Fig. 5: Transcriptomic differences among SPNs terminating at different spinal targets.
From: A transcriptomic taxonomy of mouse brain-wide spinal projecting neurons
a, The 10x data were generated by separately collecting cervical-projecting (GFP+) from dual- (GFP+/mScarlet+) and lumbar- (mScarlet+) projecting SPNs nuclei across the WB, and the SSv4 dataset used indexed plate-based sorting to separate cervical- (GFP+), lumbar- (mScarlet+) and dual- (GFP+/mScarlet+) projecting SPNs. b, UMAP visualization of all SPNs coloured by source (ROI, as in Fig. 1d) and target (spinal cord level). c, Proportion of cervical (green) versus dual or lumbar (pink) across SPN transcriptomic types. Bars above proportion plot indicate subclass and division. Types ordered as in Fig. 1c. d, Violin plot of the differentially expressed genes Epha4 and Efna5 across all SPNs, grouped by ROI (10x data, n = 61,484 nuclei). The centre line of the overlayed box and whisker plots depicts the median value (50th percentile) while the box contains the 25th to 75th percentiles; the whiskers correspond to the 5th and 95th percentiles. e, Proportion of cervical-, dual- and lumbar-projecting neurons in the SSv4 CSN and RuSN datasets. f, SSv4 UMAPs of CSNs (top) and RuSNs (bottom). g, Volcano plots of differentially expressed genes for cervical- (green) versus dual-/lumbar- (magenta) projecting CSNs (top) and RuSNs (bottom). Genes of interest are labelled. Differential expression analysis was performed with Seurat using the MAST test; significant genes were defined as those with a false discovery rate adjusted P value of less than 0.05. h, enrichR was used to determine enriched Gene Ontology terms of differentially expressed genes in g in CSNs (top) and RuSNs (bottom). enrichR uses adjusted P values computed using the Benjamini–Hochberg method for correction for multiple hypotheses testing.
