1. Developmental Biology
Download icon

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

  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  Is a corresponding author
  1. University College London, United Kingdom
  2. Mayo Clinic, United States
  3. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  4. University of Manchester, United Kingdom
Short Report
  • Cited 3
  • Views 2,931
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e48183 doi: 10.7554/eLife.48183

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.

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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Kari Alitalo, Wihuri Research Institute, Finland

Publication history

  1. Received: May 3, 2019
  2. Accepted: November 30, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 6, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 8, 2020 (version 2)

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

  • 2,931
    Page views
  • 391
    Downloads
  • 3
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Hendrik Pannen et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Loss of ESCRT function in Drosophila imaginal discs is known to cause neoplastic overgrowth fueled by mis-regulation of signaling pathways. Its impact on junctional integrity, however, remains obscure. To dissect the events leading to neoplasia, we used transmission electron microscopy (TEM) on wing imaginal discs temporally depleted of the ESCRT-III core component Shrub. We find a specific requirement for Shrub in maintaining septate junction (SJ) integrity by transporting the claudin Megatrachea (Mega) to the SJ. In absence of Shrub function, Mega is lost from the SJ and becomes trapped on endosomes coated with the endosomal retrieval machinery retromer. We show that ESCRT function is required for apical localization and mobility of retromer positive carrier vesicles, which mediate the biosynthetic delivery of Mega to the SJ. Accordingly, loss of retromer function impairs the anterograde transport of several SJ core components, revealing a novel physiological role for this ancient endosomal agent.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Aynur Kaya-Çopur et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Skeletal muscles are composed of gigantic cells called muscle fibers, packed with force-producing myofibrils. During development, the size of individual muscle fibers must dramatically enlarge to match with skeletal growth. How muscle growth is coordinated with growth of the contractile apparatus is not understood. Here, we use the large Drosophila flight muscles to mechanistically decipher how muscle fiber growth is controlled. We find that regulated activity of core members of the Hippo pathway is required to support flight muscle growth. Interestingly, we identify Dlg5 and Slmap as regulators of the STRIPAK phosphatase, which negatively regulates Hippo to enable post-mitotic muscle growth. Mechanistically, we show that the Hippo pathway controls timing and levels of sarcomeric gene expression during development and thus regulates the key components that physically mediate muscle growth. Since Dlg5, STRIPAK and the Hippo pathway are conserved a similar mechanism may contribute to muscle or cardiomyocyte growth in humans.