Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36760223›Full record

ReviewMicrocirculation (New York, N.Y. : 1994)2023

Modeling lymphangiogenesis: Pairing in vitro and in vivo metrics.

Aileen C Suarez, Jennifer H Hammel, Jennifer M Munson

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microcirculation (New York, N.Y. : 1994), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Lymphatic Pathophysiology.Microcirculation (New York, N.Y. : 1994) · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aileen C SuarezFralin Biomedical Research Institute, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, Virginia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3356-262X
Jennifer H HammelFralin Biomedical Research Institute, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, Virginia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5662-6377
Jennifer M MunsonFralin Biomedical Research Institute, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, Virginia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9477-1505
Virginia Tech - Wake Forest University School of Biomedical Engineering & Sciences · US

Funding

VT Initiative for Maximizing Student DiversityR25GM072767 · NIGMS · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI SMITH, EDWARD J · 2007 to 2021
$6.9M
A spatially organized microphysiological model of a human lymph nodeU01EB029127 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI POMPANO, REBECCA R · 2019 to 2023
$3.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS U01 EB029127NIGMS NIH HHS R25 GM072767
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lymphangiogenesis is the mechanism by which the lymphatic system develops and expands new vessels facilitating fluid drainage and immune cell trafficking. Models to study lymphangiogenesis are necessary for a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms and to identify or test new therapeutic agents that target lymphangiogenesis. Across the lymphatic literature, multiple models have been developed to study lymphangiogenesis in vitro and in vivo. In vitro, lymphangiogenesis can be modeled with varying complexity, from monolayers to hydrogels to explants, with common metrics for characterizing proliferation, migration, and sprouting of lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs) and vessels. In comparison, in vivo models of lymphangiogenesis often use genetically modified zebrafish and mice, with in situ mouse models in the ear, cornea, hind leg, and tail. In vivo metrics, such as activation of LECs, number of new lymphatic vessels, and sprouting, mirror those most used in vitro, with the addition of lymphatic vessel hyperplasia and drainage. The impacts of lymphangiogenesis vary by context of tissue and pathology. Therapeutic targeting of lymphangiogenesis can have paradoxical effects depending on the pathology including lymphedema, cancer, organ transplant, and inflammation. In this review, we describe and compare lymphangiogenic outcomes and metrics between in vitro and in vivo studies, specifically reviewing only those publications in which both testing formats are used. We find that in vitro studies correlate well with in vivo in wound healing and development, but not in the reproductive tract or the complex tumor microenvironment. Considerations for improving in vitro models are to increase complexity with perfusable microfluidic devices, co-cultures with tissue-specific support cells, the inclusion of fluid flow, and pairing in vitro models of differing complexities. We believe that these changes would strengthen the correlation between in vitro and in vivo outcomes, giving more insight into lymphangiogenesis in healthy and pathological states.

Indexed as

LymphangiogenesisLymphatic VesselsAnimalsEndothelial CellsLymphatic SystemMiceZebrafishin vitro modelslymphaticsregenerative medicine

Identifiers

PMID36760223
PMCPMC10121924
OpenAlexW4319812810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.