Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Feb 16;19(2):e0292482. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292482

Development of the terminal air spaces in the gray short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica)– 3D reconstruction by microcomputed tomography

Kirsten Ferner 1,*
Editor: Josué Sznitman2
PMCID: PMC10871483  PMID: 38363783

Abstract

Marsupials are born with structurally immature lungs when compared to eutherian mammals. The gray short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica) is born at the late canalicular stage of lung development. Despite the high degree of immaturity, the lung is functioning as respiratory organ, however supported by the skin for gas exchange during the first postnatal days. Consequently, the majority of lung development takes place in ventilated functioning state during the postnatal period. Microcomputed tomography (μCT) was used to three-dimensionally reconstruct the terminal air spaces in order to reveal the timeline of lung morphogenesis. In addition, lung and air space volume as well as surface area were determined to assess the functional relevance of the structural changes in the developing lung. The development of the terminal air spaces was examined in 35 animals from embryonic day 13, during the postnatal period (neonate to 57 days) and in adults. At birth, the lung of Monodelphis domestica consists of few large terminal air spaces, which are poorly subdivided and open directly from short lobar bronchioles. During the first postnatal week the number of smaller terminal air spaces increases and numerous septal ridges indicate a process of subdivision, attaining the saccular stage by 7 postnatal days. The 3D reconstructions of the terminal air spaces demonstrated massive increases in air sac number and architectural complexity during the postnatal period. Between 28 and 35 postnatal days alveolarization started. Respiratory bronchioles, alveolar ducts and a typical acinus developed. The volume of the air spaces and the surface area for gas exchange increased markedly with alveolarization. The structural transformation from large terminal sacs to the final alveolar lung in the gray short-tailed opossum follows similar patterns as described in other marsupial and placental mammals. The processes involved in sacculation and alveolarization during lung development seem to be highly conservative within mammalian evolution.

Introduction

Marsupials have a unique reproductive strategy compared to placental mammals. The early stage of development at birth and the subsequent slow postnatal development attached to the maternal teat is a characteristic feature of marsupials that distinguishes them from other mammals [1]. The marsupial gray short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica) is born approximately 13.5 days after conception in a highly immature, nearly embryonic condition. The neonate is extremely small (130 mg) and exhibits a minimum anatomical development possible for a newborn mammal at birth. Most of the organ systems are immature, e.g., a functioning mesonephros, liver with simple sinusoid system, cartilaginous skeleton [2]. However, in adaptation to the reproductive strategy the neonate appears to be well developed in certain aspects. An advanced olfactory system, well pronounced forelimbs and a muscular brachial plexus allow the neonate to crawl from the vagina to the mammary patch, attach itself to a maternal teat and start to suckle immediately.

Compared to eutherian neonates, marsupials are generally born with structurally immature lungs at the canalicular or saccular stage [318]. The gray short-tailed opossum is born with lungs at the canalicular stage of lung development [17]. Consequently, the majority of lung development occurs postnatally in air attached to the maternal teat.

While the lung in marsupials appears structurally immature, it shows qualitative characteristics of a mature gas-exchanging organ, e.g., surfactant [13,19,20], a thin blood-gas barrier [8,15], neuronal-muscular reflex control of breathing [21]. Thus, from the viewpoint of passive mechanics there might be no major constraints to inspiration [13]. However, poor muscle co-ordination and chest-wall distortion cause severe constraints to pulmonary ventilation [22]. These neural and mechanical constraints at birth necessitate recruitment of an alternative organ system such as the skin for gas exchange [10,2124]. Cutaneous respiration is enabled by a subcutaneous capillary network with short air-blood diffusion distances, a large surface area to volume ratio, low metabolic rate and the presence of cardiac shunts in these immature newborns [16,21,2527]. Even though supported by cutaneous respiration, most marsupials have functioning lungs at birth and rely on them as major gas exchanging organ.

The mammalian lung development was mainly studied in eutherian species, e.g., in mice and rats, and can be categorized into five morphological stages (embryonic, pseudoglandular, canalicular, saccular and alveolar) based on characteristic morphology [2832].

Lung development starts in the embryonic stage (prenatal days E11–E13 in rats) with the formation of the two lung buds. At the terminal ends of the buds, a repetitive process starts where elongation of the future airways alternates with branching. The major airways and the pleura are formed. In the pseudoglandular stage (E13–E18.5 in rats) the preacinar branching pattern of airways and blood vessels is established [33,34]. The following canalicular stage (E18.5–E20 in rats) is characterized by branching of the terminal bronchi, terminating in small canaliculi and differentiation of type I and type II alveolar epithel cells (AECs). Towards the end of this period, the terminal or acinar tubes narrow and give rise to small saccules. Epithelial differentiation and angiogenetic activation of the capillaries lead to the first functional air-blood barriers in the lung [21,35,36]. The development of the lung proceeds with the saccular stage (E20 to postnatal day 4 in rats), which is characterized by saccule expansion, tissue proliferation, septal development and remodeling. During the alveolar stage respiratory airways and acini develop [37]. The gas-exchange area is further enlarged by lifting off new septa from the existing gas-exchange surface and subdivision of the terminal air spaces [32,38]. During microvascular maturation, the double-layered capillary network of the alveolar septa is reduced to a single-layered one to increase the efficiency of the lung [3941].

Alveolarization can be divided into two distinct phases and continues in the postnatal period [42,43]. During classical alveolarization (postnatal day 4–21 in rats), new septa are formed from preexisting immature septa which contain a double-layered capillary network. During continued alveolarization (P14 to approximately P60 in rats), new septa are formed from preexisting mature single-layered capillary septa.

In eutherians, the majority of lung development occurs throughout intrauterine life. The lungs of most newborn eutherians are at the alveolar stage and the key changes that occur during early postnatal life include the increase of alveolar number and maturation of microvasculature [32,41,44]. Only very altricial eutherian neonates, such as mice, rats and shrews are born at the saccular stage, but reach the alveolar stage during the first postnatal days [15,40,45].

In contrast to eutherian neonates, marsupials go through most of their lung development in the postnatal period. The developmental degree of the lung in newborn marsupials corresponds to the Carnegie stage 16–17 in the human fetus or E13–E14 in the fetal rat [46].

In recent years the establishment of μCT techniques in combination with 3D reconstruction allowed to examine the three-dimensional structure of the lung and provided insight into the alveolarization of mouse and rat lungs [30,36,42,47]. So far, only one study examined the developing lung of two marsupial species by phase contrast imaging methods [16]. The 3D reconstruction of the lungs revealed that only two lung sacs were present in the newborn fat-tailed dunnart, whereas the lungs of the tammar wallaby had numerous large terminal saccules. Both species undergo marked increases in architectural complexity during the postnatal period [16].

Studies on comparative lung development in various mammalian species let assume that mammalian lung development is highly conservative and follows similar developmental pathways in all mammalian species, including marsupials and monotremes [2,15,48,49]. The stage of lung development when mammals are born is quite variable, but the sequence of developmental steps resulting in final lung maturation are not. Monodelphis domestica resembles both the supposed marsupial and mammalian ancestor [2,44,50]. Its ancestral condition and the finding that, in contrast to eutherian mammals, most of the lung development occurs postnatally in a ventilated functioning state offers a unique opportunity for a better understanding of the development of the mammalian lung.

As a first step, the development of the bronchial tree in Monodelphis domestica was investigated [51]. The present study was targeted at the development of the terminal air spaces of the lung in the gray short-tailed opossum during the postnatal period using microcomputed tomography (μCT). In addition, we aimed to obtain functional volumes of the air spaces and surface areas of the lung using three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions of computed tomography (CT) data.

Material and methods

Animal collection

Gray short-tailed opossums from a laboratory colony established at the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (Berlin, Germany) were controlled mated for this study. The females were checked for offspring when approaching full-term (13–14 days). Young ranging from birth to 57 days post natum (dpn) and adults (primi- or multiparous females one year old) were collected, weighed and euthanized by anaesthetic overdose with isoflurane under animal ethics permit approved by the Animal Experimentation Ethics Committee (registration number: T0202/18). To assess possible changes around parturition, one female was euthanized shortly before term by day 13 of gestation and the embryos were dissected and fixed by Karnovsky fixative [52]. A total of 35 animals between 13 days post coitum (dpc) and adult were studied. Additional eight animals (Neonate, 5, 7,14, 21, 28, 56 dpn and adult) were investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). All available details of the specimens are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Gray short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica) specimens examined in this study. Body weights, air space diameter, septum thickness, volumes of the lung and terminal air spaces and surface area are presented.

Age (days) No. Medium Staining BW (g) Air space diameter (μm) Septum thickness (μm) Lung volume,
VL (mm3)
Terminal air space volume, SA (mm3) Surface area, SA (mm2)
13 dpc 2095d* A. - - - - 0.63 - -
2095e K. PTA - - - 0.48 - -
2095f* A. - - - - 0.36 - -
2095g K. PTA - - - 0.66 - -
Mean (SD) - - - 0.53 (±0.14) - -
Neonate 2350_1 K. PTA 0.13 294 (±70) 42 (±11) 1.73 0.57 42.68
2350_3 K. PTA 0.13 351 (±97) 40 (±11) 1.98 0.91 40.14
2350_7 K. PTA 0.13 403 (±87) 41 (±13) 2.74 1.39 46.95
Mean (SD) 0.13 (±0.00) 349 (±55) 41 (±1) 2.15 (±0.53) 0.96 (±0.41) 43.26 (±3.44)
4 dpn 2257_4* A. - 0.21 259 (±51) 33 (±10) 4.35 1.74 100.99
2257_6 K. PTA 0.21 258 (±76) 34 (±9) 4.19 1.64 87.85
2257_3* A. - 0.21 257 (±77) 34 (±12) 4.83 2.00 106.70
Mean (SD) 0.21 (±0.00) 258 (±1) 34 (±0) 4.46 (±0.33) 1.79 (±0.19) 98.51 (±9.67)
7 dpn 2383_2 K. PTA 0.28 196 (±57) 25 (±11) 5.63 2.29 153.16
2383_4* A. - 0.27 187 (±80) 22 (±8) 5.56 2.23 182.87
Mean (SD) 0.28 (±0.01) 192 (±6) 24 (±2) 5.60 (±0.05) 2.26 (±0.04) 168.02 (±21.01)
11 dpn 1993_2 E. Iodid 0.69 148 (±38) 25 (±7) 20.58 4.68 273.14
2419_3* A. - 0.45 140 (±46) 26 (±10) 14.84 5.92 227.73
1993_3* A. - 0.73 135 (±40) 23 (±10) 21.42 4.77 317.88
Mean (SD) 0.62 (±0.15) 141 (±7) 25 (±2) 18.95 (±3.58) 5.12 (±0.69) 272.92 (±45.08)
14 dpn 1994_8 E. PTA 0.99 132 (±30) 26 (±6) 27.78 9.98 409.45
1994_9 E. PTA 0.98 137 (±28) 27 (±5) 24.87 12.11 699.04
1994_10 E. PTA 1.03 110 (±28) 24 (±7) 24.64 7.72 368.44
Mean (SD) 1.00 (±0.03) 126 (±14) 26 (±2) 25.76 (±1.75) 9.94 (±2.19) 492.31 (±180.20)
21 dpn 2040 E. PTA 2.43 106 (±23) 23 (±3) 71.14 20.88 877.41
2037* A. - 2.34 116 (±29) 16 (±4) 58.84 23.84 1220.42
2036* A. - 2.26 101 (±26) 16 (±4) 51.42 23.68 1755.55
Mean (SD) 2.34 (±0.09) 108 (±8) 18 (±4) 60.47 (±9.96) 22.80 (±1.66) 1284.46 (±442.56)
28 dpn 2059 E. PTA 4.22 80 (±14) 19 (±5) 208.62 68.79 3570.22
2060 E. Iodid 4.16 98 (±18) 20 (±5) 189.75 76.69 3676.58
Mean (SD) 4.19 (±0.04) 89 (±13) 20 (±0) 199.19 (±13.34) 72.74 (±5.59) 3623.40 (±75.21)
35 dpn 2065 E. Iodid 7.25 85 (±18) 17 (±5) 388.59 143.07 9606.84
2405 K. PTA 6.08 61 (±15) 10 (±3) 344.00 144.51 7616.83
2194 K. PTA 7.68 64 (±16) 20 (±4) 493.68 184.93 9982.44
Mean (SD) 7.00 (±0.83) 70 (±13) 16 (±5) 408.76 (±76.85) 157.50 (±23.76) 9068.70 (±1271.31)
49 dpn 2049 E. Iodid 13.64 58 (±10) 16 (±4) 504.03 201.78 13703.22
2402 K. PTA 11.59 50 (±12) 9 (±2) 452.65 237.29 15529.72
2403 K. PTA 11.09 47 (±11) 10 (±2) 408.96 236.15 16672.78
Mean (SD) 12.11 (±1.35) 52 (±6) 12 (±4) 455.22 (±47.59) 225.07 (±20.18) 15301.91 (±1497.83)
57 dpn 2179 E. Iodid 31.58 63 (±11) 9 (±2) 1176.68 372.105 18896.72
2413 K. PTA 14.81 44 (±9) 9 (±2) 663.60 353.06 22073.97
2416 K. PTA 18.53 47 (±9) 12 (±2) 790.89 352.45 24499.42
Mean (SD) 21.64 (±8.81) 51 (±10) 10 (±2) 877.06 (±267.17) 359.21 (±11.18) 21823.37 (±2809.74)
Adult 2095 K. PTA 87.22 61 (±15) 11 (±3) 2948.94 1396.63 43744.40
2117 K. PTA 69.47 81 (±16) 10 (±3) 2307.41 914.69 31591.77
2419 K. PTA 66.46 94 (±20) 10 (±3) 2631.63 1387.20 40383.30
Mean (SD) 74.38 (±11.22) 79 (±17) 10 (±1) 2629.33 (±320.77) 1232.84 (±275.57) 38573.16 (±6275.27)

A., Araldite; BW, body weight; dpc, days post coitum; dpn, days post natum; E., 70% Ethanol (after fixation with Bouin); K., Karnovsky fixative; PTA, phosphotungstic acid; * Specimen processed for Transmission electron microscopy.

