc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:14662–7Google Scholar
66.
1. Lee S
2. Leach MK
3. Redmond SA
4. Chong SYC
5. Mellon SH
6. Tuck SJ
7. et al.
2012A culture system to study oligodendrocyte myelination-processes using engineered nanofibersNat Methods 9:917–22Google Scholar
67.
1. Bush TG
2. Puvanachandra N
3. Horner CH
4. Polito A
5. Ostenfeld T
6. Svendsen CN
7. et al.
1999Leukocyte infiltration, neuronal degeneration, and neurite outgrowth after ablation of scar-forming, reactive astrocytes in adult transgenic miceNeuron 23:297–308Google Scholar
68.
1. Davis N
2. Mota BC
3. Stead L
4. Palmer EOC
5. Lombardero L
6. Rodríguez-Puertas R
7. et al.
2021Pharmacological ablation of astrocytes reduces Al3 degradation and synaptic connectivity in an ex vivo model of Alzheimer’s diseaseJ Neuroinlammation 18:73Google Scholar
69.
1. Gascón S
2. Masserdotti G
3. Russo GL
4. Götz M.
2017Direct Neuronal Reprogramming: Achievements, Hurdles, and New Roads to SuccessCell Stem Cell 21:18–34Google Scholar
1. Justine Bajohr
2. Erica Y.Scott
3. Arman Olfat
4. Mehrshad Sadria
5. Kevin Lee
6. Maria Fahim
7. Hiba T.Taha
8. Daniela Lozano Casasbuenas
9. Ann Derham
10. Scott A.Yuzwa
11. Gary D.Bader
12. Maryam Faiz
2024Direct lineage conversion of postnatal mouse cortical astrocytes to oligodendrocyte lineage cellsNCBI Gene Expression Omnibus ID GSE263185https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE263185
1. Sueli Marques
2. Amit Zeisel
3. Simone Codeluppi
4. David van Bruggen
5. Ana Mendanha Falcão
6. Lin Xiao
7. Huiliang Li
8. Martin Häring
9. Hannah Hochgerner
10. Roman A Romanov
11. Daniel Gyllborg
12. Ana Muñoz Manchado
13. Gioele La Manno
14. Peter Lönnerberg
15. Elisa M Floriddia
16. Fatemah Rezayee
17. Patrik Ernfors
18. Ernest Arenas
19. Jens Hjerling-Leffler
20. Tibor Harkany
21. William D Richardson
22. Sten Linnarsson
23. Gonçalo Castelo-Branco
2016Oligodendrocyte heterogeneity in the mouse juvenile and adult central nervous systemNCBI Gene Expression Omnibus ID GSE75330https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE75330

Article and author information

Author information

Justine Bajohr
Department of Surgery, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Institute of Medical Science, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Erica Y Scott
Department of Surgery, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Arts and Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Arman Olfat
Department of Surgery, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Mehrshad Sadria
Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
Kevin Lee
Department of Surgery, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Maria Fahim
Department of Surgery, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Hiba T Taha
Department of Surgery, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Institute of Medical Science, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Daniela Lozano Casasbuenas
Department of Surgery, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Ann Derham
Department of Surgery, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Scott A Yuzwa
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Gary D Bader
Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Department of Molecular Genetics, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0185-8861
Maryam Faiz
Department of Surgery, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Institute of Medical Science, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0671-3557
- For correspondence: maryam.faiz@utoronto.ca

Author Notes

Competing interests: MF, JB are co-inventors on a patent application (Applicants: Justine Bajohr, Maryam Faiz, The governing council of the University of Toronto; Inventors: Maryam Faiz, Justine Bajohr, US Provisional Filed #63/497,357, April 20, 2023). The author authors delcare no competing interests.

Version history

Sent for peer review: May 28, 2024
Preprint posted: May 30, 2024
Reviewed Preprint version 1: July 24, 2024
Reviewed Preprint version 2: December 5, 2025

Cite all versions

You can cite all versions using the DOI https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.98632. This DOI represents all versions, and will always resolve to the latest one.

Copyright

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

views: 1,300
downloads: 54
citations: 0

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.