Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Lineage reprogramming of resident glial cells to dopaminergic neurons (DAns) is an attractive prospect of the cell-replacement therapy for Parkinson's disease (PD). However, it is unclear whether repressing polypyrimidine tract binding protein 1 (PTBP1) could efficiently convert astrocyte to DAns in the substantia nigra and striatum. Although reporter-positive DAns were observed in both groups after delivering the adeno-associated virus (AAV) expressing a reporter with shRNA or CRISPR-CasRx to repress astroglial PTBP1, the possibility of AAV leaking into endogenous DAns could not be excluded without using a reliable lineage-tracing method. By adopting stringent lineage-tracing strategy, two other studies show that either knockdown or genetic deletion of quiescent astroglial PTBP1 fails to obtain induced DAns under physiological condition. However, the role of reactive astrocytes might be underestimated because upon brain injury, reactive astrocyte can acquire certain stem cell hallmarks that may facilitate the lineage conversion process. Therefore, whether reactive astrocytes could be genuinely converted to DAns after PTBP1 repression in a PD model needs further validation. In this study, we used Aldh1l1-CreERT2-mediated specific astrocyte-lineage-tracing method to investigate whether reactive astrocytes could be converted to DAns in a 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA) mouse model of PD. However, we found that no astrocyte-originated DAn was generated after effective and persistent knockdown of astroglial PTBP1 either in the substantia nigra or in striatum, while AAV 'leakage' to nearby neurons was easily observed. Our results confirm that repressing PTBP1 does not convert astrocytes to DAns, regardless of physiological or PD-related pathological conditions.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.