Sample preparation

Early developmental stages, ranging from neonate (defined as the first 24 h at the day of birth) to 28 dpn were decapitated, to allow for lung fixation via the trachea. The whole body of the animals was immediately immersed in Karnovsky fixative (2 g paraformaldehyde, 25 ml distilled water, 10 ml 25% glutaraldehyde, 15 ml 0.2 M phosphate buffer) or Bouin’s solution (picric acid, formalin, 100% acetic acid, 15: 5: 1; [52]). The fixation time in Bouin was usually one to two days. Afterwards the specimens were rinsed in 70% ethanol. Specimens fixed with Karnovskys fixative stayed in the fixative until scanning (between some weeks and months). In late developmental stages, from 35 dpn to adults, the lungs were fixed by instillation via the trachea and finally dissected. Karnovsky fixative was inserted in the trachea via a cannula with polyethylene catheter tubing at a pressure head of 20 cm, until fixative was emerging from nostrils and mouth.

Some animals were processed for transmission and scanning electron microscopy (TEM and SEM). The TEM samples were used for further ultrastructural analysis, which is not subject to this study. From neonate to 11 dpn the upper part of the trunk was cut in two halves and in older stages (14 dpn–adult) the lungs were dissected.

The specimens for electron microscopy were fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde buffered in 0.2 M cacodylate (pH 7.4) for 2 hours, rinsed with 0.1 M cacodylate buffer and either postfixed in 1% osmium tetroxide and embedded in epoxy resin (Araldite) for TEM or dried in alcohol (30–100%), ‘critical-point-dried’, mounted, sputter-coated with gold-palladium for SEM. The samples were viewed and photographed in a scanning electron microscope (LEO 1450 VP, Carl Zeiss NT GmbH) to see ultrastructural details of the 3D architecture of the lung. Details of the specimens investigated by SEM are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Gray short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica) specimens examined by scanning electron microscopy.

SEM specimen No. Fixation BW (g) Lung sections
Neonate 138 Immersion Ga./Cb. 0.12 left and right lung
5 dpn 269 Immersion Ga./Cb. 0.21 left and right lung
7 dpn 1102 Installation Ga./Cb. 0.35 left and right lung
14 dpn 1104 Installation Ga./Cb. 0.90 left and right lung
21 dpn 1080 Installation Ga./Cb. 2.58 left and right lung
28 dpn 1058 Installation Ga./Cb. 4.36 left and right lung
56 dpn 1061 Installation Ga./Cb. 23.20 right lung
Adult 1030 Installation Ga./Cb. 65.24 left and right lung

Cb., Cacodylate buffer; BW, body weight; dpn, days post natum; Ga., Glutaraldehyde.

Preparation for μCT imaging

Comparative, functional, and developmental studies of animal morphology require accurate visualization of three-dimensional structures, but few widely applicable methods exist for non-destructive whole-volume imaging of animal tissues. μCT imaging in comparative morphology has been used in paleontology, where mineralized tissue, e.g., bones, were scanned. However, μCT-imaging of soft-tissue structures has been limited by the low intrinsic x-ray contrast of non-mineralized tissues. With sufficient contrast imparted to soft tissues, organs, such as lung, liver, kidney, heart, intestine, skin and brain, can be made visible with μCT- techniques. With very simple contrast staining μCT imaging produces quantitative, high-resolution, high-contrast volume images of lung tissue. This is possible without destroying the specimens and with possibilities of combining with other preparation and imaging methods (histology or TEM).

In [53] several simple and versatile staining methods for μCT-imaging of animal soft tissues are summarized, along with advice on tissue fixation and sample preparation. Based on this information, different staining protocols using inorganic iodine and phosphotungstic acid (PTA), were developed, tested and used to produce high-contrast x-ray images of the lung at different age stages (Table 1).

Staining with PTA was either performed in ethanol with 1% PTA for 21 to 42 days (full body specimens of 14 to 28 dpn) or in an aqueous solution (Karnovsky fixative) starting with 0.5% for 7 to 20 days and increased afterwards to 1% resulting in a staining period up to 30 days [53]. Separated lungs of older stages and adult specimens were stained in 1% Iodine [54] to test staining differences and shrinking effects, which could not be detected. The differences in staining periods and staining concentration depended on the respective specimen size and preparation.

Torsos and lungs were scanned in distilled water using a small container. The specimens were fixed in the container with cotton balls to avoid moving around during the scan.

The specimens processed for TEM were scanned without further processing. The osmium fixation during the TEM processing led to intensive staining of the tissue and resulted in well contrasted scans. The Araldite blocks were fixed on a glass plate with glue to avoid moving during the scans. Three blocks at a time could be mounted and scanned consecutively with the best resolution for each sample respectively. The scanning results of the Araldite blocks depended on proper fixation of the TEM specimens. The μCT scans of the Araldite blocks offer a great possibility to check the quality of TEM specimens before performing expensive and time-consuming ultra sections.

μCT imaging

The prepared specimens were subjected to μCT analysis at the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (lab reference ID SCR_022585) using a Phoenix nanotom X-ray machine (Waygate Technologies, Baker Hughes, Wunstorf, Germany; equipment reference ID SCR_022582). It was running at 70–110 kV and 75–240 μA, generating 1440–2000 projections (Average 3–6) with 750–1000 ms per scan. For bigger specimens a YXLON FF85 (equipment reference ID SCR_020917) was used. It operated with a transmission beam at 90–110 kV and 100–150 μA, generating 2000 projections (Average 3) with 250–500 ms. The different kV, μA and projection-settings depended on the respective machine and specimen size, which is also responsible for the range of the effective voxel size between 1.5–20.1 μm. The cone beam reconstruction was performed using the datos|x 2 reconstruction software (Waygate Technologies, Baker Hughes, Wunstorf, Germany; datos|x 2.2).

Segmentation, visualisation and data analysis for 3D reconstruction

Non-destructive μCT-imaging, in particular of entire animals, offers various possibilities for different research approaches. Surface scans give an impression of the external anatomy of the examined animals (Fig 1A–1C) or the anatomical position of 3D reconstructed organs can be assessed (Fig 1D).

Fig 1. External appearance of the gray short-tailed opossum.

Fig 1

Characteristic for marsupial offspring is the embryonic appearance, with strongly developed forelimbs and undifferentiated paddle-like hindlimbs as well as an undifferentiated oro-nasal region with oral shield in the first postnatal week (4 dpn (A), 7 dpn (B)). By 11 dpn (C) the ears, oral region and hind limbs appear more differentiated. Anatomical position of the lung from ventral, dorsal and lateral views (D, from left to right).

The 3D volume processing was carried out with the software Volume Graphics Studio Max Version 3.5 (Volume Graphics GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany). μCT data were analyzed as serial two-dimensional (2D) and reconstructed to three-dimensional (3D) images (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the lung of Monodelphis domestica at 7 dpn (2383_2) using μCT.

Fig 2

(A) μCT image in transverse section (2D) with marked air spaces (blue) and bronchial tree (yellow). (B) 3D reconstruction of the terminal air spaces (white) and the bronchial tree (yellow).

The segmentation was carried out on 16-bit images to reconstruct the entire air spaces of the lung. A region grower tool was used, that marks all areas of the same density-value connected to each other to create a region of interest (ROI). The tissue density is mapped to gray values, so that tissues of the same density appear in the same gray scale value. A tolerance of 1000–1200 gray scale values around the first selected gray value of the ROI (center of the trachea) was given. Starting from the centerline of the trachea, the region grower tool was extended to the tracheal wall. From there the ROI was extended by scrolling through the image stack and applying region growing to the airway walls and subsequently to the terminal air space walls. It was visually ensured that only air spaces were included. In that way pulmonary blood vessels and other air-filled areas in or between the lung segments were excluded from the segmentation. Calculations of volume and surface area are built-in functions of Volume Graphics Studio Max. With segmentation a ROI will be created, which has a certain volume and surface area. The first ROI “bronchial tree” contained the entire bronchial tree of the lung, beginning from the trachea and extrapulmonary main bronchi to the terminal bronchioles [51]. The surface area and volume of the ROI “bronchial tree” was calculated by the program. In a next step the ROI of the bronchial tree was copied and then extended to include the terminal air spaces. The resulting ROI “entire air spaces” included all conducting and terminal air spaces of the lung. Volume and surface area were determined for the ROI “entire air spaces”. By subtracting the surface area and volume of the ROI “bronchial tree” from the ROI “entire air spaces”, the surface area (SA) and volume of the terminal air spaces (VA) was determined. Not all surfaces, especially in the later postnatal stages, might be reproduced perfectly. This could have led to an artificial roughness in segmentations, which might also influence the calculations of surface areas and volume of air spaces. In this case, the surface area might be overestimated and the volume of terminal air spaces would be lower than in reality. However, comparable literature data reported for other marsupial species show the robustness of the obtained values [9,12,14,16,18].

For estimating the lung volume (VL) the outline of the lung, excluding the extrapulmonary main bronchi, was segmented and VL was calculated from the ROI “entire lung”. The values for VL, VA and SA are presented as mean and standard deviation in Table 1. For graphical representation, lung volume, air space volume and surface area in relation to body mass are shown as bilogarithmic plots (Fig 3). For comparison the data of Monodelphis domestica are plotted together with literature data from other marsupial and eutherian species. The graphs are based on individual animal data and the regression lines are provided.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Double logarithmic plots of the lung volume (A), air space volume (B) and of the surface area (C) against body mass for Monodelphis domestica in the postnatal period. For comparison the plots include data from other marsupials: Dasyurus viverrinus [18]; Sminthopsis crassicaudata [16]; Setonix brachyurus [1214] and Macropus eugenii [8,9,16,55,56] and eutherians: Rattus norvegicus [38]; Bos taurus [57]; Sus scrofa domesticus [58] and Ovis aris [59]. The graphs are based on individual animal data (eutherians are merged to on data set) and the regression lines are provided.

For better visualization of the functional lung units, selected terminal air spaces were segmented individually. Starting from the end of a terminal bronchiole the entire connected air space was segmented, creating a ROI for a single terminal air space. For the lungs at the alveolar period several terminal acini were segmented. To distinguish between adjacent terminal air spaces different colors (interval color) were chosen for the ROIs.

Morphometric measurements

To quantify the structural development of the terminal air spaces, air space diameter and the thickness of the septa separating the air spaces were obtained using morphometric measurements. To ensure that selected lung sections are representative for the entire lung, all parts of the lung should have equal probability of being sampled. This requirement is met by choosing a random starting point and employing uniform random sampling using the fractionator principal in a modified form [60]. The comprehensive sampling approach is based on serial sectioning through the entire lung, followed by systematic selection of a known fraction of the whole. The total length of the lung was estimated by the difference between start and end point after scrolling through the scanned lung. The total length of the lung divided by eight gave the sampling thickness for the fractionator. Following the fractionator eight digital pictures were taken from the 2D sections of the μCT-scans at the same magnification (ensured by the same scale) for each animal. Measurements were made directly on the computer screen using a digital ruler (ImageJ software; National Institutes of Health, USA) [61]. First the program was calibrated with the scale bar and a line was randomly cast over the image of the lung. On each digital photograph five air space diameter and five air space septa intersecting with the line were measured, yielding a total of 40 measurements for each lung. The values for single specimen are presented as mean with standard deviation, additional group means for the age stage (bold) are given (Table 1).

Results

The volumes, surface areas, and morphological values reported in the results section are group means of all animals investigated for the respective age.

The lungs of the gray short-tailed opossum consist of six lung lobes, a cranial, a middle, a ventral and a caudal lobe in the right lung and a middle and a caudal lobe in the left lung. Fig 4 shows the ventral, dorsal, lateral, cranial and caudal views of the lung lobes in the newborn Monodelphis domestica.

Fig 4. Reconstruction of the terminal air spaces in the newborn lung of Monodelphis domestica with differentiation of the pulmonary lobes.

Fig 4

The lungs are shown in ventral (A), dorsal (B), lateral views from the right (C) and left (D) side and perspectives from the cranial (E) and caudal side (F). The pulmonary lobes are indicated by colors: right lung–cranial lobe (red), middle lobe (green), accessory lobe (yellow) and caudal lobe (blue); left lung–middle lobe (orange) and caudal lobe (purple).

The lungs of the near-term fetus at 13 dpc and in the neonate are at the canalicular stage of lung development and consist of large terminal air sacs, which open directly from the lobar bronchioles (Figs 5A, 5B, 6A–6C and 6D–6F). The terminal air spaces are deflated before birth, yielding a low lung volume of 0.53 mm3. With birth the lungs become ventilated and the conducting airways and terminal air spaces are expanded by air, resulting in a lung volume of 2.15 mm3 in the neonate (Table 1).

