Temporal plasticity of apical progenitors in the developing mouse neocortex
Authors: Cristina Concetti
Sabine Fièvre
Giorgia Bartolini
Natalia Baumann
Polina Oberst
Denis Jabaudon
Journal: Nature (2019)
Discipline: Multidisciplinary
Keywords: excitatory neurons; neocortex; apical progenitors; intermediate progenitors; fate progression
Affiliations: Department of Basic Neurosciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland., Center for Stem Cell Biology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA., Institute of Neuroscience, ETH Zürich, Schwerzenbach, Switzerland., Department of Basic Neurosciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. ., Clinic of Neurology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland. .

Abstract:  The diverse subtypes of excitatory neurons that populate the neocortex are born from apical progenitors located in the ventricular zone. During corticogenesis, apical progenitors sequentially generate deep-layer neurons followed by superficial-layer neurons directly or via the generation of intermediate progenitors. Whether neurogenic fate progression necessarily implies fate restriction in single progenitor types is unknown. Here we specifically isolated apical progenitors and intermediate progenitors, and fate-mapped their respective neuronal progeny following heterochronic transplantation into younger embryos. We find that apical progenitors are temporally plastic and can re-enter past molecular, electrophysiological and neurogenic states when exposed to an earlier-stage environment by sensing dynamic changes in extracellular Wnt. By contrast, intermediate progenitors are committed progenitors that lack such retrograde fate plasticity. These findings identify a diversity in the temporal plasticity of neocortical progenitors, revealing that some subtypes of cells can be untethered from their normal temporal progression to re-enter past developmental states. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Pointed out by a reader: Extended Figure 2B: In the Donor Litter 2 set, one of the  5 and one of the  6 panels appear to look similar. Marked in orange. Could the authors please check? ![file] , 
 In Extended Figure 7, more similarities between panels appear to be visible. Marked in red, aqua, lime, and pink. ![file] , 
 This manuscript has irregularities in the extended figures. Attached some examples. ![file] , 
 Thank you for raising these points. We are looking into this and will get back , 
 #4 Following the recent post on this site, we have now established that some histological sections were imaged twice and considered as distinct data points. The error happened because the images in question were taken several days or weeks apart by two distinct investigators; differences in image acquisition and processing led to different image properties, resulting in their misclassification. We have now gone back to the original sections and images and have corrected this mistake; the significance of all statistical analyses following this correction remains unchanged. We have informed the journal editors and we are preparing a formal correction, which will be linked on this site in due course. We apologize for this mistake and thank the community for having alerted us. , 
 The author correction for this article is now available at https: www.nature.com articles s41586-020-2218-8 ,