Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37575968›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in molecular neuroscience2023

Heterogeneity in quiescent Müller glia in the uninjured zebrafish retina drive differential responses following photoreceptor ablation.

Aaron Krylov, Shuguang Yu, Kellie Veen, Axel Newton, Aojun Ye, Huiwen Qin, Jie He, Patricia R Jusuf

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in molecular neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. eLife · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Aaron KrylovSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Shuguang YuState Key Laboratory of Neuroscience, CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology, Institute of Neuroscience, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Kellie VeenSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Axel NewtonSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Aojun YeNational Laboratory of Biomacromolecules, CAS Center for Excellence in Biomacromolecules, Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Huiwen QinNational Laboratory of Biomacromolecules, CAS Center for Excellence in Biomacromolecules, Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Jie HeState Key Laboratory of Neuroscience, CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology, Institute of Neuroscience, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Patricia R JusufSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
University of Melbourne · AUChinese Academy of Sciences · CNCenter for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Loss of neurons in the neural retina is a leading cause of vision loss. While humans do not possess the capacity for retinal regeneration, zebrafish can achieve this through activation of resident Müller glia. Remarkably, despite the presence of Müller glia in humans and other mammalian vertebrates, these cells lack an intrinsic ability to contribute to regeneration. Upon activation, zebrafish Müller glia can adopt a stem cell-like state, undergo proliferation and generate new neurons. However, the underlying molecular mechanisms of this activation subsequent retinal regeneration remains unclear. Methods/Results: To address this, we performed single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and report remarkable heterogeneity in gene expression within quiescent Müller glia across distinct dorsal, central and ventral retina pools of such cells. Next, we utilized a genetically driven, chemically inducible nitroreductase approach to study Müller glia activation following selective ablation of three distinct photoreceptor subtypes: long wavelength sensitive cones, short wavelength sensitive cones, and rods. There, our data revealed that a region-specific bias in activation of Müller glia exists in the zebrafish retina, and this is independent of the distribution of the ablated cell type across retinal regions. Notably, gene ontology analysis revealed that injury-responsive dorsal and central Müller glia express genes related to dorsal/ventral pattern formation, growth factor activity, and regulation of developmental process. Through scRNA-seq analysis, we identify a shared genetic program underlying initial Müller glia activation and cell cycle entry, followed by differences that drive the fate of regenerating neurons. We observed an initial expression of AP-1 and injury-responsive transcription factors, followed by genes involved in Notch signaling, ribosome biogenesis and gliogenesis, and finally expression of cell cycle, chromatin remodeling and microtubule-associated genes. Discussion: Taken together, our findings document the regional specificity of gene expression within quiescent Müller glia and demonstrate unique Müller glia activation and regeneration features following neural ablation. These findings will improve our understanding of the molecular pathways relevant to neural regeneration in the retina.

Indexed as

glia heterogeneityMüller gliaphotoreceptor ablationretinal regenerationzebrafish

Identifiers

PMID37575968
PMCPMC10413128
OpenAlexW4385303512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.