Fig 5. Representative 3D reconstructions of the terminal air spaces of Monodelphis domestica during the first postnatal week.

Fig 5

Lung reconstructions at 13 dpc (A), in the neonate (B), at 4 dpn (C) and at 7 dpn (D). The lungs are shown from different perspectives: in ventral, dorsal and lateral views from the right and left side (from left to right).

Fig 6. Details of the developing Monodelphis domestica lung during the first postnatal week.

Fig 6

In embryos of 13 dpc (A-C) and in neonates (D-F) large terminal air spaces branch off directly from a simple bronchial tree, each forming a pulmonary lobe (F). By 4 dpn (G-I) the terminal air spaces become subdivided by septal growth. Branching from new formed segmental bronchioles several terminal air spaces can be distinguished in the pulmonary lobes (I). By 7 dpn (J-L) the sub segmentation of the air spaces progresses and the terminal saccules decrease in size (L). 2 D sections: A, D, G, J; position of terminal air spaces in the lung: B, E, H, K; close-up view of terminal air spaces: C, F, I, L.

At this time the gas exchange takes place in the distal portions of the conducting airways, which are lined with respiratory epithelium, and the large terminal air spaces, which have a lumen of 349 μm in diameter (Figs 6F and 7A). A thick interstitial layer (41 μm) separates the capillaries of one air space from the capillary network of the adjacent air space (Fig 7A).

Fig 7. Scanning electron micrographs of the developing Monodelphis domestica lung.

Fig 7

The lungs of neonates (A), at 4 dpn (B) and at 7 dpn (C) are characterized by large terminal air spaces, which become successively smaller with progressing subseptation. By 14 dpn (D, E) and 21 dpn (F, G) numerous small sacculi, which are separated from each other by thin double capillary septa (capillary beds are indicated by asterisks). By 28 dpn (H, I) first alveoli (indicated by arrows) can be seen and respiratory bronchioles develop. By 57 dpn (J-L) and in adults (M-O) a mature lung with respiratory bronchioles, alveolar ducts and alveolar sacs is present. Between alveoli single capillary septa have been formed. ‘Pores of Kohn’ (indicated by arrowheads) form interalveolar connections in walls of adjacent alveoli and connect them to each other. Magnification is indicated by the scale bar. ad, alveolar duct; al, alveolus; as, alveolar sac; b, bronchiole; lb, lobar bronchiole; rb, respiratory bronchiole; s, septum; sa, sacculus; sb, segmental bronchiole; tas, terminal air spaces; tb, terminal bronchiole.

The lung of a four days old Monodelphis domestica distinguishes from that of a newborn particularly through an increasing subdivision of the terminal air spaces (Figs 5C, 6G–6I and 7B). The terminal air sacs are still large with a diameter of 258 μm, but a number of septal ridges indicate a process of subdivision of the terminal air spaces. The septa separating the terminal air sacs decrease in thickness (34 μm).

By 7 dpn a further subdivision of the terminal air spaces and a gradually decrease in size of the terminal air sacs can be seen (Figs 5D, 6J-6L and 7C). A continuous double capillary bed, however with a thick interstitial layer, is present in the septa and indicates the transition to the saccular stage. The terminal air sacs have a size of 192 μm in diameter and septal crests that vary in height and thickness are numerous, resulting in an irregular shape.

Further compartmentalization occurs in the lung between 11 and 21 dpn (Fig 8A–8C). Substantial changes take place in the architecture of the lung (Fig 9A–9L). The terminal saccules become more numerous and decrease in size (Fig 7D and 7F). They measure 141 μm in diameter by 11 dpn, 126 μm by 14 dpn and 108 μm by 21 dpn. Several new saccules develop near the pleura. They are separated by septa standing vertically on the pleura (Fig 9K). The saccules are still separated by a double capillary septum (Fig 7E and 7G). However, the septa decrease in thickness and measure 18 μm by 21 dpn. In contrast to earlier stages a thick core of stromal cells with large interstitial spaces is missing (Fig 7G). The lung volume and surface area increase through an extensive rise in saccular number, as well as structural complexity (Table 1, Fig 7H).

Fig 8. Representative 3D reconstructions of the terminal air spaces of Monodelphis domestica from 11 to 28 postnatal days.

Fig 8

Lung reconstructions at 11 dpn (A), 14 dpn (B), 21 dpn (C) and at 28 dpn (D). The lungs are shown from different perspectives: in ventral, dorsal and lateral views from the right and left side (from left to right).

Fig 9. Details of the developing Monodelphis domestica lung from 11 to 28 postnatal days.

Fig 9

Compartmentalization of the terminal air spaces progresses at 11 (A-D), 14 (E-H) and 21 (I-L) dpn. The terminal saccules become more numerous and decrease in size. Several new saccules develop near the pleura, separated by septa vertically standing on the pleura (K, red, bright blue and beige). By 28 dpn (M-P) alveolarization starts. The terminal air spaces consist of saccules and new formed alveoli. 2 D sections: A, E, I, M; position of terminal air spaces in the lung: B, F, J, N; terminal air spaces: C, G, K, O; close-up view of terminal air space: D, H, L, P.

With 28 dpn the transition from the saccular to the alveolar period of lung development starts. The terminal air spaces, consisting of saccules and newly formed alveoli, are characterized by a further increase in number and decrease in size (Fig 8D and 9M–9P). Saccules, characterized by a double capillary septum, still dominate the lung parenchyma by 28 dpn. However, a few small alveoli, separated by a single capillary septum, are already present (Fig 7I). The terminal air spaces measure 89 μm in diameter and the thickness of the septa separating the air spaces is with 20 μm comparable to 21 dpn. With the formation of alveoli first respiratory bronchioles develop. They are characterized by flattened epithelium with alveoli located in their walls (Fig 7H). The further rise in saccular number and new formation of alveoli lead to an increase in lung volume, air space volume and surface area by 28 dpn (Table 1).

The lung at 35 dpn is characterized by a further increase in lung volume and the proceeding formation of alveoli (Table 1, Figs 10A and 11A–11D). The lung has fully attained the alveolar stage. The bulk of alveoli lead to a further increase in air space volume and surface area (Table 1). The terminal air spaces are dominated by alveoli and measure 70 μm in diameter. The septa between the air spaces are predominantly single capillary septa and measure 16 μm in thickness. Respiratory bronchioles with alveoli are found more frequently compared to 28 dpn. The distal parts of the respiratory bronchioles pass into alveolar ducts which open into alveolar sacs. Thus, typical structures of the mammalian acinus are present.

Fig 10. Representative 3D reconstructions of the terminal air spaces of Monodelphis domestica from 35 to 57 postnatal days and in adults.

Fig 10

Lung reconstructions at 35 dpn (A), 49 dpn (B), 57 dpn (C) and in an adult (D). The lungs are shown from different perspectives: in ventral, dorsal and lateral views from the right and left side (from left to right).

Fig 11. Details of the developing Monodelphis domestica lung from 35 to 57 postnatal days and in adults.

Fig 11

By 35 dpn (A-D) the lung has fully attained the alveolar stage. The terminal airways consist of respiratory bronchioles and alveolar ducts. The lung parenchyma of Monodelphis domestica at 49 dpn (E-H), 57 dpn (I-L) and in adult (M-P) is strongly subdivided and the alveoli in their entirety provide a large surface area for gas exchange. Alveoli located at the pleural surface are separated by septa vertically standing on the pleura (P) similar as observed in sacculi close to the pleural surface by 21 dpn. 2 D sections: A, E, I, M; position of terminal air spaces in the lung: B, F, J, N; terminal air spaces: C, G, K, O; close-up view of terminal air space: D, H, L, P.

By 49 dpn (Fig 10B and 11E–11H) no distinct structural changes can be seen in the terminal air spaces of Monodelphis domestica. The terminal air spaces further decrease in size (52 μm) and the air space septa decrease in thickness (12 μm). In the 57 days old lung (Fig 10C and 11I–11L) alveoli have markedly increased in number. With the progressing formation of alveoli, numerous respiratory bronchioles can be seen (Fig 7J). The distal parts of the respiratory bronchioles pass into short alveolar ducts, which are covered with respiratory epithelium and have alveoli at their sides. The alveolar ducts open into alveolar sacs, from which alveoli radiate into the surrounding parenchyma (Fig 7K). The size of terminal air spaces (51 μm) and the thickness of the single capillary septa (10 μm) are similar to that of 49 dpn. In addition to this regular development, alveoli can be found also at the walls of solely conducting airways, such as segmental and terminal bronchioles. The bronchial walls are perforated by the openings of numerous alveoli (Fig 7L).

The lung parenchyma of the adult Monodelphis domestica is strongly subdivided and the gas exchange surface area has markedly increased (Table 1, Figs 10D and 11M–11P). Shortly after branching off from the lobar bronchi, the walls of the segmental bronchi are perforated by numerous alveoli (Fig 7M). These irregular formations of alveoli, similar to that described at 57 dpn, are widespread within the adult lung. An alveolar acinus, typical for the adult mammalian lung, is present. Alveolar sacs contain multiple alveoli, which radiate like a raspberry from the center (Fig 7N). The alveoli measure 79 μm in diameter. Compared to 49 and 57 dpn the terminal air spaces appear to be expanded. In the interalveolar septa pores of Kohn are numerous and present throughout the adult lung. The pores of Kohn (Fig 7N, arrowheads) form a connection between adjacent alveoli. The single capillary septa separating the alveoli measure 10 μm in width. A centrally located capillary occupies the septum almost entirely (Fig 7O).

Lung volumes (VL) and terminal air space volumes (VA) in relation to body mass for all specimens examined from neonate to adult are presented in Fig 3A and 3B. From neonate to adult a steady increase in lung and air space volume could be observed. Over all, developmental stages, VL (r = 0.987) and VA (r = 0.915) are closely correlated to body mass.

The surface area (SA) of the terminal air spaces in relation to body weight (Fig 3C) indicates a continuous increase of the gas exchange area during the structural transformation of the lung in the postnatal period. With progressing compartmentalization of the lung, the airspace surface area increases steadily. The airspace surface area is positively correlated with body mass (r = 0.971).

Discussion

With birth, the lungs of newborn mammals have to take over the function of gas exchange, formerly provided by the placenta. Viability of the neonate depends on an adequately developed respiratory system [21,16].

The lungs of newborn marsupials are not fully developed at birth, as they are born in a relatively immature state compared to placental mammals. Therefore, cutaneous respiration supports gas exchange to various amounts depending on the degree of maturity of the lung [21,23,24,26].

The lung structure of marsupial neonates follows the size variation in the sequence G1 to G3 [62]. A gradation of lung development from early canalicular stage (G1), late canalicular (G2) to early saccular stage (G3) can be observed among newborn marsupials [26,49]. The newborn gray short-tailed opossum has large terminal air spaces. The cranial, middle and accessory lobes of the right lung consist of one large terminal air space respectively. The septum consists of capillaries on both sides, forming a blood-air-barrier facilitating gas exchange [15]. However, a continuous double capillary septum is not present yet, attributing the lung of the newborn gray short-tailed opossum to the late canalicular stage (G2) [17]. A similar lung structure at birth can be seen in the Virginia opossum [4], the brushtail possum [7] and the bandicoot [5,6]. The most immature lungs among marsupial neonates are present in dasyurids (G1) like the eastern and northern native cat [3,7,18] and the stripe-faced and fat-tailed dunnart [16,63,64]. They have lungs consisting of well vascularized air chambers that appear like two ‘air bubbles’. More developed lungs (G3) than those of the newborn gray short-tailed opossum can be found in kangaroos [8,9,1114] and the koala [26]. These lungs consist of a primitive bronchial tree terminating in several saccules.

The compartmentalization of the lung of the gray short-tailed opossum progresses fast during the first postnatal weeks. The terminal air spaces become more and more subdivided by the formation of new double capillary septa from existing septa. By 7 dpn a primary septum with a continuous double capillary bed is present, indicating that the lung has entered the saccular stage. The terminal sacculi become smaller with time and the newly formed septa get thinner. The saccular stage can be characterized by the formation of transitory saccules, which are progressively subdivided by septation into more generations of saccules [18]. The process of saccule multiplication is very similar to that of alveolar formation [14,39]. However, in contrast to the alveolar stage, microvascular maturation, a process that leads to the formation of mature septa with a single capillary layer, does not occur during sacculation.

A prolonged period of saccular subseptation has been described also for the Virginia opossum [4], the tammar wallaby [8,9], the bandicoot [6] and the quokka [11,14].

Development, from the terminal air sac stage to an alveolar lung, takes place over an extended period of > 180 days in the tammar wallaby [9]. During this long saccular stage, periods of tissue proliferation and periods of expansion alternate. Up to 20 dpn, volume increases of the terminal air spaces are largely due to expansion of the air spaces. Around 30 dpn, rapid tissue proliferation and development of septa which subdivide the air spaces take place. This burst of tissue proliferation is followed by a period during which growth is again largely due to expansion. Between 70 and 180 dpn subdivision of the large air sacs into much smaller compartments occurs again as the result of tissue proliferation and septal development [8]. For the rat a similar differentiation of periods of septa formation and expansion of terminal air spaces have been described during alveolarization [42], indicating analogies in saccular and alveolar formation.

