Cited by 627Glaucoma and retinal disordersNerve injury and regenerationSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

Single-Cell Profiles of Retinal Ganglion Cells Differing in Resilience to Injury Reveal Neuroprotective Genes

Open access
Tran, Nicholas M., Shekhar, Karthik, Whitney, Irene E., Jacobi, Anne, Benhar, Inbal, Hong, Guosong, Yan, Wenjun, Adiconis, Xian +9 more·2019·Neuron

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Neuronal types in the central nervous system differ dramatically in their resilience to injury or other insults. Here we studied the selective resilience of mouse retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) following optic nerve crush (ONC), which severs their axons and leads to death of ∼80% of RGCs within 2 weeks. To identify expression programs associated with differential resilience, we first used single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) to generate a comprehensive molecular atlas of 46 RGC types in adult retina. We then tracked their survival after ONC; characterized transcriptomic, physiological, and morphological changes that preceded degeneration; and identified genes selectively expressed by each type. Finally, using loss- and gain-of-function assays in vivo, we showed that manipulating some of these genes improved neuronal survival and axon regeneration following ONC. This study provides a systematic framework for parsing type-specific responses to injury and demonstrates that differential gene expression can be used to reveal molecular targets for intervention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.11.006

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prkaa1 expression is found in many RGC subtypes including αON sustained and transient, αOFF sustained and transient, melanopsin-positive (M1, M2 and M5), and ON-OFF direction selective RGCs (oo-DS).

    “a comprehensive molecular atlas of 46 RGC subtypes in the adult retina generated by single-cell RNA-seq [58] shows that Prkaa1 expression is found in many RGC subtypes including αON sustained and transient, αOFF sustained and transient, melanopsin-positive (M1, M2 and M5), and ON-OFF direction selective RGCs (oo-DS).”

    From AMPK hyperactivation promotes dendrite retraction, synaptic loss, and neuronal dysfunction in glaucoma (2021) · cites this paper as [58]

    The Results section, “An atlas of molecularly defined RGC types,” confirms that the authors used single-cell RNA-seq to identify 46 RGC types in adult mouse retina. The subclass Results passages describe αRGCs, melanopsin-positive RGCs and ooDSGCs, but do not report Prkaa1 expression in the listed subtypes; searches for Prkaa1 and AMPK did not find that expression claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Chen T, and Guestrin C (2016). Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (ACM).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tran, N. M., Shekhar, K., Whitney, I. E., Jacobi, A., Benhar, I., Hong, G., Yan, W., Adiconis, X., Arnold, M. E., Lee, J. M., Levin, J. Z., Lin, D., Wang, C., Lieber, C. M., Regev, A., He, Z., & Sanes, J. R.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Sanes, Joshua R.
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
104
Issue
6
Pages
1039-1055.e12
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2990382732
Cited by
627
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 79 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 105 · 2022: 101 · 2021: 101 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 4
FWCI
62.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Biogen
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
retinal ganglion cells, optic nerve crush, neuroprotection, axon regeneration, single-cell transcriptomics, neurodegeneration
MeSH terms
Neuroprotection, Animals, Cell Survival, Female, Male, Nerve Crush, Nerve Regeneration, Retinal Ganglion Cells, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review