Spatiotemporal dynamics and heterogeneity of renal lymphatics in mammalian development and cystic kidney disease

Abstract

Heterogeneity of lymphatic vessels during embryogenesis is critical for organ-specific lymphatic function. Little is known about lymphatics in the developing kidney, despite their established roles in pathology of the mature organ. We performed three-dimensional imaging to characterize lymphatic vessel formation in the mammalian embryonic kidney at single-cell resolution. In mouse, we visually and quantitatively assessed the development of kidney lymphatic vessels, remodeling from a ring-like anastomosis under the nascent renal pelvis, a site of VEGF-C expression, to form a patent vascular plexus. We identified a heterogenous population of lymphatic endothelial cell clusters in mouse and human embryonic kidneys. Exogenous VEGF-C expanded the lymphatic population in explanted mouse embryonic kidneys. Finally, we characterized complex kidney lymphatic abnormalities in a genetic mouse model of polycystic kidney disease. Our study provides novel insights into the development of kidney lymphatic vasculature; a system which likely has fundamental roles in renal development, physiology and disease.

Data availability

The FIJI script used for segmenting and binarizing PROX1+/LYVE1+ cells has been provided as Source code file 1. All raw numerical data and results of statistical tests are attached as Source Data files with the appropriate figure.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Daniyal J Jafree

    Developmental Biology and Cancer Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8235-0394
  2. Dale Moulding

    Developmental Biology and Cancer Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Maria Kolatsi-Joannou

    Developmental Biology and Cancer Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Nuria Perretta Tejedor

    Developmental Biology and Cancer Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Karen L Price

    Developmental Biology and Cancer Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Natalie J Milmoe

    Developmental Biology and Cancer Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Claire L Walsh

    Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Rosa Maria Correra

    UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Paul JD Winyard

    Developmental Biology and Cancer Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Peter C Harris

    Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Christiana Ruhrberg

    UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Simon Walker-Samuel

    Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Paul R Riley

    Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9862-7332
  14. Adrian S Woolf

    School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5541-1358
  15. Peter Scambler

    Developmental Biology and Cancer Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. David A Long

    Developmental Biology and Cancer Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    d.long@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6580-3435

Funding

UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health (Child Health Research Studentship)

  • Daniyal J Jafree
  • Peter Scambler
  • David A Long

British Heart Foundation (RG/15/14/31880)

  • Peter Scambler

Kidney Research UK (Paed_RP_10_2018)

  • Daniyal J Jafree
  • Adrian S Woolf
  • David A Long

Kidney Research UK (IN_012_2019)

  • Daniyal J Jafree
  • David A Long

University College London MB/PhD Programme (MB/PhD Studentship)

  • Daniyal J Jafree

Medical Research Council (MR/P018629/1)

  • David A Long

Medical Research Council (MR/L002744/1)

  • Adrian S Woolf

Medical Research Council (MR/K026739/1)

  • Adrian S Woolf

British Heart Foundation (FS/19/14/34170)

  • Rosa Maria Correra

Diabetes UK (15/0005283)

  • David A Long

NIHR Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre Award (17DD08)

  • Dale Moulding

British Heart Foundation (CH/11/1/28798)

  • Paul R Riley

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments were carried out according to a UK Home Office project license (PPL: PE52D8C09) and were compliant with the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

Human subjects: Human fetal kidneys were obtained from the Human Developmental Biology Resource (http://www.hdbr.org), which obtains written consent from donors to collect, store and distribute human fetal material between 4-20PCW.

Copyright

© 2019, Jafree et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,505
    views
  • 553
    downloads
  • 51
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Daniyal J Jafree
  2. Dale Moulding
  3. Maria Kolatsi-Joannou
  4. Nuria Perretta Tejedor
  5. Karen L Price
  6. Natalie J Milmoe
  7. Claire L Walsh
  8. Rosa Maria Correra
  9. Paul JD Winyard
  10. Peter C Harris
  11. Christiana Ruhrberg
  12. Simon Walker-Samuel
  13. Paul R Riley
  14. Adrian S Woolf
  15. Peter Scambler
  16. David A Long
(2019)
Spatiotemporal dynamics and heterogeneity of renal lymphatics in mammalian development and cystic kidney disease
eLife 8:e48183.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48183

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48183

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Ruben Sebastian-Perez, Shoma Nakagawa ... Maria Pia Cosma
    Research Article

    Chromocenters are established after the 2-cell (2C) stage during mouse embryonic development, but the factors that mediate chromocenter formation remain largely unknown. To identify regulators of 2C heterochromatin establishment in mice, we generated an inducible system to convert embryonic stem cells (ESCs) to 2C-like cells. This conversion is marked by a global reorganization and dispersion of H3K9me3-heterochromatin foci, which are then reversibly formed upon re-entry into pluripotency. By profiling the chromatin-bound proteome (chromatome) through genome capture of ESCs transitioning to 2C-like cells, we uncover chromatin regulators involved in de novo heterochromatin formation. We identified TOPBP1 and investigated its binding partner SMARCAD1. SMARCAD1 and TOPBP1 associate with H3K9me3-heterochromatin in ESCs. Interestingly, the nuclear localization of SMARCAD1 is lost in 2C-like cells. SMARCAD1 or TOPBP1 depletion in mouse embryos leads to developmental arrest, reduction of H3K9me3, and remodeling of heterochromatin foci. Collectively, our findings contribute to comprehending the maintenance of chromocenters during early development.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Yunfei Mu, Shijia Hu ... Hongjun Shi
    Research Article

    Notch signaling has been identified as a key regulatory pathway in patterning the endocardium through activation of endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in the atrioventricular canal (AVC) and proximal outflow tract (OFT) region. However, the precise mechanism underlying Notch activation remains elusive. By transiently blocking the heartbeat of E9.5 mouse embryos, we found that Notch activation in the arterial endothelium was dependent on its ligand Dll4, whereas the reduced expression of Dll4 in the endocardium led to a ligand-depleted field, enabling Notch to be specifically activated in AVC and OFT by regional increased shear stress. The strong shear stress altered the membrane lipid microdomain structure of endocardial cells, which activated mTORC2 and PKC and promoted Notch1 cleavage even in the absence of strong ligand stimulation. These findings highlight the role of mechanical forces as a primary cue for endocardial patterning and provide insights into the mechanisms underlying congenital heart diseases of endocardial origin.