In the gray short-tailed opossum and most other marsupial species, the saccular stage is much shorter. Alternating periods of tissue proliferation and expansion as described for the tammar wallaby are not detectable. Sacculation in the gray short-tailed opossum appears to be a continuous process with tissue proliferation and expansion of air spaces taking place in parallel. The first mature single capillary septa, indicating the onset of alveolarization, can be seen at 28 dpn and the full alveolar stage is attained at 35 dpn in Monodelphis domestica.

Similar times for the onset of alveolarization have been reported for the fat-tailed dunnart (45 dpn) [63], the brushtail possum (39 dpn) [65], the bandicoot (40 dpn) [5,6] and the Virginia opossum (45 dpn) [4].

In contrast to marsupials, the lung of newborn placental mammals is either at the late saccular stage in altricial species or at the alveolar stage in precocial species [44,49]. Postnatal lung development in altricial placentals is rapid and the formation of alveoli starts in the golden hamster and mouse at the age of 2 dpn [15,30] and in the musk shrew and the rat at 4 dpn [15,39]. The majority of placental mammals, among them all precocial species, reach the alveolar stage in utero and possess alveoli already at birth [44,49]. The entirety of the numerous small alveoli provides a large gas exchange surface area, a necessity to meet the high metabolic demands accompanying precociality.

The growth of alveoli, including additional formation of new units, proceeds in the postnatal period in marsupial and placental mammals. In marsupials the process of alveolarization continuous until 85 dpn in the Virginia opossum [4], until 113 dpn in the brushtail possum [65], until 125 dpn in the quokka [14] and until 180 dpn in the tammar wallaby [8].

For long time it was assumed that alveolarization ceases after the capillary layers in the alveolar septa mature during microvascular maturation [39]. However, new studies using recently developed techniques report continued alveolarization in placental mammals for rabbits [66], rats (until 60 dpn) [43,67], and mice (until 36 dpn) [30,42]). Alveolarization continues at least until young adulthood in the rhesus monkey [68] and in humans [69,70]. The potential for alveolarization might be preserved throughout life allowing regeneration from degenerative lung diseases [32,71].

New alveolar septa may be lifted off both immature and mature alveolar septa, allowing new septa or new alveoli to be formed principally at any time, even during adulthood [32]. Two phases of alveolarization are distinguished: classical (or bulk) alveolarization and continued alveolarization [42,43]. The process of alveolarization has been described in detail by [32]. The primary septa present at the early saccular stage in marsupials contain a double-layered immature capillary network. At sites where new septa (or secondary septa) will be formed, smooth muscle cell precursors, elastic fibers and collagen fibrils accumulate. The new septa form by an upfolding of one of the two capillary layers. The resulting newly formed secondary septa possess two capillary layers and subdivide preexisting air spaces into smaller sacculi. This process continues as sacculation until the first alveoli are formed. During microvascular maturation, the double-layered capillary network fuses to a single-layered one. During continued alveolarization, new alveolar septa are still formed by an upfolding of the capillary layer, even if the alveolar surface opposing the upfolding is now missing its capillaries. In all modes (sacculation, classical alveolarization and continued alveolarization) a sheetlike capillary layer folds up to form a double-layered capillary network inside the newly formed septum. When a new alveolar septum is formed, it will mature shortly after by a fusion of the double-layered capillary network [32].

A recent 3D study of the mouse lung suggests that alveolar “septal tips” are in fact ring or purse string structures containing elastin and collagen [72]. Saccular formation and later alveolarization in the terminal air spaces seem to take place by epithelial extrusion through a directionally orientated orifice with a ring or purse string-ring lip that imparts some localized stiffness to the mesenchyme. The alveolar epithelium extrudes outwards into the surrounding mesenchyme, which is correspondingly less stiff than the saccular or alveolar orifice, and forms ‘bubble’ like structures, the sacculi or alveoli [72].

At birth, the gray short-tailed opossum weighs approximately 126 mg and has a VL of only 2.15 mm3. Adult females have body weights of 74 g and a VL of 2,629.33 mm3. This means that from birth to adulthood the body weight increases around 550 times and the VL increase is 1,300-fold. In larger marsupial species an even higher increase of lung volume has been reported, e.g., 3,800 times in the tammar wallaby [9] and 8,000 times in the quokka wallaby [12]. In placental mammals the VL increase from birth to adulthood is much lower, only approximately 23 times in humans and rats [73].

Low lung volumes, similar to that of the newborn gray short-tailed opossum, were reported for other marsupial neonates, e.g., 4–9.7 mm3 in the tammar wallaby (body weight 0.465 g) [9,16], 2 mm3 in the quokka (0.370 g) [12,13], 0.9 mm3 in the eastern quoll (0.0125 g) [18] and 0.4 mm3 in the fat-tailed dunnart (0.010 g) [16]. For comparison the VL of the newborn rat (7.2 g), a typical altricial placental, is with 570 mm3 much higher [13]. The lung volumes determined in newborn marsupials are lower than that predicted from allometric equations for placental neonates [21]. The low lung volume at birth in marsupials may relate to the stage of lung development; the earlier the stage the lower the volume and the greater the extent of cutaneous gas exchange [16].

The volumes of the lung and of the terminal air spaces and the air space surface area increased steadily during the postnatal period in Monodelphis domestica (Table 1). Overall, the developmental stages, VL, VA and SA were closely correlated with body mass (Fig 3). The absolute air space surface area of the newborn lung (0.433 cm2) increased ~10-fold by 14 dpn (4.923 cm2). In the more immature born eastern quoll the surface area of the air spaces increased from 0.028 cm2 to 2.122 cm2 even 76-fold during this time period [18]. The surface areas of the lung available for gas exchange in the newborn tammar wallaby (1.115 cm2) and dunnart (0.069 cm2), determined by phase contrast X-ray imaging [16], are comparable to the results of this study. Similar to VL, the surface areas reported for marsupials are below values predicted from allometry for eutherian species [16,21].

Several studies examined morphometric aspects of the developing lung in marsupials [9,12,14]. In the tammar wallaby, studies have shown that changes in the surface area of the lung up to 20 dpn are largely due to expansion of the air spaces while tissue proliferation and air sac subdivision is most pronounced during the transitional period from ectothermy to endothermy (after 70 dpn,100 g) [9]. However, in smaller marsupial species, like the gray short-tailed opossum tissue proliferation and air sac subdivision can be observed already in the early postnatal period and proceeds obviously faster than in the tammar wallaby. A marked increase of air space surface area could be seen in the gray short-tailed opossum between 14 dpn and 28 dpn, probably due to massive septal development and expansion of existing and new formed sacculi during the late saccular stage. Between 28 dpn and 35 dpn, at the time alveloarization took place, air space surface area more than doubled. In marsupial postnatal development, the airspace surface areas show highest rates of increase during the alveolar stage [12,14]. However, this correlation of increase in surface area and alveolarization seems to be typical for mammalian lung development in general. Also, morphometric studies in placental species, like the rat, found that the formation of alveoli, occurring between 4 and 10 dpn, results in an increase of gas exchange surface area by a factor of 2.6, whereas the lung volume increased only by a factor 1.6 during this period [38,39,74].

The lung volumes reported in this study might differ from the functional lung volumes of living animals. Limitations due to the method of fixation need to be discussed. Specimens from 0 to 28 dpn were totally immersed in fixative after severing the head to allow fixative inflow. This might result in lower lung volumes than the functional value, because lungs tend to deflate below functional residual capacity (FRC) at death [16]. The inflation degree of the lung cannot be controlled with that method, causing a higher variation in lung volumes. In older stages (35 dpn–adult) the lungs were filled with fixative to a tracheal pressure of 20 cm. That may lead to an overestimation of lung volume and surface area since lungs inflated with liquid have a larger compliance and are easier to distend than air-filled lungs [75]. Regardless of the preservation methods, the lung volumes and surface areas calculated for Monodelphis domestica are comparable to values reported for other marsupial pouch young of similar size (see Fig 3). In addition, others have demonstrated the comparability of lung volumes and surface areas derived from computed tomography data sets with histological estimations [76].

Conclusion

Microcomputed tomography (μCT) offers the possibility to show the comprehensive structural transformations in the developing lung of the gray short-tailed opossum in 3D. The results confirm that marsupials such as the gray short-tailed opossum are born with structurally immature lungs when compared to eutherian mammals and undergo a marked increases in architectural complexity during the postnatal period. In marsupials, the process of alveolarization, which takes place largely intrauterine in the eutherian fetus, is shifted to the postnatal period and is therefore more easily accessible for investigation. The structural development of the terminal air spaces from large terminal sacs to the final alveolar lung takes place in functional state in a continuous morphogenetic process. This allows insights in the structural prerequisites of a functioning lung and opens a new window for better understanding of the evolution of mammalian lung development. It can be assumed that mammalian lung development follows similar developmental pathways in all mammalian species, including marsupials.

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to Kristin Mahlow (lab manager of CT-lab) for staining, sample preparation and acquisition of μCT-scans. I thank the animal keepers Petra Grimm and Annett Billepp as well as Dr. Peter Giere and Dr. Peter Bartsch of the animal facility of the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin for breeding and providing the animals for this project. Furthermore, I would like to thank the referees for their inspiring comments, which improved the clarity of the study.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study, original images of the figures and further images and videos of 3D reconstructions of the terminal air spaces are made publicly available with figshare (data: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24764187; original images: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24763497; 3D-images: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24771213 and 3D-videos: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24764397).

Funding Statement

The author received funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG) with the module “temporary position for the principal investigator” (Grant No. FE1878/2-1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Open access funding was enabled by the Leibniz Association's Open Access Publishing Fund.

