ABSTRACT
Radial glial progenitor cells (RGCs) in the dorsal forebrain directly or indirectly produce excitatory projection neurons and macroglia of the neocortex. Recent evidence shows that the pool of RGCs is more heterogeneous than originally thought and that progenitor subpopulations can generate particular neuronal cell types. Using single cell RNA sequencing, we have studied gene expression patterns of two subtypes of RGCs that differ in their neurogenic behavior. One progenitor type rapidly produces postmitotic neurons, whereas the second progenitor remains relatively quiescence before generating neurons. We have identified candidate genes that are differentially expressed between these RGCs progenitor subtypes, including the transcription factor Sox9. Using in utero electroporation, we demonstrate that elevated Sox9 expression in progenitors prevents RGC division and leads to the generation of upper-layer cortical neurons from these progenitors at later ages. Our data thus reveal molecular differences between cortical progenitors with different neurogenic behavior and indicates that Sox9 is critical for the maintenance of RGCs to regulate the generation of upper layer neurons.
SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT The existence of heterogeneity in the pool of RGCs and its relationship with the generation of cellular diversity in the cerebral cortex has been an interesting topic of debate for many years. Here we describe the existence of a subpopulation of RGCs with reduced neurogenic behavior at early embryonic ages presenting a particular molecular signature. This molecular signature consists of differential expression of some genes including the transcription factor Sox9, found to be a specific master regulator of this subpopulation of progenitor cells. Functional experiments perturbing Sox9 expression’s levels reveal its instructive role in the regulation of the neurogenic behavior of RGCs and its relationship with the generation of upper layer projection neurons at later ages.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest statements: The authors declare no conflicts of interest