4.7 Article

Cooperative and redundant roles of VEGFR-2 and VEGFR-3 signaling in adult lymphangiogenesis

期刊

FASEB JOURNAL
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 1003-1012

出版社

FEDERATION AMER SOC EXP BIOL
DOI: 10.1096/fj.06-6656com

关键词

VEGF-C; mouse; in vitro wound healing; vasculogenesis

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01-HL075217-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activation of vascular endothelial growth factor ( VEGF) receptor-3 (VEGFR-3) by VEGF-C initiates lymphangiogenesis by promoting lymphatic proliferation and migration. However, it is unclear whether VEGFR-3 signaling is required beyond these initial stages, namely during the organization of new lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs) into functional capillaries. Furthermore, the role of VEGFR-2, which is also expressed on LECs and binds VEGF-C, is unclear. We addressed these questions by selectively neutralizing VEGFR-3 and/or VEGFR-2 for various time periods in an adult model of lymphangiogenesis in regenerating skin. While blocking either VEGFR-2 or VEGFR-3 with specific antagonist mAbs (DC101 and mF4-31C1, respectively) prior to lymphatic migration prevented lymphangiogenesis, blocking VEGFR-3 subsequent to migration did not affect organization into functional capillaries, and VEGFR-2 blocking had only a small hindrance on organization. These findings were confirmed in vitro using human LECs and anti-human antagonist mAbs (IMC-1121a and hF4-3C5): both VEGFR-2 and VEGFR-3 signaling were required for migration and proliferation, but tubulogenesis in 3D cultures was unaffected by VEGFR-3 blocking and partially hindered by VEGFR-2 blocking. Furthermore, both in vitro and in vivo, while VEGFR-3 blocking had no effect on LEC organization, coneutralization of VEGFR-2, and VEGFR- 3 completely prevented lymphatic organization. Our findings demonstrate that cooperative signaling of VEGFR-2 and -3 is necessary for lymphatic migration and proliferation, but VEGFR-3 is redundant with VEGFR-2 for LEC organization into functional capillaries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据