References

  • 1.Renfree MB. Society for Reproductive Biology Founders’ Lecture 2006. Life in the pouch: womb with a view. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2006; 18(7):721–734. doi: 10.1071/RD06072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ferner K, Schultz JA, Zeller U. Comparative anatomy of neonates of the three major mammalian groups (monotremes, marsupials, placentals) and implications for the ancestral mammalian neonate morphotype. J Anat. 2017; 231: 798–822. doi: 10.1111/joa.12689 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hill JP, Hill WCO. The growth stages of the pouch young of the native cat (Dasyurus viverrinus) together with observations on the anatomy of the newborn young. Trans. Zool. Soc. London. 1955; 28: 349–352. 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1955.tb00003.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Krause WJ, Leeson CR. Postnatal development of the respiratory system of the opossum. II. Electron microscopy of the epithelium and pleura. Acta Anat. 1975; 92: 28–44. doi: 10.1159/000144426 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gemmell RT, Little GJ. The structure of the lung of the newborn marsupial bandicoot, Isoodon macrourus. Cell Tiss Res. 1982; 223: 445–453. doi: 10.1007/BF01258501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gemmell RT. Lung development in the marsupial bandicoot, Isoodon macrourus. J Anat. 1986; 148: 193–204. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1261602/. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gemmell RT, Nelson J. The ultrastructure of the lung of two newborn marsupial species, the northern native cat, Dasyurus hallucatus, and the brushtail possum, Trichosurus vulpecula. Cell Tiss Res. 1988; 252: 683–685. doi: 10.1007/BF00216657 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Runciman SIC, Baudinette RV, Gannon BJ. Postnatal development of the lung parenchyma in a marsupial: the tammar wallaby. Anat Rec. 1996; 244: 193–206. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Runciman SIC, Baudinette RV, Gannon BJ, Lipsett J. Morphometric analysis of postnatal lung development in the tammar wallaby: light microscopy. Respir Physiol. 1998; 112: 325–337. doi: 10.1016/s0034-5687(98)00034-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Frappell PB, Mortola JP. Respiratory function in a newborn marsupial with skin gas exchange. Resp Physiol. 2000; 120(1): 35–45. doi: 10.1016/S0034-5687(99)00103-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Makanya AN, Sparrow P, Warui N, Mwangi K, Burri H. Morphological analysis of the postnatally developing marsupial lung: the quokka wallaby. The Anat Rec. 2001; 262(3): 253–265. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Makanya AN, Haenni B, Burri PH. Morphometry and allometry of the postnatal lung development in the quokka wallaby (Setonix brachyurus): a light microscopic study. Resp Physiol Neurobiol, 2003; 134(1): 43–55. doi: 10.1016/S1569-9048(02)00204-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Makanya AN, Tschanz SA, Haenni B, Burri PH. Functional respiratory morphology in the newborn quokka wallaby (Setonix brachyurus). J Anat. 2007; 211: 26–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2007.00744.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Burri PH, Haenni B, Tschanz SA, Makanya AN. Morphometry and allometry of the postnatal marsupial lung development: an ultrastructural study. Resp Physiol Neurobiol. 2003; 138(2–3): 309–324. doi: 10.1016/s1569-9048(03)00197-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Szdzuy K, Zeller U, Renfree M, Tzschentke B, Janke O. Postnatal lung and metabolic development in two marsupial and four eutherian species. J Anat. 2008; 212(2): 164–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2007.00849.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Simpson SJ, Siu KK, Yagi N, Whitley JC, Lewis RA, Frappell PB. Phase contrast imaging reveals low lung volumes and surface areas in the developing marsupial. Plos one. 2013; 8(1): e53805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053805 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Modepalli V, Kumar A, Sharp JA, Saunders NR, Nicholas KR, Lefèvre C. Gene expression profiling of postnatal lung development in the marsupial gray short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica) highlights conserved developmental pathways and specific characteristics during lung organogenesis. BMC genomics. 2018; 19(1): 732. doi: 10.1186/s12864-018-5102-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ferner K. Early postnatal lung development in the eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus). Anat Rec. 2021; 304(12): 2823–2840. doi: 10.1002/ar.24623 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ribbons KA, Baudinette RV, McMurchi EJ. The development of pulmonary surfactant lipids in a neonatal marsupial and the rat. Respir Physiol. 1989; 75(1): 1–10. doi: 10.1016/0034-5687(89)90081-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Miller NJ, Orgeig S, Daniels CB, Baudinette, RV. Postnatal development and control of the pulmonary surfactant system in the tammar wallaby Macropus eugenii. J Exp Biol. 2001; 204(23): 4031–4042. doi: 10.1242/jeb.204.23.4031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Frappell PB, MacFarlane PM. Development of the respiratory system in marsupials. Resp Physiol Neurobiol. 2006; 154: 252–267. doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2006.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.MacFarlane PM, Frappell PB. Convection requirement is established by total metabolic rate in the newborn tammar wallaby. Resp Physiol. 2001; 126: 221–231. doi: 10.1016/s0034-5687(01)00227-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mortola JP, Frappell PB, Woolley PA. Breathing through skin in a newborn mammal. Nature. 1999; 397(6721): 660. doi: 10.1038/17713 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.MacFarlane PM, Frappell PB, Mortola JP. Mechanics of the respiratory system in the newborn tammar wallaby. J Exp Biol. 2002; 205(4): 533–538. doi: 10.1242/jeb.205.4.533 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Runciman SIC, Gannon BJ, Baudinette RV. Central cardiovascular shunts in the perinatal marsupial. Anat Rec. 1995; 243(1): 71–83. doi: 10.1002/ar.1092430109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ferner K. Skin structure in newborn marsupials with focus on cutaneous gas exchange. J Anat. 2018; 233(3): 311–327. doi: 10.1111/joa.12843 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ferner K. Development of the skin in the eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus) with focus on cutaneous gas exchange in the early postnatal period. J Anat. 2021; 238(2): 426–445. doi: 10.1111/joa.13316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Post M, Copland I. Overview of lung development. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2002; 23(SUPP): 4–7. doi: 10.1016/S1526-0542(04)90049-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tschanz SA. Structural aspects of pre-and post-natal lung development. Pneumologie. 2007; 61(7): 479–481. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-959221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mund SI, Stampanoni M, Schittny JC. Developmental alveolarization of the mouse lung. Dev dyn. 2008; 237(8): 2108–2116. doi: 10.1002/dvdy.21633 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Warburton D, El-Hashash A, Carraro G, Tiozzo C, Sala F, Rogers O., et al. Lung organogenesis. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2010; 90: 73–158. doi: 10.1016/S0070-2153(10)90003-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Schittny JC. Development of the lung. Cell Tiss Res. 2017; 367: 427–444. doi: 10.1007/s00441-016-2545-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kitaoka H, Burri,PH, Weibel ER. Development of the human fetal airway tree: analysis of the numerical density of airway endtips. Anat Rec. 1996; 244(2): 207–213. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jeffery PK. The development of large and small airways. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1998; 157(5): S174–S180. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.157.5.rsaa-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Morrisey EE, Hogan BL. Preparing for the first breath: genetic and cellular mechanisms in lung development. Dev cell. 2010; 18(1): 8–23. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.12.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Haberthür D, Yao E, Barré SF, Cremona TP, Tschanz SA, Schittny JC. Pulmonary acini exhibit complex changes during postnatal rat lung development. PLoS ONE. 2021; 16(11): e0257349. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Branchfield K, Li R, Lungova V, Verheyden JM, McCulley D, Sun X. A three-dimensional study of alveologenesis in mouse lung. Dev biol. 2016; 409(2): 429–441. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2015.11.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Burri PH, Dbaly J, Weibel ER. The postnatal growth of the rat lung. I. Morphometry. Anat Rec. 1974; 178: 711–730. doi: 10.1002/ar.1091780405 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Burri PH. The postnatal growth of the rat lung III. Morphology. Anat Rec. 1974; 180(1): 77–98. doi: 10.1002/ar.1091800109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Burri PH. Structural aspects of prental and postnatal development and growth of the lung. In: McDonald J, editor. Growth and Development of the Lung. New York, Basel, Hong Kong: Dekker; 1997. pp. 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Burri PH. Structural aspects of postnatal lung development–alveolar formation and growth. Neonatology. 2006; 89(4): 313–322. doi: 10.1159/000092868 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Schittny JC, Mund SI, Stampanoni M. Evidence and structural mechanism for late lung alveolarization. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2008; 294(2): L246–L254. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00296.2007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tschanz SA, Salm LA, Roth-Kleiner M, Barré SF, Burri PH, Schittny JC. Rat lungs show a biphasic formation of new alveoli during postnatal development. J. Appl. Physiol. 2014; 117: 89–95. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01355.2013 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Szdzuy K, Zeller U. Lung and metabolic development in mammals: contribution to the reconstruction of the marsupial and eutherian morphotype. J Exp Zool. 2009; 312B: 555–578. doi: 10.1002/jez.b.21228 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ten Have‐Opbroek AA. The development of the lung in mammals: an analysis of concepts and findings. Am J Anat. 1981; 162(3): 201–219. doi: 10.1002/aja.1001620303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wang Z, Hubbard GB, Clubb FJ, VandeBerg JL. The laboratory opossum (Monodelphis domestica) as a natural mammalian model for human cancer research. Int J Clin Exp Patho. 2009; 2(3): 286. ; PMCID: PMC2600460. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Vasilescu DM, Knudsen L, Ochs M, Weibel ER, Hoffman EA. Optimized murine lung preparation for detailed structural evaluation via micro-computed tomography. J. Appl. Physiol. 2012; 112(1): 159–166. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00550.2011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ferner K, Zeller U, Renfree MB. Lung development of monotremes: evidence for the mammalian morphotype. Anat Rec. 2009; 292(2): 190–201. doi: 10.1002/ar.20825 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Mess AM, Ferner K. Evolution and development of gas exchange structures in Mammalia: the placenta and the lung. Resp Physiol Neurobiol. 2010; 173: 74–82. doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2010.01.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Deakin JE, Delbridge ML, Koina E, Harley N, Alsop AE, Wang C., et al. Reconstruction of the ancestral marsupial karyotype from comparative gene maps. BMC Evol Biol. 2013; 13: 258. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-13-258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ferner K, Mahlow K. 3-D-Reconstruction of the bronchial tree of the gray short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica) in the postnatal period. J Anat. 2023; 243(6):910–935. doi: 10.1111/joa.13928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Mulisch M, Welsch U. Romeis-Mikroskopische Technik. 19th ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Metscher BD. MicroCT for comparative morphology: simple staining methods allow high-contrast 3D imaging of diverse non-mineralized animal tissues. BMC Physiology 2009; 9(1): 1–14. doi: 10.1186/1472-6793-9-11 ; PMCID: PMC2717911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gignac PM, Kley NJ, Clarke JA., Colbert MW, Morhardt AC, Cerio D., et al. Diffusible iodine‐based contrast‐enhanced computed tomography (diceCT): an emerging tool for rapid, high‐resolution, 3‐D imaging of metazoan soft tissues. J Anat. 2016; 228(6): 889–909. doi: 10.1111/joa.12449 Epub 2016 Mar 11. ; PMCID: PMC5341577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Runciman SIC, Baudinette RV, Gannon BJ, Lipsett J. Morphometric estimate of gas-exchange tissue in the new-born tammar wallaby, Macropus eugenii. Respir physiol. 1998; 111(2): 177–187. doi: 10.1016/S0034-5687(97)00114-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Runciman SIC, Baudinette RV, Gannon BJ, Lipsett J. Morphometric analysis of postnatal lung development in a marsupial: transmission electron microscopy. Respir physiol. 1999; 118(1): 61–75. doi: 10.1016/S0034-5687(99)00068-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Castleman WL, Lay JC. Morphometric and ultrastructural study of postnatal lung growth and development in calves. Am J Vet Res. 1990; 51(5): 789–795. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Winkler GC, Cheville NF. Morphometry of postnatal development in the porcine lung. Anat Rec. 1985; 211(4): 427–433. doi: 10.1002/ar.1092110409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Davies P, Reid L, Lister G, Pitt B. Postnatal growth of the sheep lung: a morphometric study. Anat rec. 1988; 220(3): 281–286. doi: 10.1002/ar.1092200308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hsia CC, Hyde DM, Ochs M, Weibel ER. An official research policy statement of the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society: standards for quantitative assessment of lung structure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010; 181(4): 394–418. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200809-1522ST [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods. 2012; 9(7): 671–675. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hughes RL, Hall LS. Structural Adaptations of the Newborn Marsupial. In: Tyndale-Biscoe CH, Janssens PA. editors. The Developing Marsupial. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1988. pp. 8–27. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-88402-3_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Simpson SJ, Flecknoe SJ, Clugston RD, Greer JJ, Hooper SB, Frappell PB. Structural and functional development of the respiratory system in a newborn marsupial with cutaneous gas exchange. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2011; 84(6): 634–649. doi: 10.1086/662557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gemmell RT, Selwood L. Structural development in the newborn marsupial, the Stripe-faced dunnart, Sminthopsis macroura. Acta Anat. 1994; 149: 1–12. doi: 10.1159/000147549 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Buaboocha W, Gemmell RT. Development of lung, kidney and skin in the brushtail possum, Trichosurus vulpecula. Acta Anat. 1997; 159: 15–24. doi: 10.1159/000147960 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Kovar J, Sly PD, Willet KE. Postnatal alveolar development of the rabbit. J Appl Physiol. 2002; 93: 629–635. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01044.2001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Jakkula M, Le Cras TD, Gebb S, Hirth KP, Tuder RM, Voelkel NF, et al. Inhibition of angiogenesis decreases alveolarization in the developing rat lung. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2000; 279: L600–L607. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.2000.279.3.L600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Hyde DM, Blozis SA, Avdalovic MV, Putney LF, Dettorre R, Quesenberry NJ, et al. Alveoli increase in number but not size from birth to adulthood in rhesus monkeys. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2007; 293: L570–L579. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00467.2006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Herring MJ, Putney LF, Wyatt G, Finkbeiner WE, Hyde DM. Growth of alveoli during postnatal development in humans based on stereological estimation. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2014; 307: L338–L344. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00094.2014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Narayanan M, Owers-Bradley J, Beardsmore CS, Mada M, Ball I, Garipov R, et al. Alveolarization continues during childhood and adolescence: new evidence from helium-3 magnetic resonance. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012; 185: 186–191. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201107-1348OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Schittny JC, Burri PH. Development and growth of the lung. In: Fishman AP, Elias JA, Fishman JA, Grippi MA, Kaiser R, Senior RM, editors. Fishman’s pulmonary diseases and disorders. New-York: McGraw-Hill; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Warburton D. Conserved Mechanisms in the Formation of the Airways and Alveoli of the Lung. Front. Cell Dev Biol. 2021; 9: 662059. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.662059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Zeltner TB, Burri PH. The postnatal development and growth of the human lung. II. Morphology. Respir Physiol. 1987; 67: 269–282. doi: 10.1016/0034-5687(87)90058-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Weibel ER. Postnatal growth of the lung and pulmonary gas-exchange capacity. In: Porter R, de Reuck AVS, editors. Development of the Lung. A CIBA Foundation Symposium. London: Churchill; 1967. pp. 131–148. doi: 10.1002/9780470719473.ch8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.West JB. Mechanics of breathing. Respiratory physiology–the essentials. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1995. pp. 89–116. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Coxson HO, Rogers RM, Whittall KP, D’Yachkova Y, Pare PD, Sciurba FC, et al. A quantification of the lung surface area in emphysema using computed tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999; 159: 851–856. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.159.3.9805067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Josué Sznitman

9 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-30643Development of the terminal airspaces in the Gray short-tailed opossum (<monodelphis domestica="">) – 3 D reconstruction by microcomputed tomography</monodelphis>PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ferner,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 24 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Josué Sznitman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The author addresses the lung development of the Gray short-tailed opossum with focus on the terminal airspaces. The study provides good context across different species and lists and discusses similarities and differences. State of the art µCT is employed to create 3D volume images of the lungs. Samples from a great number of time points in the development are examined.

The main value of this study lies in the qualitative description of lung development over a high number of time points. This shows the distinct of development steps of the lungs. Appropriate images are provided to display the developmental differences.

The qualitative description is extended by a quantitative assessment of the lungs. The low sample sizes for each group and uncontrolled variables such as lung inflation, different preparation protocols etc. means this is in no way a representative numerical description for each time step. Nevertheless, it serves as an orientation and is a great point were future studies, providing more samples for individual development steps, might extend the knowledge gathered in this initial study.

A detailed discussion of developmental processes concludes this work.

My main issue with this paper concerns its reproducibility and comparability with current and future studies. To aid this, I would wish for a more detailed method description. This could turn this paper into a great foundation on which many future works on the Gray short-tailed opossum lung might be based.

Other than that, I have only some minor remarks on areas were slight improvements might aid the presentation of the results. A detailed list of all my recommendations is attached below.

Major points

-P7 L8f What results were acquired using these eight animals? As they were said to have been studied using SEM I guess they might have been used to measure diameter or thickness of morphological structures. This should be described in the methods section (see below).

I looked into the cited PhD thesis and was able to piece together from Table I, by the provided ages and the fact that SEM was performed on them, which lung sections were looked at. Data that would allow the reader to compare these animals to the 35 listed in the current study, e.g. body weight, was not reasonably available.

