eLife Assessment

This study shows that combining forced cell cycle re-entry with Rbpj deletion enhances Müller glia dedifferentiation and promotes their conversion into retinal neuron-like cells in the uninjured mouse retina. It provides a valuable strategy for improving Müller glia-mediated neurogenesis and advancing regenerative potential in the mammalian retina. Overall, the data are convincing, but the conclusions would be strengthened by functional validation of the newly generated neurons and retinal performance, as well as an assessment of Müller glia long-term function and cell survival.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study examines Müller glia (MG) reprogramming in the uninjured mouse retina through a combination of Notch signaling inhibition and AAV-induced proliferation. Building on their prior work showing that Cyclin D1 overexpression and p27^Kip1^ knockdown (CCA) promotes MG proliferation with very limited neurogenesis, the authors now demonstrate that Rbpj deletion alone induces a modest degree of MG-to-neuron conversion without proliferation, in agreement with recent work in the field. However, combining Rbpj deletion with CCA-mediated proliferation substantially enhances MG dedifferentiation and the generation of retinal neuron-like cells. Through genetic lineage tracing, histological analyses, and single-cell transcriptomics, the authors provide evidence that MG-derived cells acquire molecular features of bipolar (ON, OFF, and rod bipolar) and amacrine neurons. Most MG-derived cells appear to survive long-term (up to 9 months).

Strengths:

Overall, the study is carefully designed and executed, and the manuscript is clearly written with well-presented figures. While the work does not significantly expand the repertoire of neuronal types generated from mammalian MG beyond what has been previously reported in the field, it provides a valuable and improved strategy for inducing robust MG proliferation and neurogenesis in the mammalian retina.

Weaknesses:

(1) It would be better to include a negative control AAV when evaluating the effect of CCA AAV in the Rbpj KO background. This could help distinguish the specific contribution of the CCA construct from potential effects of intravitreal AAV injection itself, which can induce mild inflammation, known to influence MG reprogramming.

(2) The extent of MG transduction by the CCA AAV is not clear. As quantifications are normalized to total MG (GFP^+^ or TdTomato^+^) or retinal length, it would be useful to clarify whether near-complete transduction is assumed, or if additional information on transduction efficiency can be provided.

(3) In Figure S10, the reduced MG proliferation observed in the CCA + Rbpj deletion group could also potentially reflect decreased GFAP promoter activity in dedifferentiated MG following Rbpj deletion. Alternatively, MG-derived cells may be more fragile under these conditions.

(4) In the CCA + Rbpj deletion condition, do MG undergo single or multiple rounds of cell division?

(5) What fraction of neuron-like cells (bipolar- and amacrine-like) arises from proliferation versus direct transdifferentiation? Quantification of MG-derived cells expressing neuronal markers (e.g., Otx2, HuC/D), with and without EdU labeling, would help distinguish these mechanisms.

(6) In Figure S18a, the authors state that "while the neuron-like clusters were best classified as BC-like and AC-like based on their distinct marker gene expression, they also exhibited mixed expression of genes associated with other retinal neuronal types, including RGC markers (e.g., Tubb3, Myt1l, Grin1) and photoreceptor markers (e.g., Crx, Prom1, Epha10, Gucy2e, Scg3) (Fig. S18a), suggesting that the regenerated cells exist in a hybrid state" and "MG derived neuron like cells also expressed genes characteristic of RGCs and photoreceptors, indicating enhanced lineage". However, many of these genes are not specific to RGCs or photoreceptors and are instead broadly expressed in retinal neurons or enriched in bipolar/amacrine populations. Therefore, it is unclear whether these cells exhibit hybrid RGC or photoreceptor identity.

(7) The authors provide a thorough molecular characterization of MG-derived cells through immunostaining and single-cell sequencing. However, their morphological features, synaptic connectivity (e.g., synaptic marker expression), and electrophysiological properties remain largely uncharacterized. While these experiments may be technically challenging, this limitation should be discussed.

(8) The conclusion that CCA + Rbpj deletion induces neurogenesis without compromising MG supportive functions or retinal homeostasis appears somewhat oversold. This claim is primarily based on gross retinal morphology and ZO-1 staining. Given the extent of MG dedifferentiation and ectopic cell generation in the ONL and INL, it is likely that retinal function is affected. Functional assessments (e.g., ERG) would be required to support this conclusion. The authors should consider tempering this statement.

(9) Regarding the mechanism by which CCA-induced proliferation enhances MG reprogramming in the Rbpj knockout background, one plausible explanation is that chromatin states (e.g., histone modifications and DNA methylation) are transiently reset during DNA replication and cell division. While this alone may be insufficient to activate neurogenic programs, it could synergize with Rbpj deletion to allow neurogenic transcription factors (such as Ascl1, Otx2, NeuroD1, and NeuroD2) to access previously inaccessible chromatin regions, thereby promoting MG reprogramming.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The inability of the mammalian retina to regenerate poses a major clinical challenge. Much has been learned about the regenerative potential of the retina from teleost fish, where Müller glia (MG) are able to proliferate and produce new neurons after injury. However, MG do not retain this potential in the mammalian retina. The authors showed previously that forcing MG to re-enter the cell cycle by downregulating p27 and upregulating cyclin D1 could induce MG to dedifferentiate, but the results were transient, and these cells eventually reverted back to MG and did not form neurons. Here, they expand on this to show that in MG, coupling forced cell cycle re-entry with deletion of Rbpj, which inhibits the transcriptional effects of Notch signaling, induces some MG to proliferate and take on features of multiple cell types, including MG precursor cells, amacrine-like cells, and bipolar-like cells. This work lends valuable insight into the regenerative potential of mammalian MG, particularly when Notch signaling is manipulated.

Strengths:

The major claims of the authors are well-supported. They show convincingly - and through multiple methods including immunostaining, single-nucleus RNA sequencing, and in situ hybridization - that coupling notch inhibition with cell cycle reactivation induces the expression of neuronal markers in mammalian MG. The snRNA-seq data are particularly valuable in demonstrating the induction of bipolar-cell subtypes. Edu labeling is effective in demonstrating the induction of proliferation, and the long-term viability of the generated neuron-like cells is intriguing.

Weaknesses:

Whether the newly generated neurons are functionally integrated remains unclear, and the effect of the manipulation on the function of the retina was not tested. Imaging data suggests that many of the newly generated neurons persist for months, but often appear mislocalized. It is also not clear if the manipulation of MG affects long-term MG function. Cell death was not evaluated, and although the authors evaluated the long-term effect on tight junctions, this data was not quantified, and further analysis on morphology or function was not done. Control eyes were untreated, not vehicle-injected.