Aiming to elicit photoreceptor generation in situ in the mouse eye, we explored gene-directed reprogramming of the RPE by creating transgenic mice of P
VMD2-ngn1 and of P
RPE65-ngn3. Degrees of phenotype manifestation varied among transgenic lines, as well as among offspring of the same line. The variation could be attributed to heterogeneity in transgene expression from stochastic fluctuations in gene expression
28–30 and from the limited promoter sequence insufficient for ensuring specificity and/or consistent levels of transgene expression.
A pronounced phenotype was the presence of PR-L cells in the subretinal space. The amount of PR-L cells varied, possibly due to variation in cell production, migration, and death, as well as heterogeneity in transgene expression. TUNEL assay did not detect positive cells in places occupied by PR-L cells or in the ONL, suggesting cell death was either an insignificant factor or occurring at a very low frequency/rate undetectable by the TUNEL assay. The variations in the amount of PR-L cells among different histological locations of the same eye bring forth a question of whether certain anatomical locations were more reactive to the experimental manipulations than others. PR-L cells were often observed in the peripheral regions and occasionally in the area immediately adjacent to optic nerve head. It has been shown that the periphery RPE contains proliferating cells.
6 It is possible that those naturally proliferating cells were more susceptible to the gene-directed reprogramming. The RPE at the area of optic nerve head transitions into part of the optic nerve structure, and this might render the RPE at the region somewhat more responsive to reprogramming. If and when experimentally confirmed and defined, the specific anatomic location may become the target for delivering an inductive factor with a vehicle more applicable to human use than the traditional transgenic approach.
Despite the design that aimed at transgene expression in the RPE, the source of the PR-L cells may not be simply attributed to the RPE, because the transgenic approach used in this study would not ensure strict regulation, both temporally and spatially, of the transgene expression. Thus, various tissues possibly had participated in the generation of the PR-L cells. Support to RPE being one—although not necessarily the only—source of the PR-L cells came from results of two sets of experiments: (1) Eyes from transgenic animals contained cells displaying characteristics suitable for being in transitional stages in RPE-to-photoreceptor reprogramming. Recoverin+ cells were founded (a) within the RPE layer, and (b) in a layer of darkly pigmented cells adjacent to the RPE, in addition to (c) in territories occupied by well-defined PR-L cells expressing hallmark proteins and displaying feature morphologies of photoreceptors. Further, cells in the three groups displayed gradual changes of RPE-to-photoreceptor, from overtly RPE-like in group A, to bearing marks of both RPE and photoreceptor in group B, to utterly PR-L in group C. (2) Cultured eyecups (without the neural retina) contained cells expressing photoreceptor proteins and exhibiting photoreceptor morphologies. These cells incorporated BrdU while in culture and, thus, were likely derived from the explant and not from contaminating retinal tissue/cells. Other observations seem also in favor of the RPE being a source of the PR-L cells. The PR-L cells were always physically associated with pigmented tissue (presumably of RPE origin) that demarcated the PR-L cells and their domains, implicative of a lineage relationship. Some of the PR-L cells were in reverse orientation in reference to retinal photoreceptors, consistent with the classic observations in amphibians and embryonic chick that RPE-derived retina (through transdifferentiation) exhibits a reverse orientation with its ONL facing the vitreous. Notably, some PR-L cells were in the same orientation as those ONL cells, raising a question of whether the orientation of PR-L cells was adaptive or was determined by the apical-basal orientation of the RPE that produced the PR-L cells.
One critical issue in the potential application of using the RPE for photoreceptor generation is whether the new cells were produced at the expense of the RPE, an undesirable outcome as the RPE plays essential roles in maintaining the health of the retina, particularly of photoreceptors. This scenario was ruled out by the presence of the monolayer RPE in eyes with PR-L cells and at the place with cells seemingly en route of RPE-to-photoreceptor transition. It seems that the RPE might have regenerated itself, after some of its cells had taken on the route to becoming PR-L cells. Self-regeneration or wound healing of the mammalian RPE is well documented. After experimental RPE debridement in the pig eye, the RPE heals.
31 RPE wound healing has also been reported in aged-related macular degeneration patients after debridement of defective RPE monolayer.
32 RPE repair/wound healing initially involves cell sliding migration and subsequently cell proliferation
33 and may require the presence of neural retina for the new RPE to structurally and functionally mature.
34 Nonetheless, it is unclear at the present time whether RPE proliferation and regeneration in our transgenic mice stemmed from RPE's natural capacity, from the expression of the transgene, or a combination of the two.
ngn1 and
ngn3 are generally believed to suppress Notch/Delta and activate cell differentiation. Likewise, it remains to be determined whether and how the ability to regenerate RPE was coupled to the ability to generate PR-L cells in the mice.
A question highly relevant to the potential application of our theme of photoreceptor generation is whether the RPE in an aging mammalian eye would be responsive to the gene-directed reprogramming. The presence in the eye from a 9-month-old mouse of cells bearing marks of being en route RPE-to-photoreceptor transition suggests that the aging RPE was responsive. Additionally, the presence of recoverin+/BrdU+ cells in eyecup explants derived from a 6-month-old mouse indicates that the eyecup from mice well into adulthood was able to give birth to PR-L cells in vitro.
Together the data presented in this report support the prospect of exploring gene-directed reprogramming of the RPE for photoreceptor generation in situ in the mammalian eye for cell replacement. At the same time, they raise many questions, some of which important to clinical implications. For example, the indication of RPE-to-photoreceptor transition occurring in both young and aging mice raises a question of whether new PR-L cells were being continuously generated. Continuous generation of new PR-L cells could be beneficial under certain circumstance, but raises the concern of tumorigenesis. If new cells had been continuously generated at significant rate, there might have been more PR-L cells in older mice than in younger ones as a result of cell accumulation. However, there was no clear correlation between age and the amount of PR-L cells. The lack of PR-L cell accumulation in aged mice might not simply due to death of new, continuously generated PR-L cells, as no TUNEL
+ cells were observed. One plausible scenario is that the RPE-to-photoreceptor reprogramming was a noncontinuous event and had commenced in different animals at different ages due to either stochastic mechanisms
28–30 or heterogeneities in the special/temporal expression of the transgene. In the latter case, an approach to ensure temporally and spatially specific expression of the transgene needs to be used in future investigations.