-P9 L15 How was the reconstruction performed? Manual tracing? Thresholding? Watershed segmentation? AI pattern recognition? Please specify.

-P9 L16 What did the ROIs consist of? What was included, what excluded and why? How were e.g. extrapulmonary airways or extrapulmonary vessels treated?

-P9 L18 The subtraction of bronchial trees from the total air filled volume is described. This leads me to the question whether the value VA provided in the results is the “total” air space volume or just the volume of the terminal airspaces. This is not explained. See point below.

-P9 The variables VL, VA, SA should be introduced and explained in the methods section. What do they consist of? How where they acquired?

-P10 How were layer thickness and diameter determined? The same question goes for the other diameter, thickness, length, etc. values. This should be explained in the methods section. What was the sampling procedure for this? How much deviation was there?

-In the µCT volume renderings, the surfaces of the airspaces are very rough. This is probably due to using a global threshold for segmentation. The result does not represent the smooth surfaces these structures have in real life, as e.g. seen in the provided EM images. This artificial roughness will skew the calculations of surface area (will increase) and volume (will decrease). This should be discussed.

Minor points

-There are inconsistent spellings, e.g. airspaces and air spaces (P2, L9, L11) through the text. In addition, the wording in some sections, esp. in the discussion is rough. Some sentences (e.g. P12, L10-11) do not make sense. Please read the text again carefully and if possible, have a native speaker read through it as well.

-P6 L17f Only the „first weeks of life“ are mentioned, yet later adult animals are studied too. This makes little sense to me.

-P7 L1 The term adult is not defined. At least the age range of the adult animals studied should be given here.

-P10 L5 Please indicate in the text that the value given for the lung volume represents the median of all animals. This goes for the following values too.

-P15 L25f This part is written in the past tense with no apparent reason.

-P17 L16 and L24 Measurements are provided in mm³ and the comparison values in µl. I am aware of the fact that the conversion between two units is 1 to 1; nevertheless, it might improve the readability to give all values in the same unit.

-P30 Table Va is used instead of VA as defined in the main text. The same goes for SA.

-P30 Table The range for 13 dpc seems off. The values in the supplementary table range from 0.36 to 0.66. If I am not mistaken, the range should thus be 0.3 and not 0.12. The only way to reach that value from the numbers provided would be to only calculate the range between the two middle values (0.48 and 0.36). Therefore, this might have been a slight mishap in the calculation process.

Reviewer #2: ---

title: 'Review of "Development of the terminal airspaces in the Gray short-tailed opossum (<monodelphis domestica="">) – 3 D reconstruction by microcomputed tomography" by Kirsten Ferner'

author: David Haberthür

date: 2.11.2023

tags: [review, microct, lung development, opossum]

---

# General remarks

Kirsten Ferner used X-ray computed tomography to investigate the development of the terminal air spaces of the lung in the Gray short-tailed opossum during the first weeks of life.

The study does obtain functional volumes of the air spaces and surface areas of the lung using 3D reconstructions of computed tomography data.

The results show that the development of the lung in Monodelphis domestica resembles both the supposed marsupial and mammalian ancestor.

The study also mentions some inherent flaws of the method, mostly on the sample preparation side, but gives important insights into the development of the opossum lung which closely matches the development of the mammalian lung.

## Major points

Existing literature is - as far as I know - put into context well, and the data also matches the expectation and previous data available.

The main flaws of the study are on the sample preparation side and are well discussed.

Nonetheless, I would like to see more - maybe also graphical - relations to previously published data, to make the acquired data better comparable.

I see some flaws with the presentation of the data, namely that the numbers are presented a median and range in Table 1.

I think that the median is *not* suited when thre are only 2 to 3 values for each timepoint.

I would prefer to see the valued as mean +- standard deviation, and even better in the table.

Also, Fig. 11 plots *all* the values; giving them fully in Table 1 would make it unnecessary to have the supplementary data.

The author does not specify how the data was analyzed and plotted, this should be amended in the methods section.

Figure 3, 5, 8 and 10 show colorful segmentations of the functional lung units, but it is not explained in the text how these units have been extracted from the 3D data.

Is this a built in function of Volume Graphics Studio Max?

I would very much like to read how exactly this was done in section 2.5.

It is not necessary for *this* manuscript, but I would very much like to see a 'development curve' of the volumes of the segmented parts of the lungs, meaning are the volumes of the different lobes or even the different acini developing equally over the course of the studied timeframe, or are there differences evident?

I think this is 'hidden' in the data and could be an interesting follow-up project.

The whole study is providing an overview of the lung development in marsupials and is perfomed scientifically sound, as far as I can judge it.

Once the major points are discussed in more depth and implemented in the manuscript I would recommend to publish the manuscript in PLOS ONE.

## Minor points

Throughout the whole manuscript there are inhomogeneities in the text, which should be corrected.

Three-dimensional data is abbreviated as "3D", "3-D" and "3 D", there should only be one version, I suggest "3D".

Microtomographic imaging is abbreviated as either "Micro-CT" or "µCT", but should only use one version, after it has been introduced for the first time on page 6, line 19.

Mostly, numbers and units are written with "number space unit", but several times without a separating space, this should be homogenized, too.

I think it's customary to use "number space unit".

Number ranges should be given with a en dash, not a hyphen, i.e. not "13-14 days" but "13–14 days".

Sometimes, ranges are given with space and sometimes without.

Approximately is sometimes given as "~ number" and sometimes as "~number", without space.

I would generally write that out instead of stating it with a tilde.

Please homogenize all instances of all these issues throughout the text.

It is stated that the data is "fully available without restriction" but the given link to the data repsitory (https://doi.org/10.7479/cy7h-j182) does *not* work.

## Detailed comments

The detailed comments are given referring to the page and line numbers *printed* in the PDF (e.g. p6, l23), not the real page numbers in the collated PONE PDF.

Most of these detailed comments are suggestions for consideration.

If I think it is necessary to do the change, I write "should be" or "has to be" or otherwise formulate it tersely.

### Abstract

p2, l13: "M.domestica" should be spelled out.

p2, l16 and l18: "... the saccular stage by 7 days" should specify the postnatal days, as well as *Between 28 and 35 days alveolarization started."

p2, l20: I would change "With alveolarization the volume of the air spaces and the surface area for gas exchange increased markedly" to "The volume of the air spaces and the surface area for gas exchange increased markedly with alveolarization."

### Key words

p2, l27: Even though "µCT" is used for microtomographic imaging throughout the manuscript I would use "microCT" as a key word.

### Introduction

p3, l11: I think that "in certain respects" should be "in certain aspects"

p3, l15: Change "born generally" to "generally born"

p3, l20: Can you add a citation for this statement?

p4, l7: "low air-blood" should be "short air-blood"

p4, l12: I think that "studied mainly" would better be written as "mainly studied"

p4, l12: You could also mention mice here in addition to rats, since especially Sonja Mund an Johannes Schittny (which you're citing) have studied the lung develoment in mice.

p5, l26: "remodeling" doesn't seem to be the correct word here.

p6, l4: Replace "underwent" with "undergo", maybe?

p6, l10: Change "...but not the sequence of developmental steps resulting in final lung maturation" to "...but the sequence of developmental steps resulting in final lung maturation are not."

p6, l26: Maybe state that the MfK is in Berlin, *Germany*

p7, l4: "short" should be "shortly"

p7, l6: It is never specified what exact timepoint "adult" refers to. Please state this.

p7, l7: Maybe change "The numbers and specifics of the specimens..." to "All available details of the specimens..."

p7, l9 and l22: You both mention SEM and TEM in the text, but only SEM data is shown. Please clarify.

p7, l17: Plese give as exact times as possible an not just "for a longer period of time"

p7, l18: "In late developmental stages, from 19 dpn to adults the lungs" should be "For late developmental stages, from 19 dpn to adults, the lungs" (with a comma).

p7, l27: No TEM data is shown in the manuscript

p8, l5: Section 2.4 mentions "uCT imaging", here it's only "uCT", please homogenize

p8, l7: I think it is necessary to quickly explain why samples have to be stained. The "general population" does not know why.

p8, l13: "could not be detected" hides a very imporant result of this exploratory preparation step in this manuscript.

I would welcome it very much if this section could be expanded with more information and maybe also a little bit of results.

p8, l16: Replace "could be" with "were"

p8, l21: Tube in "Phoenix nanotom X-ray|s tube" is probably superfluos, and could be replaced with "machine".

p8, l25: As far as I know, all uCT machines worth with "transmission beam".

p8, l26: It would be great if the different scanning parameters could be given in the supplementary materials.

Or are they available in the (non working) data repository?

p9, l3: Who is supplying the Nexus reconstruction software?

p9: It would be nice to have a quick rundown on the sizes of acquired and reconstructed datasets, both in terms of pixels and size on disk in GB

p9, l5: Section title mentions reconstruction, but section deals with segmentation, visualization and data analysis.

p9, l12: "...were colored in different shades of gray...", "appeared black" hides the fact that the tissue density is mapped to gray values.

It's not the coloring of the tissues that is important, but the mapping of the gray value to density.

This has to be explained better.

p9, l17: Change "and could be deducted from" to "and was be deducted from" (or "and was substracted from")

p9, l19: Replace "by the program Volume Graphics" with "with Volume Graphics Studio Max" and specify how this was calculated.

Is this a given function in the software?

p9, l20: "and indicated by mm³ for volume and by mm² for surface area with an accuracy of two digits after the decimal point." is unnecessary and can be discarded.

p9, l21: As said before, median and range don't seem the best way to state the values in the manuscript. Could you consider giving the complete data, or mean and standard deviation?

p10, l9: "are subdivided only a little" seems very unscientific.

Can you specify this a bit better?

p10, l17: Maybe change "the more peripherally located septa" to "the septa located more peripherally"

p10, l20: "of lung development" is unnecessary, maybe completely delete these words?

p10, l22: "appear smoothly walled" is also rather subjective.

Is it possible to measure this, or give concrete visual comparative examples based on the figures?

p10, l24: Maybe change "between 11 and 21 postnatal days" to *between postnatal days 11 and 21"?

p11, l2: Change "vertically standing" to "standing vertically"

p11, l6: I would change "improve" to "increase", as improve is subjective

p11, l6: The "architectural complexity" is not given in Table 1.

Is this corresponding to the 'surface area'?

p11, l9: Change "new" to "newly"

p11, l14: Remove comma after "both".

p12, l13: "Shortly" instead of "short"

p13, l1: Change "indicates the continuous" to "indicates a continuous"

p13, l4: How was the airspace surface calculated exactly?

Depending on the triangulation and voxel size, the influence of the algorithm can have big influences on the outcome of the number.

I think it would be good to discuss this a bit!

p14, l1: "eastern and northern native cat" and others are mentioned in lower case throughout this page, while the Gray marsupial is always mentioned in upper case.

Does this need to be made consistent?

p14, l5: Change "thus" to "those"

p14, l13: "newly" instead of "new"

p17, l4: Add parentheses around "sacculation ... continued alveolarization".

p19, l8 and l9: The values are once given as factor and once given as percent, maybe homogenize.

p19, l15: Does the inflation really cause a higher variation in lung volume or simply a generally lower measured lung volume, as you state above?

p20, l6: No comma after lung

p21, l4: As stated aboce, the given link does *not* work for me

p30: - The table values should be aligned at the decimal points for easier consumption

- I think it would be beneficial to have all *all* values here, and not only in the supplementary materials.

- As said before, choosing to list median and range seems wrong to me for only 2–4 values. I would show mean and standard deviation.

Figure legends in general: You sometimes write "Scale bar = X mm", sometimes "The scale bar X mm", and sometimes that "The Magnification is indicated by the scale bar".

The magnification is not indicated by the scale bar.

Please homogenize all figure legends to stating the scale bar length, or write that the scale bar length is given in the figures, especially when there are scale bars of different length present, as for example in Fig. 4.

I would prefer if all scale bars in the images are labeled (like in Fig. 5 and 6), making it unnecessary to double-check with the legend.

p31, l4: Missing space between strongly and developed

p33, l9: As with 3D, "2 D" should be written homogeneously throughout the manuscript.</monodelphis>

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: David Haberthür

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Feb 16;19(2):e0292482. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292482.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Dec 2023

Comments to Reviewer 1:

I thank the referee for his overall positive comments and the critical reading of the manuscript. I tried to address all points raised and revised the paper accordingly.

Major points

-P7 L8: The SEM pictures were included in the study to show structural details of the 3D architecture of the developing lung, which can be seen with a better resolution and image sharpness in SEM pictures than with the µCT. They were indeed used to make selected measurements of airspace diameter and septum thickness. However, I agree that a proper morphometric measurement should be applied to present reliable data. Therefore, I included morphometric measurements of airspace diameter and septum thickness of the lungs of the scanned µCT-specimens. Using the fractionator method, the µCT-scans of the lungs were digitally sectioned into eight parts, ensuring that the whole lung was sampled. Eight digital pictures were taken from the 2D sections of the lung at the same magnification (ensured by the same scale) for each animal and analysed using Image J software. The program was calibrated with the scale bar and a line was randomly cast over the image of the lung. On each digital photograph 5 airspace diameter and airspace septa intersecting with the line were measured, yielding a total of 40 for each lung. The values for single specimen and group means are presented as mean +- standard deviation in Table 1. A description of the morphometric measurement was included in the method section under 2.6.

For a better comparison of the SEM to the µCT specimens I added specifics and details (e.g., body weight, fixation, lung section) for the eight SEM specimens in Table 1. The former Table 1 was replaced by the former supplementary table. It now contains all details and results for the single specimens investigated and presents the group means ± standard deviation.

-P9 L15 For the reconstruction manual tracing on 16-bit pictures (16000 gray scale values) with a tolerance of 1000-1200 gray scale values around the first segmented gray value was used to ensure that the entire airspaces were captured. A paragraph has been added in 2.5.

-P9 L16 The segmentation process and creation of ROIs are explained in more detail under 2.5

The segmentation used a region grower tool, that marks all areas of the same density-value connected to each other to create a region of interest (ROI). The tissue density is mapped to gray values, so that tissues of the same density appear in the same gray scale value. A tolerance of 1000-1200 gray scale values around the first selected gray value of the ROI was given. New marked areas were included in this ROI. With that tool the entire bronchial tree was manually traced, beginning from the extrapulmonary main bronchi to the terminal bronchioles, and it was visually ensured that only air spaces were included. In that way pulmonary blood vessels and other air-filled areas in or between the lung segments were excluded from the segmentation. Calculations of volume and surface area are built in functions of Volume Graphics Studio Max. With segmentation a ROI will be created, which has a certain volume and surface area. The first ROI “bronchial tree” contained the entire bronchial tree of the lung (see Ferner and Mahlow, 2023). The surface area and volume of the ROI “bronchial tree” was calculated by the program. In a next step the ROI of the bronchial tree was copied and then extended to include the terminal air spaces. The resulting ROI “entire air spaces” included all conducting and terminal air spaces of the lung. Volume and surface area were determined for the ROI “entire air spaces”. By subtraction of the surface area and volume of the ROI “bronchial tree” from the ROI “entire air spaces”, the surface area (SA) and volume of the terminal air spaces (VA) resulted.

-P9 L18 As pointed out above the values VA provided in the results and table 1 are volumes of the terminal air spaces, since the volume of the ROI “bronchial tree” was subtracted from the ROI “entire air spaces”.

P9 The variables VL, VA and SA have been now introduced and explained in 2.5 of the methods section. I don`t no how exactly Volume Graphics calculates the surface areas and volumes, since it is an inbuilt function of the program, but I believe these are just mathematical calculations of the segmented volumes.

-P10 Morphometric measurements have been conducted to estimate septum thickness and air space diameter. The fractionator method has been applied to ensure that the whole lung was sampled and randomness in the measurement was introduced, as I already have explained in the first point of the reply to the reviewer. A new section (2.6) was included in the methods to explain the morphometry. The mean and standard deviation for the single specimens and age groups as well are given in table 1.

Roughness of µCT volume renderings

Segmentation was carried out with a region grower tool (with a tolerance of 100-1200 gray scale values around the first selected gray value of the ROI). However, since tracing was performed manually it is possible that not all surfaces, especially in the later postnatal stages, might be reproduced perfectly. This leads to an artificial roughness in some segmentations. I agree this might influence the calculations of surface areas and volumes of air spaces. In these cases, the surface area might be overestimated and the volume of terminal airspaces would be lower than in reality. I added a short discussion of this issue in the method section.

Minor points

-“air spaces” are used consistently in the text now. The sentence P12, L10-11 has been deleted.

- P7 L17 “first weeks of life” are replaces by “postnatal period”

- P7 L1 The term “adult” has been defined now. For the study primi- or multiparous females approximately one year old were used. Since the young Monodelphis (0-14 days) are firmly attached to the maternal teat (removal would be very painful and cause injuries), the mother had to be euthanized to obtain these stages. For efficiency, the mothers were used for lung fixation and dissection.

- P10 L5 A sentence at the beginning of the results section clarifies that all values for volume and surface area are group means of the respective age group.

-P15 L25 The part of the discussion has been revised to be consistent in present tense.

- P17 L16 and L24 The values have been changed from µl to mm³ to provide better comparability.

-P30 Table1 VL, VA and SA have been adjusted to meet the rest of the manuscript.

P30 Table1 The values are now given as means and standard deviation, for single specimens and age group.

Comments to Reviewer 2:

I thank the reviewer for his thoroughly reading of this manuscript and the comments and recommendations. I tried my best to amend the paper according to the reviewer suggestions.

Major points

I followed the reviewer’s suggestion and modified figure 11. It now shows the individual data points for lung and air space volume and surface area of Monodelphis domestica together with morphometric literature data of marsupials and eutherians (data from rat, cattle, pig and sheep a merged to the eutherian data set) to make the acquired data better comparable.

Presentation of the data: I followed the reviewer’s suggestion and modified the presentation of all data to mean +- standard deviation. Table 1 includes now all values of single specimens and group means. The supplementary table is not necessary anymore and will be omitted.

A sentence to the analysis and plotting of the data in Figure 11 has been added in the method section 2.5 after explaining how VL, VA, SA were obtained.

Colorful segmentations of the functional lung units: A paragraph at the end of 2.5 explains how the colored segmentations of the functional lung units were obtained. The color can be individually chosen for the segmented ROIs (“set interval color”). To set the neighbouring airspaces apart from each other different colors were chosen.

“Development curve of lung lobe volumes”: I agree that this information would be interesting and it might be possibly to generate the information from the entire segmented lungs. For this the ROI of the entire air spaces must be copied and all the parts of the lung deleted that do not belong to the lung lobe of interest. This might be easily done in early postnatal stages since the air spaces are large and well set apart from each other. In later stages the terminal airspaces of the single lung lobes must be confirmed by the course of the lobar and terminal bronchioles. In my opinion for this paper this is going too far. Besides I am not able to do any segmentations at our CT-Lab at the moment, since all computers are shut down after a cyber attack with no time frame given when work will be resumed. But maybe I will follow the reviewer’s suggestion and investigate it as a follow-up project. For the development of the bronchial tree information is available (see Ferner and Mahlow 2023). Not in terms of volumes, but in number of airway branches (Fig. 13) and airway generation (supplementary figure). The results show that the caudal lobes have a higher increase in airway generation and especially in total number of airway branches compared to the other lung lobes.

The given DOI-link for the published data does not work due to continuing restrictions to access the data at the Museum für Naturkunde resulting from the Cyber-attack from mid-October. Since I can not estimate when the link will be working again, I created new Data-Doi’s with figshare (Data: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24764187; Original images: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24763497; 3D-images: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24771213 and videos: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24764397) to make the data publicly available.

Minor points

I followed all reviewer’s suggestion and amended the text accordingly.

-Data availability statement:

I created a Data-DOI (https://doi.org/10.7479/cy7h-j182) containing all original data, images and 3D-animations of the reconstructed terminal airways. Unfortunately, this link is not working at the moment, since the Museum fuer Naturkunde is still suffering from a Cyber-attack that took place mid-october. Since there no official time-line is given when things will run properly again, I decided to create a new Data-DOI (Fig-Share) to provide the data asap.

Detailed Comments:

I followed the reviewer’s suggestion for Abstract, key words and Introduction and amended the text accordingly.

Introduction:

P3, L11, L15: I changed the text accordingly.

P3, L20: The citation Modepalli et al. 2018 has been added.

P4, L7, 12: I changed the text accordingly.

P4, L12: “Mice” and the citation Mund et al. 2008 have been added

P5, L26: “3D reconstruction” replaced “3D remodeling”.

P6, L4, L10: I changed the text accordingly.

P6, L26: The location of the MfN has been added.

P7, L4: has been done.

P7, L6: The age stage adult has been defined now. Adult animals were generally primi- or multiparous females one year old.

P7, L7: I changed the text accordingly.

P7, L9 and 22: Two sentences clarify why TEM and SEM samples were included in the study. “The TEM samples were used for further ultrastructural analysis, which is not subject to this study”. “The (SEM) samples were viewed and photographed in a scanning electron microscopic (LEO 1450 VP, Carl Zeiss NT GmbH) to see ultrastructural details of the 3D architecture of the lung.”

P7, L17: I specified the fixation times in the text, generally 1-2 days for Bouin and for weeks/months in Karnovsky until µCT scans were performed.

P7, L18: The comma has been inserted.

P7, L27: “The TEM samples were used for further ultrastructural analysis, which is not subject to this study.” This has been stated in the paragraph. See also comments to reviever 1.

P8, L5: "µCT imaging” has replaced “µCT”.

P8, L7: A Paragraph explaining the necessity for staining for µCT-scans has been added at the beginning of 2.3. “Comparative, functional, and developmental studies of animal morphology require accurate visualization of three-dimensional structures, but few widely applicable methods exist for non-destructive whole-volume imaging of animal tissues. µCT imaging in comparative morphology has been used in paleontology, where mineralized tissue, e.g., bones, were scanned. However, µCT-imaging of soft-tissue structures has been limited by the low intrinsic x-ray contrast of non-mineralized tissues. With sufficient contrast imparted to soft tissues, internal soft tissues, such as lung, liver, kidney, heart, intestine, skin and brain, can be made visible with µCT- techniques. With very simple contrast staining µCT imaging produces quantitative, high-resolution, high-contrast volume images of lung tissue. This is possible without destroying the specimens and with possibilities of combining with other preparation and imaging methods (histology or TEM).

Metscher et al. (2009) summarizes several simple and versatile staining methods for µCT-imaging of animal soft tissues, along with advice on tissue fixation and sample preparation. Based on this information, different staining protocols using inorganic iodine and phosphotungstic acid (PTA), were developed, tested and used to produce high-contrast x-ray images of the lung at different age stages (Table 1).”

P8, L13: In my opinion the reviewer’s suggestion to extend this paragraph leads too far. There were no reportable results obtained, the comparison in respect of shrinking resulted in comparison of volumes of PTA or Iodid stained animals (see table 1). We did not perform a scientific study on this subject.

P8, L16: I changed the text accordingly.

P8, L21: It has been changed according the reviewer’s suggestion.

P8, L26: The different kV, µA and projection-settings can be not obtained at the moment, since I do not have access to the VG data due to the shutdown after the cyber-attack at MfN.

P9, L13 Nexus was not used in this study. The sentence has been deleted.

P9, datasets: I can’t give you exact information about the pixel size of the acquired data sets right now, since I cannot open VG files. But the scans are based on a vector image of 1400 x 1480 pixel. The size of the acquired scan-files on disk depends on the size of the scanned sample (between 6 and 15 GB). For example, a small Araldite-block-scan of the whole upper part of a Neonate (e.g., Neonate 1965_1) generates a VG file of 10.6 GB. A whole neonate (2350_7), scanned in liquid results in a VG file of 12.5 GB. An adult lung (2117) resulted in a VG file of 15.1 GB.

The 3D-images I used for creating the plates Fig. 4,7 and 9 were saved as JPG-files, in a size range of 180-313 KB (Neonate 2350_7) to 203-282KB (Adult 2117). A 3D-rendering of the reconstruction (e.g. neonate video 2350_7; video turning bronchial tree and terminal airspaces) of 30 sec has a size of 52 MB.

P9; L15: The section title reads now: “Segmentation, visualisation and data analysis for 3D reconstruction”

P9, L12: The sentence in question has been deleted. Instead, two sentences explain how the segmentation was performed: “The segmentation used a region grower tool, that marks all areas of the same density-value connected to each other to create a region of interest (ROI). The tissue density is mapped to gray values, so that tissues of the same density appear in the same gray scale value.”

P9, L17: The paragraph has been deleted.

P9, L19 “Volume Graphics Studio Max” has been spelled out. The volume and surface area calculations are a built-in function of VG. With segmentation a ROI will be created, which has a certain volume and surface area. I can’t say, how VG exactly calculates the values. A paragraph has been added in 2.5.

P9, L20: The part of the sentence has been deleted.

P9, L21: I followed the reviewer’s suggestion fully.

P10, L9: The phrase has been deleted.

P10, L17: The phrase has been deleted.

P10, L20: The phrase has been deleted.

P10, L22: The sentence has been rephrased and the subjective statement has been deleted.

P11, L2: I changed the text accordingly.

P11, L6: I changed the text accordingly. The “architectural” complexity has been replaced by “structural” complexity and refers to Fig. 6H.

P11, L9: I changed the text accordingly.

P11, L14: The sentence has been deleted.

P12, L13: I changed the text accordingly.

P13, L1: I changed the text accordingly.

P13, L4: The surface area was calculated by VG Studio Max, I don’t know the exact algorithm of this.

P14, L11: normally the common species names are written lower case, but for the Gray short-tailed opossum both upper- and lower-case spelling is used. However, I decided to make it consistent and changed the species name to lower case.

P14, L5: I changed the text accordingly.

P14, L13: I changed the text accordingly.

P17, L4: I changed the text accordingly.

P19, L8, L9: I rephrased the sentence to homogenize the cited data.

P19, L15: I agree with the reviewer, that the lung volumes might tend to be lower than in functional lung (as already discussed in the manuscript), but due to differences in inhalation/exhalation status at the time of death variability in lung volume might result in any case. Therefore, I didn’t change the sentence.

P30: I followed the reviewer’s suggestion and table 1 shows now all values and the supplementary table has been omitted. Mean and standard deviation have replaced median and range.

Figure legends: All scale bars have been labeled in all figures and all statements about scale bars were deleted from the legends, since the scale bars are self-explanatory in the figures.

P31, P33: I followed the reviewer’s suggestions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Josué Sznitman

8 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-30643R1Development of the terminal air spaces in the gray short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica) – 3D reconstruction by microcomputed tomographyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ferner,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The Reviewers have pointed out to some overall minor editing comments that should be corrected first.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Josué Sznitman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The author has addressed the raised issues and reworked the manuscript extensively. Important aspects of the methods are now described in a more detailed way that aids data interpretation and reproducibility. The data presentation has also been improved. This resolves most of my concerns with the first draft of this study.

My remaining issues concern two previously raised main issues where I would still wish for some additional details. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the text that should be fixed. Many are minor details that only affect the readability, but also some factual incorrect statements are present. I recommend resubmission after these minor issues are fixed.

I will refer to page and line numbers of the document without tracked changes.

Major issues:

P11 L20f I do not completely understand the segmentation process, as both manual tracing and a region grower tool with a gray scale tolerance are mentioned. I conclude from that, that you did not manually trace the outline of every air space in every 2D image of your stack, but instead traced something like e.g. the center line (please specify) of the airways and extended that marking by region growing to the airway walls. Please elaborate what exactly was manually marked.

P13 L16f The choosing of a random starting point is omitted in the description, but should be mentioned as it is an elementary part of the uniform random sampling scheme employed here. It might be added to the discussion, that the fractionator principle is employed here in a modified form.

P11 L20f 16-bit images contain 2^16 = 65,536 gray scale values, not 16,000

P12 L23f Please add a source for the literature data you refer to here

P25 L1 2.122 cm² is not 26 times 0.028 cm². The factor should be around 76, or one of the surface size values is off.

Minor issues:

P6 L5f X-ray *micro* computed tomography

P6 L21 The abbreviation µCT is introduced here a second time

Table 1 The SD for 13 dpc is missing the “±”

Table 1 SEM specimen data could be moved to its own table (and might be referenced in the text on P9 L1)

Table 1 PTA = *phospho*tungstic acid

P8 L14 “instillation” instead of “installation”?

P9 L25 The abbreviation PTA is introduced here a second time

P10 L19 No need for the “|” here

P10 L18-24 The sentence stretches over seven lines. It might be broken up for increased readability

P10 L21-26 The format *number* *unit* is used here, while it is *number* *space* *unit* everywhere else

P11 L13 One time *number* *unit* is used and right afterwards *number* *space* *unit*

P13 L1f The figure should be referenced here

P13 L10 A fragment of a deleted section is left over here

P13 L13 Inconsistent writing of air space/airspace

P13 L23 “µct” is used instead of “µCT”

P14 L2 “airspace” is used instead of “air space”

P16 L16 The word “staget” might be a typo of “stage”

P16 L21 “14dpn” is used instead of “14 dpn”

P16 L22 “Fig 8K” is used instead of “Fig 8 K”

P16 L24 Use of postnatal days instead of the established abbreviation “dpn”

P17 L10 Use of postnatal days instead of the established abbreviation “dpn”

P17 L12 “8K” the “8” is not needed here, I think

P22 L13 Use of postnatal days instead of the established abbreviation “dpn”

P24 L9 The abbreviation VL has already been introduced in the segmentation section. No need to define it again

P24 L9 For consistency: “2,629.33 mm³” could be used instead of “2629.33 mm³”

P24 L15f The bodyweights for the other marsupial neonates might be added to aid comparison

P24 L23f Introduction of VL, VA and SA is not necessary here, as they have been defined before

P25 L15 28 *dpn* for consistency

P25 L21 Use of postnatal days instead of the established abbreviation “dpn”

P26 L3 Missing space between “35” and “dpn”

Reviewer #2: # General remarks

I thank Kirsten Ferner for improving the manuscript and to reasonably implement the suggestions from both reviewers.

All main points raised by me have been answered, and the manuscript has been improved, inconsistencies have been fixed and additional information has been added.

I would be great if the few minor comments below are corrected in the final version of the manuscript.

Once these are implemented, I would recommend to publish the manuscript in PLOS ONE, and don't have to see the corrected version again.

Table 1: Animals are sometimes listed with a space between the day and 'dpn' and sometimes not. It should be homogenized to being shown *with* a space as it is throughout the manuscript.

Line breaks in the table header should be corrected, but this is probably done in production at PLOS ONE.

p. 8, l. 8: A space is missing between 2 and g.

p. 10, l. 5ff: "The specimens had to be fixed...". I would write that the specimenst "were" fixed in the container with cotton balls to avoid movement artefacts during the scan and completely remove the sharpness part of the sentence. The 'sharpness' of tomographic data is decreased with movement artefacts, but also other factors.

p. 10, l. 18ff: Several instances where a space between number and unit are missing (ms and kV).

p. 11, l. 13: "4dpn" is missing a space.

p. 11, l. 20: [....] carried out on 16-bit images [...] I would remove "(16000 gray scale values)" as 16 bit images can record up to 65536 gray values, not only 16000.

p. 13, l. 17: The mentioned "Fractionator method" could be explained with a citation.

p. 13, l. 25: "(Image J software; National Institutes of Health, USA)." should be cited according to https://imagej.net/contribute/citing and the version used (either Fiji, ImageJ. Also, the software is titled without space between Image and J (also correct in abstract)

p. 16, l. 21: "14dpn" is missing a space.

p. 26, l. 3: "35dpn" is missing a space.

p. 19, l. 1: "...in thickness (12 μm) In the..." is missing a full stop after (12 μm).

Fig. 1-10: Thanks for inlcuding labeled scale bars in all these figures, this greatly helps with readability.

The scalebar of Panel O of Fig. 8 could have a black background behind the text :)

Fig 11: The figure is greatly improved, but rather pixelated, even when downloading the original image from the EditorialManager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/download.aspx?id=34933182&guid=93cb2d79-4577-4e72-9019-cebf7dc85f22&scheme=1).

Its export quality should be increased for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: David Haberthür

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Feb 16;19(2):e0292482. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292482.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


10 Jan 2024

Comments to Reviewer 1:

I thank the referee for his thoroughly reading of the manuscript and the helpful comments. I tried to address all points raised and revised the paper accordingly.

Major issues:

P11 L20f I do not completely understand the segmentation process, as both manual tracing and a region grower tool with a gray scale tolerance are mentioned. I conclude from that, that you did not manually trace the outline of every air space in every 2D image of your stack, but instead traced something like e.g. the center line (please specify) of the airways and extended that marking by region growing to the airway walls. Please elaborate what exactly was manually marked.

The reviewer is right. I did not draw the lines of the outline of the air spaces manually. Instead, I used the region grower tool to trace the walls of airways and air spaces. Starting from the centerline of the trachea (starting gray value), the region grower tool was extended to the tracheal wall. From there the ROI was extended by scrolling through the image stack and applying region growing to the airway walls and subsequently to the terminal air space walls. I included this sentence in the paragraph on page 12 for clarification.

P13 L16f The choosing of a random starting point is omitted in the description, but should be mentioned as it is an elementary part of the uniform random sampling scheme employed here. It might be added to the discussion, that the fractionator principle is employed here in a modified form.

I followed the reviewer’s suggestion. And amended the text accordingly. A sentence addresses the issues raised: “This requirement is met by choosing a random starting point and employing uniform random sampling using the fractionator principal in a modified form.”

P11 L20f 16-bit images contain 2^16 = 65,536 gray scale values, not 16,000

I followed the suggestion of reviewer 2 and deleted the gray scale values.

P12 L23f Please add a source for the literature data you refer to here

I added five references.

P25 L1 2.122 cm² is not 26 times 0.028 cm². The factor should be around 76, or one of the surface size values is off.

I thank the reviewer for the comment. I corrected the factor.

Minor issues:

P6 L5f X-ray *micro* computed tomography

I replaced “X-ray” by “micro-computed” throughout the manuscript

P6 L21 The abbreviation µCT is introduced here a second time

I deleted this part.

Table 1 The SD for 13 dpc is missing the “±”

the “±” by 13 dpc has been added.

Table 1 SEM specimen data could be moved to its own table (and might be referenced in the text on P9 L1)

I followed the reviewer’s suggestion and moved the SEM data to an own table (table2).

Table 1 PTA = *phospho*tungstic acid

PTA has been spelled out.

P8 L14 “instillation” instead of “installation”?

The correction has been done.

P9 L25 The abbreviation PTA is introduced here a second time

“phosphor tungstic acid” has been deleted, it is only PTA now.

P10 L19 No need for the “|” here

the “|” has been deleted.

P10 L18-24 The sentence stretches over seven lines. It might be broken up for increased readability

I broke the long sentence into 3 sentences.

P10 L21-26 The format *number* *unit* is used here, while it is *number* *space* *unit* everywhere else

I have added the spaces between number and unit.

P11 L13 One time *number* *unit* is used and right afterwards *number* *space* *unit*

The space has been added.

P13 L1f The figure should be referenced here

I referenced the former figure 11 here following the reviewer’s suggestion. It changed the order of the figures which had to be changed in the manuscript. Figure 11 became Figure 3, and all subsequent figures shifted to a number higher.

P13 L10 A fragment of a deleted section is left over here

The fragment has been deleted.

P13 L13 Inconsistent writing of air space/airspace

“air space” has replaced “airspace”

P13 L23 “µct” is used instead of “µCT”

“µct” has been corrected to “µCT”

P14 L2 “airspace” is used instead of “air space”

“air space” has replaced “airspace”

P16 L16 The word “staget” might be a typo of “stage”

The typo has been corrected.

P16 L21 “14dpn” is used instead of “14 dpn”

The space by 14 dpn has been added.

P16 L22 “Fig 8K” is used instead of “Fig 8 K”

The space has been added in “8 K”

P16 L24 Use of postnatal days instead of the established abbreviation “dpn”

P17 L10 Use of postnatal days instead of the established abbreviation “dpn”

P22 L13 Use of postnatal days instead of the established abbreviation “dpn” P25 L21 Use of postnatal days instead of the established abbreviation “dpn”

I use “dpn” now for consistency

P17 L12 “8K” the “8” is not needed here, I think

The “8” has been deleted.

P24 L9 The abbreviation VL has already been introduced in the segmentation section. No need to define it again

Lung volume has been deleted, It’s just VL now.

P24 L9 For consistency: “2,629.33 mm³” could be used instead of “2629.33 mm³”

It has been done.

P24 L15f The bodyweights for the other marsupial neonates might be added to aid comparison

I have added body weights for the marsupial neonates.

P24 L23f Introduction of VL, VA and SA is not necessary here, as they have been defined before

(VA), (VL), (SA) has been deleted.

P25 L15 28 *dpn* for consistency

I added “dpn” for consistency.

P26 L3 Missing space between “35” and “dpn”

I added the space.

Comments to Reviewer 2:

I thank referee 2 for his in-depth review and the comments. I tried to address all points raised and revised the paper accordingly.

Table 1: Animals are sometimes listed with a space between the day and 'dpn' and sometimes not. It should be homogenized to being shown *with* a space as it is throughout the manuscript.

Line breaks in the table header should be corrected, but this is probably done in production at PLOS ONE.

The spaces have been inserted.

p. 8, l. 8: A space is missing between 2 and g.

The space has been inserted.

p. 10, l. 5ff: "The specimens had to be fixed...". I would write that the specimenst "were" fixed in the container with cotton balls to avoid movement artefacts during the scan and completely remove the sharpness part of the sentence. The 'sharpness' of tomographic data is decreased with movement artefacts, but also other factors.

I followed the reviewer’s suggestion.

p. 10, l. 18ff: Several instances where a space between number and unit are missing (ms and kV).

The spaces have been inserted.

p. 11, l. 13: "4dpn" is missing a space.

The space has been inserted.

p. 11, l. 20: [....] carried out on 16-bit images [...] I would remove "(16000 gray scale values)" as 16 bit images can record up to 65536 gray values, not only 16000.

I followed the reviewer’s suggestion and deleted the gray scale values.

p. 13, l. 17: The mentioned "Fractionator method" could be explained with a citation.

I inserted a citation for the Fractionator method.

p. 13, l. 25: "(Image J software; National Institutes of Health, USA)." should be cited according to https://imagej.net/contribute/citing and the version used (either Fiji, ImageJ. Also, the software is titled without space between Image and J (also correct in abstract)

I added a citation for the original imageJ version I used for my measurements. All following

references had to be switched to a higher number than.

p. 16, l. 21: "14dpn" is missing a space.

The space has been inserted.

p. 26, l. 3: "35dpn" is missing a space.

The space has been inserted.

p. 19, l. 1: "...in thickness (12 μm) In the..." is missing a full stop after (12 μm).

I inserted the full stop.

Fig. 1-10: Thanks for inlcuding labeled scale bars in all these figures; this greatly helps with readability.

The scalebar of Panel O of Fig. 8 could have a black background behind the text :)

I gave a black background behind the scale and text.

Fig 11: The figure is greatly improved, but rather pixelated, even when downloading the original image from the EditorialManager. Its export quality should be increased for publication.

I fully agree with the reviewer and have already prepared a figure with higher quality to include in the final submission.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Josué Sznitman

15 Jan 2024

Development of the terminal air spaces in the gray short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica) – 3D reconstruction by microcomputed tomography

PONE-D-23-30643R2

Dear Dr. Ferner,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Josué Sznitman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Josué Sznitman

8 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-30643R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ferner,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Josué Sznitman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data that support the findings of this study, original images of the figures and further images and videos of 3D reconstructions of the terminal air spaces are made publicly available with figshare (data: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24764187; original images: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24763497; 3D-images: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24771213 and 3D-videos: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24764397).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES