Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Jan 15;15(1):e0227814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227814

Pre-collecting lymphatic vessels form detours following obstruction of lymphatic flow and function as collecting lymphatic vessels

Kimi Asano 1,2,‡,#, Yukari Nakajima 3,‡,#, Kanae Mukai 3, Tamae Urai 4, Mayumi Okuwa 3, Junko Sugama 5, Chizuko Konya 6, Toshio Nakatani 3,*
Editor: Rudolf Kirchmair7
PMCID: PMC6961945  PMID: 31940420

Abstract

Background

Previously, we showed that lymphatic vessels (LVs) formed detours after lymphatic obstruction, contributing to preventing lymphedema. In this study, we developed detours using lymphatic ligation in mice and we identified the detours histologically.

Methods and results

Under anesthesia, both hindlimbs in mice were subcutaneously injected with Evans blue dye to detect LVs. We tied the right collecting LV on the abdomen that passes through the inguinal lymph node (LN) at two points. The right and left sides comprised the operation and sham operation sides, respectively. Lymphography was performed to investigate the lymph flow after lymphatic ligation until day 30, using a near-infrared fluorescence imaging system. Anti-podoplanin antibody and 5-ethynyl-2’-deoxyuridine (EdU) were used to detect LVs and lymphangiogenesis. Within 30 days, detours had developed in 62.5% of the mice. Detours observed between two ligation sites were enlarged and irregular in shape. Podoplanin+ LVs, which were located in the subcutaneous tissue of the upper panniculus carnosus muscle, connected to collecting LVs at the upper portion from the cranial ligation site and at the lower portion from the caudal ligation site. EdU+ cells were not observed in these detours. The sham operation side showed normal lymph flow and did not show enlarged pre-collecting LVs until day 30.

Conclusions

Detours after lymphatic ligation were formed not by lymphangiogenesis but through an enlargement of pre-collecting LVs that functioned as collecting LVs after lymphatic ligation. Further studies are required to explore the developmental mechanism of the lymphatic detour for treatment and effective care of lymphedema in humans.

Introduction

Insufficiency of the lymphatic transport system due to abnormal lymphatic vessel (LV) or damaged lymphatic system causes stagnation in protein transportation and interstitial fluid flow, resulting in lymphedema [1]. Breast cancer-related lymphedema has been reported as the most common form of lymphedema, globally [2]. As lymphedema develops, patient’s quality of life is reduced. Complications such as bacterial infection and skin pathologies can occur in patients with lymphedema, and they are required to undergo arduous self-care in daily life. Radical treatment, prevention options, and effective care strategies have not yet been established; therefore, exploring treatment options in clinical settings is an important goal.

Lymphoscintigraphy is the primary imaging modality used in determining the diagnosis of suspected extremity lymphedema in patients. Lymphoscintigraphy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and lymphangiography findings in patients with lymphedema show interruption of lymphatic flow, collateral lymph vessels, dermal back flow, delayed flow, delayed visualization or non-visualization of lymph nodes (LNs), dilated lymphatics, and no visualization of the lymphatic system [39]. When collateral LVs bridging the distal LV (over the area of lymphadenectomy) to the proximal LV or to the remaining LNs with LVs are observed in patients using lymphoscintigraphy (at the area of the lymphadenectomy), lymphedema is said to be mild or moderate [3, 5, 7, 1012]. Moreover, animal studies involving canines, rabbits, rats, and mice have previously reported that similar collateral LVs (also known as lymphatic detours) develop following LN dissection alone or in combination with LVs [1322]. Collateral LVs in rodents have been detected using indocyanine green (ICG) in 2 days [22], in 3 days [20], in 1 week [14, 15] and in 10 days [21] after lymphadenectomy. In our previous study, mice showed well-developed detours in the abdomen after lymphadenectomy of the inguinal LN [21]. We concluded that these detours prevent lymphedema in mice because these mice did not develop lymphedema. Therefore, it is important to elucidate the structure, development, and function of collateral LVs or lymphatic detours.

The lymphatic system in the skin consists of initial or capillary LVs in the dermis, connecting or pre-collecting LVs in subcutaneous tissues, and collecting LVs in the subcutaneous area of the epimysium. Moreover, deep collecting LVs run alongside deep blood vessels among the muscles. Lymph drainage occurs in this turn (capillary, pre-collecting, collecting, and deep collecting LVs). Therefore, if LVs or LNs are dissected, new LVs are formed by the sprouting of lymphatic endothelial cells from the end of the dissected LVs, i.e. lymphangiogenesis [23, 24] or lymphatic pathway changes, for instance, lymph backflow to the pre-collecting LV from the collecting LV, or the opening of a channel between collecting LVs, occur [25]. Moreover, capillary LVs have been reported to appear in granulation tissue via the sprouting of lymphatic endothelial cells on the remaining LVs approximately 7 days after the full-thickness skin wound was created [26]. Tammela et al. [27] showed that it took 2 months to regenerate the collecting LVs after applying vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-C to a mouse following the removal of the axillary LNs and all of the associated collecting LVs. This indicated that it took a longer time for the new collecting LVs to be formed compared to new capillary LVs. Thus, it is unclear whether the lymphatic detours are newly generated LVs, formed through lymphangiogenesis or through the changing lymphatic patterns between the remaining or the pre-existing LVs.

Therefore, in this study, we aimed to determine whether lymphatic detours appeared following lymphatic ligation only (where lymphatic detours ran in the skin), without the LNs, using ICG and by observing histological serial sections. We also determined whether the lymphatic detours were pre-existing LVs or newly generated LVs histologically by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. We consider that the knowledge gained concerning the collateral LVs in patients with lymphedema could help to reduce lymphedema formation and progression.

Materials and methods

All experimental protocols and animal care procedures were approved by the Committee on Animal Experimentation of Kanazawa University (AP-153596) and the experimental methods were performed in accordance with its guidelines.

Animals

In total, 51 BALB/cCrSlc male mice (Sankyo Lab Service Corporation, Inc., Toyama, Japan) were used. The mice were caged individually in an air-conditioned room at a temperature of 25.0 ± 2.0 °C, and the lights were kept on from 0815 h to 2015 h. Water and pelleted food were given freely. Fifteen mice underwent preliminary experiments while developing the protocols for this study to determine how to ligate the LVs using surgical sutures and to determine the appearance of the lymphatic detours. Based on these preliminary experiments, 8 mice were continuously observed for 30 days for the appearance of lymphatic detours, following lymphatic ligation, through ICG injecting on days 15, 21, 27, and 30. After this observation, all the eight mice were euthanized, and skin, including the lymphatic tissues, were histologically evaluated. Subsequently, 28 mice were used for histological evaluations on days 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, and 27. Each day, 4 mice were euthanized after having confirmed the appearance of lymphatic detours using injected ICG. These 28 mice were not continuously observed using ICG, since the main aim was to obtain histological specimens. Mice were used on days 10 and 15 prior to the appearance of lymphatic detours, and on days 18 and 24, to obtain detailed information from their histological specimens.

Surgical procedure for lymphatic ligation

In a previous study, we developed detours through lymphadenectomy [21]. However, the experimental method used in this study differed from that of our previous study in that we did not excise the inguinal LN but ligated the collecting LV at the abdomen. Therefore, the appearance pattern of detours using this surgical technique was unexpected; hence, we undertook to perform a preliminary experiment using 15 mice. In the preliminary experiment, we ligated the collecting LV that passes through the inguinal LN (see (a) in Fig 1E) at two points, namely, the cranial ligation site and the caudal ligation site. The caudal ligation site was located approximately 5 mm superior to the inguinal LN. There was a 5 mm distance between the two ligation sites. We found that, after the lymphatic ligation, most detours had appeared between the two collecting LVs in the abdomen (see (a) and (b) in Fig 1E) by day 30. Therefore, we adopted lymphatic ligation to observe the reconstruction of the lymphatic route in the present study.

Fig 1. Surgical procedure for lymphatic ligation and the sectioning area for histological observation.

Fig 1

(A) Evans blue dye was injected into the hindlimb (yellow circle). A 1 cm incision was made 5 mm from the dorsal site in relation to the collecting LVs passing through the inguinal lymph node (LN) on the abdomen at 5 mm from the inguinal LN; scale bar of 1 cm. (B) The incised skin was peeled from the epimysium and the collecting LV (stained in blue color) passing through the inguinal LN was exposed; scale bar of 2 mm. (C) It was carefully tied at 2 points with 6–0 nylon sutures under a stereoscopic microscope; scale bar of 2 mm. (D) Skin edges were sutured with 6–0 nylon sutures at 3 points; scale bar of 1 cm. (E) The area, including the incision site, in which the collecting LV (a) passed through the inguinal LN and ran into the axillary LN, and; the collecting LV (b) emerging from the lower abdomen, was harvested for histological observation (yellow square); scale bar of 1 cm. Open white arrowheads: incision sites; asterisk: inguinal LN.

The mice were anesthetized with 1.75% isoflurane inhalation (FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation, Ltd., Osaka, Japan). Twenty-five μl of 3% Evans blue dye (w/v) was subcutaneously injected into both hindlimbs to detect the LVs in the abdomen that pass through the inguinal LN. Thirty minutes after the dye injection, a 1 cm dorsal incision was made on the right side (the operation side) at a 5 mm distance from the LVs passing through the inguinal LN (Fig 1A). The skin was peeled from the epimysium of the latissimus dorsi and external oblique muscles to expose the collecting LVs in the subcutaneous tissue (Fig 1B), after which the stained collecting LVs on the right abdomen were carefully tied at 2 points 5 mm apart with a 6–0 nylon suture, under a stereoscopic microscope (Fig 1C). The blue color of the LVs disappeared after the ligation. This ligation was performed without injury to the blood vessels along with the collecting LVs. Skin moisture was maintained by applying saline (0.9%) during lymphatic ligation. Skin edges were sutured with 6–0 nylon sutures at 3 points (Fig 1C). A 1 cm dorsal incision and skin peeling from the epimysium were also performed on the left side (as the control) and the incision was sutured using 6–0 nylon sutures as part of the sham operation. This surgical procedure took approximately 20 minutes per mouse and was performed by a single operator (YN).

Observation of ICG lymphography

The observation protocol for lymphography has previously been described [20]. In the mice that were anesthetized using 1.75% isoflurane inhalation, we injected 2 μl ICG (2.5 mg/ml) into the hindlimb to investigate the lymph flow after lymphatic ligation. Surgical sites were then observed using an infrared camera system (PDE-neo, Hamamatsu Photonics, Shizuoka, Japan), and fluorescent images were obtained. Examinations of ICG lymphography were conducted on days 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, and 30 after lymphatic ligation.

Evaluation for lymphangiogenesis after lymphatic ligation

Lymphangiogenesis was evaluated using 5-ethynyl-2’-deoxyuridine (EdU), which is an alkyne-conjugated nucleoside analog of thymidine. EdU is used as an alternative to radioactive thymidine or bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU). In contrast to a BrdU-based unscheduled DNA synthesis assay, EdU can be directly conjugated to fluorescent azide, and the assay requires neither DNA denaturation nor antibodies [28]. After anesthesia using 1.75% isoflurane inhalation, mice were intraperitoneally injected with 100 μg of EdU twice, that is, 24 h prior to tissue sampling and 3 h prior to tissue sampling. Additionally, the small intestine was harvested to determine whether EdU had been incorporated into the nucleus.

Tissue processing

After a 25 μl injection of 3% Evans blue dye (w/v) in both hindlimbs, the mice were intraperitoneally euthanized using a large dose of sodium pentobarbital (0.5 mg/g weight) on days 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, and 30 after lymphatic ligation. The operative field, or the sham operative field, and the surrounding intact skin including two collecting LVs in the abdomen, were harvested (Fig 1E), stapled onto transparent plastic sheets to prevent excessive contraction of the specimens, and fixed with a zinc fixative solution (BD Pharmingen, CA) overnight. Using tweezers, a spacer was placed between the specimens and the sheets to allow the fixative solution to flow. Specimens were incubated overnight successively in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) with 10% sucrose, in PBS with 20% sucrose, and in PBS with 30% sucrose prior to being embedded in OCT compound (Sakura® Finetek, Tokyo, Japan) with distilled water and Tween 20. Frozen tissue was stored at −80 °C until further use. Serial sections, 7 μm thick on day 30, were mounted for the detection of detours. Specimens on days 10 to 27 were sectioned at 6 points every 1 mm. Twenty serial sections at each point were subjected to hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) or immunostaining.

Immunohistochemical staining

Anti-Podplanin antibody was used for detecting LVs because podoplanin is expressed in the capillary as well as in the pre-collecting, and collecting LVs [29, 30]. Specimens for IHC staining of LVs were washed with PBS comprising 0.03% Tween-20 (PBST), incubated with protein blocking solution (X0909; Dako, CA), endogenous avidin/biotin blocking kit (ab64212; Abcam, Cambridge, UK), and 0.03% hydrogen peroxide in methanol. The Syrian Hamster anti-podoplanin/gp36 antibody (ab11936: Abcam, Cambridge, UK) was used at a dilution of 1:600. Subsequently, the specimens were incubated with secondary antibodies linked with biotin (ab7145: Abcam, Cambridge, UK) followed by streptavidin linked with HRP (ab7403: Abcam, Cambridge, UK). The EdU staining for evaluation of lymphangiogenesis was performed using Click-iT EdU Colorimetric IHC Detection Kit (C10644: Invitrogen, OR). Negative control sections were obtained through omitting each primary antibody.

Results

ICG lymphography

The injected ICG in the hindlimb drained in a distal to proximal direction. Lymphatic routes after ligation were divided into either detours, original routes, or no detected routes (Fig 2). On day 30, 5 of 8 mice showed detours, 3 of 8 mice showed original routes, and no mice showed no detected routes (Table 1). The number of mice with no detected routes gradually decreased until day 30. In contrast, the number of mice with detours or original routes gradually increased until day 30. During the observation period, the sham operation side showed normal lymph flow passing through the inguinal LN and flowing into the axillary LN (Fig 2A). The detours that appeared on days 15, 21, and 27 remained until day 30. Original routes appeared on days 15, 21, and 27 remained until day 30. The LVs with no detected routes had changed to detours or original routes by days 21, 27, and 30 (Table 1). Well-developed detours occurred in the lower portion from the caudal ligation site of the collecting LV passing through the inguinal LN and connected to the upper portion from the cranial ligation site of the collecting LV passing through the inguinal LN (Fig 2B). Original routes were also detected in healthy mice after injection of dye into the hindlimb. However, the lymphatic routes between the lower portion from the caudal ligation site and the upper portion from the cranial ligation site seemed to be distorted, as indicated by the white arrowheads in Fig 2C. In mice with no detected routes, the inguinal LN was not shown after an ICG injection into the hindlimb (Fig 2D), whereas mice with detours or original routes showed the inguinal LN. The three route patterns found during continuous observation of the 8 mice using ICG were observed in the 28 mice for the histological experiment (Table 2). Although there were no detours on days 10 and 12, where there was one original route observed in one mouse and no detected routes in 3 mice, the detours appeared from day 15 after the ligation of LVs. No mice developed edema in the abdominal or hindlimb areas during this experiment.

Fig 2. Representative images of lymphography after lymphatic ligation.

Fig 2

(A) Lymph flow obtained on the sham operation side on day 30. (B) Some detours were detected in the abdomen on day 30. These detours originated from the lower portion from the caudal ligation site (closed white arrowhead) of the collecting LV (a) and passed through the inguinal LN and connected to the upper portion from the cranial ligation (closed white arrowhead) site to collecting LV (a) passing through the inguinal LN. (C) An original route was detected after lymphatic ligation on day 30. (D) No lymph flow was detected on the operation side on day 18. a: the collecting LV that passed through the iliac LN and flowed into the axillary LN; scale bar of 1 cm; asterisk: inguinal LN; closed white arrowheads: ligation sites.

Table 1. Number of lymphatic flows in each route pattern after lymphatic ligation until day 30.

No. of detours No. of original routes No. with no detected route
Day 15 2 (25.0) 1 (12.5) 5 (62.5)
Day 21 4 (50.0) 2 (25.0) 2 (25.0)
Day 27 5 (62.5) 2 (25.0) 1 (12.5)
Day 30 5 (62.5) 3 (37.5) 0 (0.0)

Percentages (%), n = 8 on each day.

Table 2. Number of lymphatic flow in each route pattern after lymphatic ligation on each observational day.

No. of detours No. of original routes No. of no detected routes
Day 10 0 (0.0) 1 (25.0) 3 (75.0)
Day 12 0 (0.0) 1 (25.0) 3 (75.0)
Day 15 2 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (50.0)
Day 18 1 (25.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (75.0)
Day 21 1 (25.0) 2 (50.0) 1 (25.0)
Day 24 2 (50.0) 1 (25.0) 1 (25.0)
Day 27 1 (25.0) 2 (50.0) 1 (25.0)

Percentages (%), n = 4 on each day.

Microscopic examination

Until day 12, there were no enlarged LVs in the upper subcutaneous tissue and no connection with the collecting LVs between the two ligation sites; however, a few Podoplanin+ pre-collecting LVs were observed in the upper subcutaneous tissue in the operation side. Serial detour sections were obtained from the specimens on day 30. Enlarged and irregularly shaped detours between the lower portion from the caudal ligation site and the upper portion from the cranial ligation site comprised Podoplanin+ LVs, which were located in subcutaneous upper panniculus carnosus muscle tissue (Fig 3Fi–3Fiv)), and these detours had valves (Fig 3Fiii). The wall of the detours was thin compared with the collecting LV (Fig 3Fx). In the upper portion from the cranial ligation site (upper white arrowhead in Fig 3A), these detours had penetrated the panniculus carnosus muscle and had extended into subcutaneous lower panniculus carnosus muscle tissue and then connected with the collecting LVs that passed through the inguinal LN and ran to the axillary LN (see (a) in Fig 3B and 3Fv–3Fx). Similarly, in the lower portion from the caudal ligation site (lower white arrowhead in Fig 4A), these detours also penetrated the panniculus carnosus muscle and connected with the collecting LVs that passed through the inguinal LN in the subcutaneous tissue under the panniculus carnosus muscle (Fig 4Ei–4Eiii). These detours showed EdU- lymphatic endothelial cells from days 10 to 30 (Fig 3J–3M), and some EdU+ cells were observed in the epidermis, hair follicles, dermis, and subcutaneous tissues (Fig 3N). Therefore, these detours were developed not through lymphangiogenesis but through an enlargement of the existing pre-collecting LVs. The sham operation showed no enlarged LVs in the upper subcutaneous tissue and no connection was detected with the collecting LVs under the panniculus carnosus muscle. However, although some Podoplanin+ cells were observed in the upper subcutaneous tissue in the sham operation side, vascular structures formed by these cells, which were pre-collecting LVs, had very narrow lumen (Fig 4F and 4G).

Fig 3. Representative histological images of detours at the proximal surgical site.

Fig 3

(A) Lymphography of the operation side on day 30. The red line is the starting point for the serial section. The yellow line is the end point for the serial section. The white arrow shows the direction of sectioning; scale bar of 1 cm. (B), (G) Hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining. (C to F), (H), (I) Immunostaining with the anti-Podoplanin antibody. (B) The section at the red line in Fig 3A; scale bar of 1 mm. (C) A high magnification image in the black box in Fig 3B; scale bar of 50 μm. (D) A high magnification image in the blue box in Fig 3B. A transverse section of the 6–0 nylon suture (Sut) was observed; scale bar of 100 μm. (E) A high magnification image in the orange box in Fig 3D. A small lymphatic canal was observed and smooth muscle forming the wall of the ColL appeared to be thicker; scale bar of 50 μm. (Fi to Fx) A serial section of detours in the green box in Fig 3B. It is easy to identify the pre-collecting LV (PcL), stained in brown showing Podoplanin in the lymphatic endothelial cells, that gradually run from above the panniculus carnosus muscle (P) through the muscle to the ColL under the muscle. Many lymphocytes were present in the LVs (round cells stained with purple). Valves can be observed in the PcL (see arrows in Fig Fiii); scale bar of F(i), 20 μm; scale bar of Fii–Fx, 100 μm; scale bar of Fvii–Fix, scale bar of 200 μm. (G) The section at the yellow line in Fig 3A; scale bar of 1 mm. (H) A high magnification image in the black box in Fig 3G. There was a group of arteries (A), veins (V), and ColL (b) which were adjacent to the LV (a) in (A) shown using ICG; scale bar of 100 μm. (I) A high magnification image in the blue box in Fig 3G. Only ColL was observed near the collateral artery (A) and vein (V); scale bar of 200 μm. (J to N). Immunostaining to detect EdU. (J) A PcL with no EdU stain seen on day 15; scale bar of 40 μm. (K and L) PcLs with valves (arrows) with no EdU stain seen on day 30; scale bar of 40 μm. (M) A PcL with no EdU stain seen on day 30; scale bar of 40 μm. (N) Detection of EdU+ cells; epidermal cells; hair follicular cells, and; fibroblasts, stained brown in the epidermis and dermis; scale bar of 50 μm. a: LVs passed through the iliac LN and ran into the axillary LN; A: artery; arrows: valve of LV; asterisk: inguinal lymph node (LN); b: LVs that started at the lower abdomen and ran into the axillary LN; closed white arrowheads: ligation sites; ColL: collecting LV; D: dermis; E: epidermis; N: nerve; P: panniculus carnosus muscle; PcL: pre-collecting LV; Sub: subcutaneous tissue; Sut: suture; V: vein.

Fig 4. Representative histological images of detours at the distal surgical site and the sham operation side.

Fig 4

(A) Lymphography of the operation side on day 30. The red line is the starting point for the serial section. The yellow line is the end point for the serial section. The white arrow shows the direction of sectioning; scale bar of 1 cm. (B to E) HE staining in the operation side. (B) The section at the red line in Fig 4A; scale bar of 200 μm. (C) A high magnification image in the blue box in Fig 4B. Collecting LV (ColL) was not observed and a large pre-collecting LV (PcL) including lymphocytes in the upper area from the muscle (P) was observed; scale bar of 200 μm. (D) A high magnification image in the black box in Fig 4B; scale bar of 100 μm. (Ei to–Eiii) A serial section of detours at the blue box in Fig 4B. The PcL gradually approaches the ColL and fuses with the ColL (a) (Eiii) in the lower area from the muscle (P); scale bar of 100 μm. (F–G) Immunostaining with anti-Podoplanin antibody in the sham operation side. A stained thin linear structure was observed in the subcutaneous tissue beneath the dermis (the orange box); scale bar of F, 200 μm; scale bar of G, 40 μm. (G) A high magnification image in the orange box in Fig 4F. The linear structure is a pre-collecting LV with no distinguishable lumen; therefore, it is difficult to find the PcL in normal skin stained with HE. (H) Immunostaining with anti-Podoplanin antibody in the operation side; scale bar of 100 μm. Numerous dilated capillary LVs are seen stained in brown. (I) Immunostaining with anti-Podoplanin antibody in the sham operation side. A few capillary LVs stained brown in the dermis had thinner canals compared with the capillary LVs in H; scale bar of 100 μm. a: the collecting LV that passed through the iliac LN and ran into the axillary LN; A: artery; b: the collecting LV that started at the lower abdomen and ran into the axillary LN; asterisk: inguinal lymph node (LN); Cap: capillary LVs; closed white arrowheads: ligation sites; ColL: collecting LV; D: dermis; E: epidermis; P: panniculus carnosus muscle; PcL: pre-collecting LV; Sub: subcutaneous tissue; Sut: suture; V: vein.

The collecting LVs in the lower portion from the cranial ligation site had narrow lumen (Fig 3D and 3E) and the collecting LVs at the caudal ligation site were not detected (Fig 4). These became enlarged in the upper portion from the cranial ligation site (Fig 3Fvi–3Fx) and in the lower portion from the caudal ligation site (Fig 4Eiii).

Capillary LVs were also detected as Podoplanin+ cells in the dermis. They appeared to be enlarged between the two ligation sites (Fig 4H). No connection between the capillary LVs and the pre-collecting LVs was observed in any of the specimens.

In mice with lymphatic detour development, the collecting LV between the two ligations showed considerable obstruction (Fig 3E). In mice with the original route or no detected route, the collecting LV appeared almost normal and unobstructed.

Discussion

Our study findings showed that, after ligation of a collecting LV, a bridge-like lymphatic detour or a collateral LV formed. The detour comprised the dilatation of an existing pre-collecting LV. The detour was located in the upper subcutaneous tissue and was connected to the upper portion from the cranial ligation and to the lower portion from the caudal ligation. The detour appeared at least 15 days after LV ligation.

In this study, one lymphatic detour was formed after ligations of the collecting LV at two points. However, Nakajima et al. [21], Takeno and Fujimoto [15], Yamaji et al. [22], Kwon and Proce [19], and Ikomi et al. [13] showed that a network-like pattern of LVs and a few collateral LVs appeared after the LN dissection at least by week 1. Blume et al. [14] reported that a collateral LV was sometimes observed after excision of only the popliteal LN; however, many collateral LVs appeared 1 week after the excision of popliteal LNs within the popliteal fat pad. Moreover, Ikomi et al. [13] showed that afferent lymphatic recanalization or regeneration was observed after a 1 mm dissection of the popliteal afferent LVs, but recanalization was not observed after 3 or 10 mm dissections of the popliteal afferent LVs. Using near-infrared images and X-ray lymphograms in these reports, there appeared to be no occurrence of pre-collecting LVs between one end and the other end of the lymphatic dissection, and it was unclear where the origin and the end of collateral LVs communicated with the remaining LVs. In the present study, the origin and the end of the lymphatic detours were clear. The lymphatic detour began from the lower portion from the caudal ligation of the collecting LV and ended at the upper portion from the cranial ligation of the collecting LV. Therefore, the lymphatic pattern changed after the ligation of the collecting LVs in this study. The reason for the different findings in previous studies in relation to this study is unclear but may be due to differences in LN dissection that included part of the LVs and blood vessels, and ligation of the LV. More studies are needed to further investigate these different findings.

On days 10 and 12, after the cranial and caudal ligation of the collecting LVs, the original route was observed in one mouse. This may have been due to the loosening of the 6–0 nylon sutures used for the ligation, due to lymph pressure. Bouta et al. [31] reported that lymphatic pumping pressure increased from 11.04 cmH2O under normal conditions to 18.76 cmH2O under expanding LNs, which is similar to what occurs during obstruction of an afferent LV. The re-appearance of the original route took 30 days after ligation, and obstruction of the original route did not reoccur. The lymphatic detours we observed remained throughout the course of the study period. However, it was earlier than 15 days and later than 30 days before the lymphatic detours appeared after the ligation, while collateral LVs appeared from 1 to 4 weeks after LN dissection [13, 15, 19, 21, 22], indicating that our findings were consistent with those of previous studies.

Pre-collecting LVs (pre-collectors) have valves and are located between capillary LVs and collecting LVs. They collect lymph from the capillary network and direct it into the collecting LVs (collectors) [32]. Pre-collecting LVs are characterized with alternating sections of absorbing structures and sections with a developed muscular layer. This suggests that they contribute to fluid absorption, capillary lymphatics, and to lymph propulsion, in a manner similar to collecting LVs [33]. In our study, detours were observed in the upper subcutaneous tissue after lymphatic ligation, and most detours appeared between two collecting LVs in the abdomen. These findings were consistent with those in our previous study [22]. Detours detected in the present study had Podoplanin+ cells and valves, which were observed between capillary LVs in the dermis and collecting LVs in the lower subcutaneous tissue, and were connected to the collecting LVs. They had expanded lumen and they drained lymph at the operative field, since the collecting LVs at the two ligation sites either had narrow lumen or the lumen were not detected; therefore, their ability to transport lymph may have been reduced due to lymphatic ligation. These findings support those of a previous study that examined the function of pre-collecting LVs [33]. Consequently, we found that these detours were pre-collecting LVs that functioned as collecting LVs after lymphatic obstruction. It is difficult to detect pre-collecting LVs in the upper subcutaneous tissue in skin with normal lymphatic transport because pre-collecting LVs normally exhibit no enlargement of the lumen. Lymphatic ligation facilitates detection of pre-collecting LVs.

Lymphangiogenesis was evaluated through the expression of EdU. An EdU injection was performed twice, over two days, because the doubling time of human lymphatic endothelial cells is between 15 and 48 h (no data is available concerning the doubling time of lymphatic endothelial cells in mice) [34]. Some cells, such as the keratinocytes and hair follicles, incorporated EdU; however, EdU+ cells were not observed in the detours. Moreover, Tammela et al. [27] reported that, after the application of VEGF-C to the surgical lymph node excision site and removal of associated collecting LVs, mature collecting LVs appeared within 2 months. These observations suggest that detours after lymphatic ligation were not formed through lymphangiogenesis. A possible formation process concerning lymphatic detours could occur as follows:

  1. Lymph drained from the hindlimb reaches the caudal ligation site or the obstruction site of the collecting LV.

  2. Lymph flows back to the pre-collecting LV near the lower site from the caudal ligation.

  3. Lymph back flow compresses the valve in the pre-collecting LV after lymphatic ligation, suddenly impairing the valve, and the lymph is drained into the pre-collecting LV, which is finally drained into the pre-collecting LV communicating to the upper site from the cranial ligation of the colleting LV.

  4. Bridge-like lymphatic detours are then formed. Additionally, the dilated capillary LVs appearing in the dermis and covering the cranial and caudal ligation of the collecting LVs seem to be partly emerge due to lymph back flow from the pre-collecting LVs.

Abe [10] observed that, in patients with mild or no lymphedema after LN resection, lymph flowed from the original route to the supraclavicular LNs, or from a collateral LV to the shoulder or lateral chest wall. Maegawa et al. [11] identified a link between obvious inguinal LNs and lymphatics. Mikami et al. [5] reported the appearance of LNs around the clavicle and collateral LVs. Szuba et al. [7] showed that LNs were present in differing locations. These studies did not describe how new LV appeared across the area of LN dissections; therefore, this may imply that the regeneration of collecting LVs did not occur or that this was difficult to determine in the LN dissection area, but that formation of collateral LVs, as in the lymphatic detours observed in this study around the area of lymphadenectomy, are possible through changing the LV pathways. Suami et al. [25] showed that lymphatic pathway changes could occur, that is, lymph pathways had connected the superficial and deep lymphatic systems in a human cadaver after blockage of the collecting LVs, and this connection had not previously been observed in a healthy arm. Moreover, Suami et al. [25] proposed different types of lymphatic pathway changes following blockage in lymph collecting vessels, which could be very useful for forming collateral LVs or lymphatic detours. As lymphatic pathway changes were also observed in our study using mice, our model might be useful to clarify the mechanism of reconstruction of the lymphatic route and to study the prevention and treatment of lymphedema. Further studies are warranted to explore reconstruction mechanisms concerning lymphatic routes and to determine how lymphedema develops or does not develop in humans.

This study had some limitations. We did not evaluate the valve function of the pre-collecting LVs. Lymph flow in mice that displayed the original route was not assessed and it was not clear how the lymph was drained via this route. Furthermore, we did not perform clinical correlation or functioning tests concerning the lymphatic detour.

Conclusion

Our study findings showed that, after cranial and caudal ligations of a collecting LV, the bridge-like lymphatic detour connecting the lower portion from the caudal ligation and the upper portion from the cranial ligation was the dilated pre-collecting LV. As this detour usefully functioned to drain lymph after LV obstruction, this finding suggests that, should a bridge-like detour develop in a patient with lymphedema, it may be possible to cure lymphedema. Therefore, future studies investigating the developmental mechanisms of lymphatic detour for treatment and for effective care in relation to lymphedema in humans are needed.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 18H03072 to T N and 16K11931 to KA, https://www.jsps.go.jp/; and The Yasuda Medical Foundation to YN, http://www.yasuda-mf.or.jp/. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Executive Committee. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2016 consensus document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology. 2016;49: 170–184. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Taghian NR, Miller CL, Jammallo LS, O’Toole J, Skolny MN. Lymphedema following breast cancer treatment and impact on quality of life: a review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2014;92: 227–234. 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.06.004 Epub 2014 Jul 2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Moshiri M, Katz DS, Boris M, Yung E. Using lymphoscintigraphy to evaluate suspected lymphedema of the extremities. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178: 405–412. 10.2214/ajr.178.2.1780405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lohrmann C, Foeldi E, Speck O, Langer M. High-resolution MR lymphangiography in patients with primary and secondary lymphedema. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187: 556–561. 10.2214/AJR.05.1750 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mikami T, Hosono M, Yabuki Y, Yamamoto Y, Yasumura K, Sawada H, et al. Classification of lymphoscintigraphy and relevance to surgical indication for lymphaticovenous anastomosis in upper limb lymphedema. Lymphology. 2011;44: 155–167. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lu Q, Delproposto Z, Hu A, Tran C, Liu N, Li Y, et al. MR lymphography of lymphatic vessels in lower extremity with gynecologic oncology-related lymphedema. PLoS One. 2012;7: e50319 10.1371/journal.pone.0050319 Epub 2012 Nov 28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Szuba A, Chacaj A, Koba-Wszedybyl M, Hawro R, Jasinski R, Tarkowski R, et al. Upper extremity lymphedema after axillary lymph node dissection: prospective lymphoscintigraphic evaluation. Lymphology. 2016;49: 44–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Neligan PC, Kung TA, Maki JH. MR lymphangiography in the treatment of lymphedema. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115: 18–22. 10.1002/jso.24337 Epub 2016 Jul 4. Review. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sarri AJ, Tinois da Silva E, Vieira RADC, Koga KH, Cação PHM, Sarri VC, et al. Lymphoscintigraphy detecting alterations of upper limb lymphatic flow following early sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2017;9: 279–285. 10.2147/BCTT.S131407 eCollection 2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Abe R. A study on the pathogenesis of postmastectomy lymphedema. Tohoku J Exp Med. 1976;118: 163–171. 10.1620/tjem.118.163 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Maegawa J, Mikami T, Yamamoto Y, Satake T, Kobayashi S. Types of lymphoscintigraphy and indications for lymphaticovenous anastomosis. Microsurgery. 2010;30: 437–442. 10.1002/micr.20772 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pecking AP, Albérini JL, Wartski M, Edeline V, Cluzan RV. Relationship between lymphoscintigraphy and clinical findings in lower limb lymphedema (LO): toward a comprehensive staging. Lymphology. 2008;41: 1–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ikomi F, Yokoyama Y, Ogiwara N, Sasaki K, Mizuno R, Ohhashi T. Recanalization of the collecting lymphatics in rabbit hind leg. Microcirculation. 2006;13: 365–376. 10.1080/10739680600745810 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Blum KS, Proulx ST, Luciani P, Leroux JC, Detmar M. Dynamics of lymphatic regeneration and flow patterns after lymph node dissection. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139: 81–86. 10.1007/s10549-013-2537-7 Epub 2013Apr 24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Takeno Y, Fujimoto E. Alterations of lymph flow after lymphadenectomy in rats revealed by real time fluorescence imaging system. Lymphology. 2013;46: 12–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Takeno Y, Arita H, Oshima C, Mawaki A, Nakanishi K, Kurono F, et al. Long-term follow-up of collateral pathways established after lymphadenectomy in rats. Lymphology. 2017;50: 131–135. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Suami H, Yamashita S, Soto-Miranda MA, Chang DW. Lymphatic territories (lymphosomes) in a canine: an animal model for investigation of postoperative lymphatic alterations. PLoS One. 2013;8: e69222 10.1371/journal.pone.0069222 Print 2013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Suami H, Schaverien MV. Swine hind limb model for supermicrosurgical lymphaticovenular anastomosis training. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69: 723–725. 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.01.002 Epub 2016 Jan 18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kwon S, Price RE. Characterization of internodal collecting lymphatic vessel function after surgical removal of an axillary lymph node in mice. Biomed Opt Express. 2016;7: 1100–1115. 10.1364/BOE.7.001100 eCollection 2016 Apr 1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Komatsu E, Nakajima Y, Mukai K, Urai T, Asano K, Okuwa M, et al. Lymph drainage during wound healing in a hindlimb lymphedema mouse model. Lymphat Res Biol. 2017;15: 32–38. 10.1089/lrb.2016.0026 Epub 2017 Feb 2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nakajima Y, Asano K, Mukai K, Urai T, Okuwa M, Sugama J, et al. Near-infrared fluorescence imaging directly visualizes lymphatic drainage pathways and connections between superficial and deep lymphatic systems in the mouse hindlimb. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 7078 10.1038/s41598-018-25383-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yamaji Y, Akita S, Akita H, Miura N, Gomi M, Manabe I, et al. Development of a mouse model for the visual and quantitative assessment of lymphatic trafficking and function by in vivo imaging. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 5921 10.1038/s41598-018-23693-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Alitalo K, Tammela T, Petrova TV. Lymphangiogenesis in development and human disease. Nature. 2005;438: 946–953. 10.1038/nature04480 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Norrmén C, Tammela T, Petrova TV, Alitalo K. Biological basis of therapeutic lymphangiogenesis. Circulation. 2011;123: 1335–1351. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.704098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Suami H, Pan WR, Taylor GI. Changes in the lymph structure of the upper limb after axillary dissection: radiographic and anatomical study in a human cadaver. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120: 982–991. 10.1097/01.prs.0000277995.25009.3e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Shimamura K, Nakatani T, Ueda A, Sugama J, Okuwa M. Relationship between lymphangiogenesis and exudates during the wound-healing process of mouse skin full-thickness wound. Wound Repair Regen. 2009;17: 598–605. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2009.00512.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tammela T, Saaristo A, Holopainen T, Lyytikkä J, Kotronen A, Pitkonen M, et al. Therapeutic differentiation and maturation of lymphatic vessels after lymph node dissection and transplantation. Nat Med. 2007;13: 1458–1466. Epub 2007 Dec 2. 10.1038/nm1689 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Limsirichaikul S, Niimi A, Fawcett H, Lehmann A, Yamashita S, Ogi T. A rapid non-radioactive technique for measurement of repair synthesis in primary human fibroblasts by incorporation of ethynyl deoxyuridine (EdU). Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37: e31 10.1093/nar/gkp023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Breiteneder-Geleff S, Soleiman A, Kowalski H, Horvat R, Amann G, Kriehuber E, et al. Angiosarcomas express mixed endothelial phenotypes of blood and lymphatic capillaries: podoplanin as a specific marker for lymphatic endothelium. Am J Pathol. 1999;154: 385–394. 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)65285-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Norrmén C, Ivanov K, Cheng J, Zangger N, Delorenzi M, Jaquet M, et al. FOXC2 controls formation and maturation of lymphatic collecting vessels through cooperation with NFATc1. J Cell Biol. 2009;185: 439–457. 10.1083/jcb.200901104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bouta EM, Wood RW, Brown EB, Rahimi H, Ritchlin CT, Schwarz EM. In vivo quantification of lymph viscosity and pressure in lymphatic vessels and draining lymph nodes of arthritic joints in mice. J Physiol. 2014;592: 1213–1223. 10.1113/jphysiol.2013.266700 Epub 2014 Jan 13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kretz O, Kubik S. Anatomy of the lymphatics system and the terminal vascular bed In: Földi M, Földi M, editors. Földi’s textbook of lymphology for physicians and lymphedema therapists. New York: Urban & Fischer; 2012. pp. 120–121. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sacchi G, Weber E, Aglianò M, Raffaelli N, Comparini L. The structure of superficial lymphatics in the human thigh: precollectors. Anat Rec. 1997;247: 53–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lonza Walkersville Inc. Certificate of analysis. Walkersville: Lonza Walkersville Inc; 2018:1 https://www.lonza.com/layouts/CertificatesOfAnalysisDownload.aspx?catnum=cc-2505&lotnum=0000685446. Accessed September 5, 2018. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rudolf Kirchmair

16 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-17179

Connecting lymphatic vessels form detours upon obstruction of lymphatic flow and function as collecting lymphatic vessels

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nakatani,

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.

As you will recognize from the comments of the reviewers they raised points of critique, especially regarding design of the study and statistical issues as well as rational of the study.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by within 2 months. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rudolf Kirchmair

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 http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please describe any postoperative care or analgesia provided to the animals used in your study.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: This is a very interesting manuscript about the formation of detours by connective lymphatic vessels after obstruction of lymphatic flow in mice. In addition, it is a current and important problem for patients suffering from lymphedema. The Abstract and Introduction are in line with the work presented and are clearly organized. However, the authors should clarify in the Material and Methods section if the statistical analyzes were performed and how they were made. In addition, the authors do not mention these analyzes in the Results section. Therefore, the statistical analyzes details should be clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied. Also, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods. In addition, the authors need to be bolder and more analytical in the Discussão section, using more area references to expand the discussion and make it even more interesting. Regarding the Conclusions section, conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented, not just a repetition of the data found.

Minor points:

1. Line 93, page 6. It is written "the cranial ligation site and the caudal ligation site." Were these points chosen in a specific or random way? It is not clear.

2. Line 127, page 8. "... with 1.75% isoflurane..." is written in different letters from the rest of the text. Please, check the text formatting.

3. Line 148, page 9. It is written that "... stapled onto transparent plastic sheets...". Did the plastic allow the correct fixation of the collected material?

4. Line 287, page 17. Reference 15 is not enclosed in square brackets as the rest of the references.

5. Figure legends need to be better organized. For example, after (A) do not use the end point [(A) Evans blue dye ...]. Another example, do not use a semicolon (;) to separate the scale bar from its size [you can use Scale bar of 1 cm]. To indicate objects in the figure, do not separate their name from their function using a semicolon (;), you can use a colon (:) and to separate the different objects in the figure you use semicolons (;) [example: Open white arrowheads: incision site; asterisk: inguinal LN]. Please you should make these changes in all captions of the figures.

Reviewer #2: The authors observed detour of lymphatics (collateral formation?) in mice after lymphadenectomy in their previous study (ref 8). They aimed to investigate this detour phenomena in this current study by ligation of the lymphatic vessel in distal and proximal portions in 51 mice. The authors used ICG lymphography to image the detour formation and performed histological analysis of the detoured vessel. 5-ethynyl-2’-deoxyuridine (EdU) was used to evaluate any evidence of lymphangiogenesis. The authors found that detour was formed by 30 days after ligation and the detoured vessels were not formed by lymphangiogenesis. They concluded that the detour of lymphatic vessels might be useful for effective care of lymphedema.

Although investigation of structural changes of the lymphatic vessel after segmented obstruction with ligation in mice may be unique, there are several fundamental questions about this study.

In line 91, the authors described that they developed detours by excision of the inguinal lymph node but the pattern of detours by this surgery was unexpected in their previous study. However, they did not explain what was unexpected. This finding was the reason for current study design and therefore it requires further explanation.

There are other concerns required further explanation.

From line 66 to 72, patients with lymphedema demonstrated collateral formation and structural changes but the authors said detours of the lymphatics after the lymphadenectomy in mice suggested that these detours prevented lymphedema. There was contradiction between stories in patients and mice.

From line 82 to 87, 8 mice were used for lymphography and histological evaluation on day 30. 28 mice were divided into 7 groups (n-4 each) and used by the same evaluation at different time points (Day 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, and 27). However, Results in Table 1 showed 8 mice studied at different time points (Day 15, 12, 27 and 30). Procedures in 8 mice were missing in the Materials and Methods section.

In line 10, lymphatic routes after the ligation were divided into three patterns; detours, original route and no detection. The detours were discussed in the Discussion but the other two patterns were not discussed. As for technical aspect, I think 6-0 nylon was too thick to ligate the lymphatic vessels in mice. I recommend using 9-0 or 10-0 for this purpose.

In line 232, the authors concluded that these detours were not developed by lymphangiogenesis. This might be true for this study, however I don’t think EdU is adequate enough to appreciate lymphangiogenesis at this stage. There is a substantial body of research that highlights lymphangiogenesis after surgical procedures in different animals including mice, rats, rabbits, digs, pigs and sheep. It is insufficient to conclude the absence of lymphangiogenesis on the basis of negative EdU cells alone.

In line 313, the authors described no obvious evidence of lymphatic reconstruction of the lymphatic route in humans. This statement is inaccurate. Alterations of the lymphatic pathways in patients with lymphedema have been examined with lymphangiography, lymphoscintigraphy, ICG lymphography, MR lymphography, and SPECT/CT. Each clinical imaging has specific criteria to diagnose lymphedema.

Overall, the manuscript requires further explanation about background of the study design in Introduction and detailed procedures in Materials and Methods. A strong point of this study was combination of ICG lymphography and immune-histochemical analysis and weak points were clinical correlations and lack of functional testing.

**********

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: No

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 15;15(1):e0227814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227814.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Nov 2019

Dear Editor:

Thank you and the reviewers for these important comments and advice concerning this manuscript. We have revised our paper according to the reviewers’ comments.

We have revised the following sections:

Discussion: We have described the formation and characteristics of the lymphatic detour from the present results, we have added references, and we discuss our findings that show the detour is useful to decrease lymphedema.

Introduction: As the discussion has been revised, we have also revised the Introduction section accordingly and have add animal and human references.

We have got English proofreading in our revised manuscript, and revised the following sections:

Title of this manuscript: We have changed “Connecting lymphatic vessels form detours upon obstruction of lymphatic flow and function as collecting lymphatic vessels.” to “Connecting lymphatic vessels form detours following obstruction of lymphatic flow and function as collecting lymphatic vessels.”

Acknowledgements: We have added “We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.” on page 27, lines 471-472 because the company requests us.

We kindly request you to please review our newly revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

This is a very interesting manuscript about the formation of detours by connective lymphatic vessels after obstruction of lymphatic flow in mice. In addition, it is a current and important problem for patients suffering from lymphedema. The Abstract and Introduction are in line with the work presented and are clearly organized.

Q1. However, the authors should clarify in the Material and Methods section if the statistical analyzes were performed and how they were made. In addition, the authors do not mention these analyzes in the Results section. Therefore, the statistical analyzes details should be clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied. Also, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods.

Response 1.

Thank you for your comments.

As you have mentioned, it is important to state how statistical analyses were performed in the Materials and Methods section. However, as Reviewer 2 has also judged, we consider that statistical analysis was not applicable in this study. We provide the following two reasons for not having undertaken statistical analyses in this study.

First, we do not compare any results from Tables 1 and 2 in the Results and Discussion sections. We only classified the patterns of lymphatic flow after lymphatic ligation, and we have focused mainly on detours after lymphatic ligation in the Results and Discussion sections.

Second, we were not able to perform statistical analysis concerning results shown in Tables 1 and 2 because the numbers of each pattern are too small (e.g. 0 or 1).

As such, we did not perform any statistical analysis in this study.

Additionally, we have revised the ICG lymphography results. We consider that the description is now easier to understand. We refer you to pages 13-14, lines 226-248.

Q2. In addition, the authors need to be bolder and more analytical in the Discussão section, using more area references to expand the discussion and make it even more interesting. Regarding the Conclusions section, conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented, not just a repetition of the data found.

Response 2.

We have revised the Introduction and Discussion sections in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, which we consider have now greatly improved our manuscript. Kindly refer to our newly revised changes.

Minor points:

1. Line 93, page 6. It is written "the cranial ligation site and the caudal ligation site." Were these points chosen in a specific or random way? It is not clear.

Response 3.

We have added a sentence on page 9, lines 141-142, and our changes are highlighted in red.

2. Line 127, page 8. "... with 1.75% isoflurane..." is written in different letters from the rest of the text. Please, check the text formatting.

Response 4.

We have now corrected this on page 11, line 180, and our changes are highlighted in red.

3. Line 148, page 9. It is written that "... stapled onto transparent plastic sheets...". Did the plastic allow the correct fixation of the collected material?

Response 5.

We have added a sentence on page 12, lines 201- 204, and our changes are highlighted in red.

4. Line 287, page 17. Reference 15 is not enclosed in square brackets as the rest of the references.

Response 6.

Number of Refence 15 was changed to Reference 32. We have enclosed reference 32 in square brackets on page 23, line 399, and our changes are highlighted in red.

5. Figure legends need to be better organized. For example, after (A) do not use the end point [(A) Evans blue dye ...]. Another example, do not use a semicolon (;) to separate the scale bar from its size [you can use Scale bar of 1 cm]. To indicate objects in the figure, do not separate their name from their function using a semicolon (;), you can use a colon (:) and to separate the different objects in the figure you use semicolons (;) [example: Open white arrowheads: incision site; asterisk: inguinal LN]. Please you should make these changes in all captions of the figures.

Response 7.

We have undertaken to make all of the recommended amendments to the figure legends, and our changes are highlighted in red.

Reviewer #2:

The authors observed detour of lymphatics (collateral formation?) in mice after lymphadenectomy in their previous study (ref 8). They aimed to investigate this detour phenomena in this current study by ligation of the lymphatic vessel in distal and proximal portions in 51 mice. The authors used ICG lymphography to image the detour formation and performed histological analysis of the detoured vessel. 5-ethynyl-2’-deoxyuridine (EdU) was used to evaluate any evidence of lymphangiogenesis. The authors found that detour was formed by 30 days after ligation and the detoured vessels were not formed by lymphangiogenesis. They concluded that the detour of lymphatic vessels might be useful for effective care of lymphedema.

Although investigation of structural changes of the lymphatic vessel after segmented obstruction with ligation in mice may be unique, there are several fundamental questions about this study.

Q1. In line 91, the authors described that they developed detours by excision of the inguinal lymph node but the pattern of detours by this surgery was unexpected in their previous study. However, they did not explain what was unexpected. This finding was the reason for current study design and therefore it requires further explanation.

Response 1.

Thank you for your comments.

We have revised the sentence on pages 8-9, lines 135-139, and our changes are highlighted in red.

Q2. From line 66 to 72, patients with lymphedema demonstrated collateral formation and structural changes but the authors said detours of the lymphatics after the lymphadenectomy in mice suggested that these detours prevented lymphedema. There was contradiction between stories in patients and mice.

Response 2.

We have made significant changes to the Introduction, which is now ready for your further consideration. Pages 4-6, lines 53-82 correspond to almost all of your comments.

Q3. From line 82 to 87, 8 mice were used for lymphography and histological evaluation on day 30. 28 mice were divided into 7 groups (n-4 each) and used by the same evaluation at different time points (Day 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, and 27). However, Results in Table 1 showed 8 mice studied at different time points (Day 15, 12, 27 and 30). Procedures in 8 mice were missing in the Materials and Methods section.

Response 3.

We have revised the animals in the Materials and Methods section, on page 8, lines 121-132, and our changes are highlighted in red. Kindly refer to our newly revised changes.

Q4. In line 10, lymphatic routes after the ligation were divided into three patterns; detours, original route and no detection. The detours were discussed in the Discussion but the other two patterns were not discussed. As for technical aspect, I think 6-0 nylon was too thick to ligate the lymphatic vessels in mice. I recommend using 9-0 or 10-0 for this purpose.

Response 4.

We have made many revisions to the Discussion section. Kindly refer to pages 21-23, lines 367-396, in response to your comments. In our next experiment, we intend to use a 9-0 or 10-0 suture.

Q5. In line 232, the authors concluded that these detours were not developed by lymphangiogenesis. This might be true for this study, however I don’t think EdU is adequate enough to appreciate lymphangiogenesis at this stage. There is a substantial body of research that highlights lymphangiogenesis after surgical procedures in different animals including mice, rats, rabbits, digs, pigs and sheep. It is insufficient to conclude the absence of lymphangiogenesis on the basis of negative EdU cells alone.

Response 5.

Thank you for your valuable advice. We greatly appreciate your comments, which we agree with. In future studies, we intend to use another method to detect lymphangiogenesis or dilatation of existing connecting lymphatics forming lymphatic detours.

Q6. In line 313, the authors described no obvious evidence of lymphatic reconstruction of the lymphatic route in humans. This statement is inaccurate. Alterations of the lymphatic pathways in patients with lymphedema have been examined with lymphangiography, lymphoscintigraphy, ICG lymphography, MR lymphography, and SPECT/CT. Each clinical imaging has specific criteria to diagnose lymphedema.

Response 6.

In response to your helpful comments, we have significantly revised the Discussion and Introduction sections. We have added a lymphatic image of human lymphedema to pages 4-5, lines 53-74 of the Introduction section, and we have revised part of the Discussion section on pages 25-26, lines 436-454 for your consideration.

Q8. Overall, the manuscript requires further explanation about background of the study design in Introduction and detailed procedures in Materials and Methods. A strong point of this study was combination of ICG lymphography and immune-histochemical analysis and weak points were clinical correlations and lack of functional testing.

Response 8.

We have considerably revised the Introduction and Discussion sections according to the reviewers’ comments. We consider that the reviewers’ comments have helped us to improve our manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewer_2019.11.4.docx

Decision Letter 1

Rudolf Kirchmair

27 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-17179R1

Connecting lymphatic vessels form detours following obstruction of lymphatic flow and function as collecting lymphatic vessels

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nakatani,

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.

As you will see from comments of Reviewer 2 still Major Points of critique were raised especially regarding presentation of the manuscript.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript within two months. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rudolf Kirchmair

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: No

**********

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 "Introduction" section should be formatted to "justified" as it is formatted "on the left". At line 175, in the caption of Figure 1, the semicolon after "asterisk" should be changed to two points. In line 258, in the caption of Figure 2, a period should be placed at the end of the sentence instead of a semicolon. In lines 318 and 319, in the caption of Figure 3, in the phrase "scale bar of F (vii)–F (ix); scale bar of 200 μm", the semicolon must be replaced by a comma. In line 332, in the caption of Figure 3, a space must be given between "LV; D" (LV;D).

Reviewer #2: The introduction from page 4 to page 7 in the new manuscript was significantly changed from the initial draft that was 1.5 page long. However, the lengthy introduction diluted the primary aim of this animal experiment and failed to focus on the importance of this study. Some paragraphs seem to be more suitable in the discussion section.

Two sentences in the background of the abstract remained similar to the previous draft and therefore it lost connection to the revised introduction.

Reviewer comments by reviewer 1 and 2 did not suggest such significant changes throughout the whole paper. I recommend that the authors should consider staying point-to-point with their response to address reviewers’ suggestions or submitting it as a new submission.

Several new sentences are unclear. In page 5, line 77-79, “It is unclear whether a lymphatic detour…” This sentence may describe important background information about the current study but I don’t understand the difference between “lymphoangiogenesis” and “changing lymphatic patterns where…”. In page 7, lines 106-108, “In this study, we aimed to determine…” This sentence seems a key message to stress the aim of this study. However, it doesn’t describe logical meanings and has grammatical errors.

The authors should clarify the terminology to describe the lymphatic structures in the introduction section. In page 23, line 397, they described that “connecting LVs” are as same as “pre-collectors”. I am uncertain that connecting is the right anatomical word to describe pre-collector. Even if the word is correct, they should avoid using it for this study. “Connecting” has another meaning, “connecting between the lymphatic gap” and therefore the readers may confuse the meaning with “detour”. To avoid confusion, I recommend pre-collector is a more suitable word for this manuscript. For example, in page 21, line 363-364, “The detour comprised…” The authors wrote “connecting or pre-collecting LV” but this should be “pre-collecting (connecting) LV”. Another example in page 22, line 376, “there appeared to be no occurrence of connecting LVs…” The author used the word “connecting” as meaning of filling the gap. It appears that the authors were confused as well.

Introduction section must be revised but the rest of the manuscript seems to be improved. This study seems to provide some new meaningful findings regarding how the lymphatic system is reconstructed after surgical intervention. However, the inaccurate English writing prevents understanding of the true scientific value of this study.

I suggest that the manuscript should be edited by English speaking persons to retain the scientific accuracy of the study before the review process.

**********

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: Hiroo Suami

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 15;15(1):e0227814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227814.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Dec 2019

Dear Editor:

We thank the editor and the reviewers for their important comments and advice concerning our manuscript. We have revised our paper, especially the introduction, according to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments.

We hereby submit the revised manuscript both with track changes and unmarked. We kindly request you to please review our newly revised manuscript.

Our point-by-point responses are indicated below.

Reviewer 1

Q1. The "Introduction" section should be formatted to "justified" as it is formatted "on the left".

R1. We thank the reviewer for the astute observation, we have now formatted as justified.

Q2. At line 175, in the caption of Figure 1, the semicolon after "asterisk" should be changed to two points.

R2. We thank the reviewer for the astute observation, we changed the semicolon to colon, in line 157 in the revised manuscript.

Q3. In line 258, in the caption of Figure 2, a period should be placed at the end of the sentence instead of a semicolon.

R3. We thank the reviewer for the astute observation, we changed the semicolon to period, in line 241 in the revised manuscript.

Q4. In lines 318 and 319, in the caption of Figure 3, in the phrase "scale bar of F (vii)–F (ix); scale bar of 200 μm", the semicolon must be replaced by a comma.

R4. We thank the reviewer for the astute observation, we changed the semicolon to comma, in line at line 302 in the revised manuscript.

Q5. In line 332, in the caption of Figure 3, a space must be given between "LV; D" (LV;D).

R5. We thank the reviewer for the astute observation, we changed LV;D to LV; D in line 314 in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2

Q1. The introduction from page 4 to page 7 in the new manuscript was significantly changed from the initial draft that was 1.5 page long. However, the lengthy introduction diluted the primary aim of this animal experiment and failed to focus on the importance of this study. Some paragraphs seem to be more suitable in the discussion section.

R1. We thank the reviewer for this important observation, we revised the introduction and shortened it from four pages to three pages. The deleted sentences as well as the revised sentences are shown with track changes in the revised manuscript.

Q2. Two sentences in the background of the abstract remained similar to the previous draft and therefore it lost connection to the revised introduction.

R2. As we reduced the introduction to clarify the aim of this research, we believe that the two sentences in the abstract are now well-aligned with the introduction. As we described in the first paragraph, the collateral lymphatic vessels or lymphatic detours are important for the decrease in lymphedema; we included this in our previous paper [21]. Furthermore, along with the importance of the process of forming lymphatic detours included in the second paragraph of the introduction show the connection with the two sentences in the background section of the abstract.

Editor

Q1. Reviewer comments by reviewer 1 and 2 did not suggest such significant changes throughout the whole paper. I recommend that the authors should consider staying point-to-point with their response to address reviewers’ suggestions or submitting it as a new submission.

R1. We thank the editor for these important comments. As we mentioned above, we have revised our manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments, we included the point-by-point responses, and also submitted the revised manuscript again.

Q2. In page 5, line 77-79, “It is unclear whether a lymphatic detour…” This sentence may describe important background information about the current study but I don’t understand the difference between “lymphoangiogenesis” and “changing lymphatic patterns where…”.

R2. We thank the editor for these important comments. As we have now revised the introduction, we have clarified further in pages 5-6, lines 69 to 85, third paragraph in the introduction section of the revised manuscript. We hope that the difference between lymphoangiogenesis and changing lymphatic patterns can now be better understood.

Q3. In page 7, lines 106-108, “In this study, we aimed to determine…” This sentence seems a key message to stress the aim of this study. However, it doesn’t describe logical meanings and has grammatical errors.

R3. We have revised these sentences in page 6, from lines 86 to 91 in the revised manuscript. Based on our revised sentences in the introduction, we hope that the aim is now acceptable. In the third paragraph of the introduction we described the appearance, position in the skin, and formation of lymphatic detours logically or step by step.

Q4. The authors should clarify the terminology to describe the lymphatic structures in the introduction section. In page 23, line 397, they described that “connecting LVs” are as same as “pre-collectors”. I am uncertain that connecting is the right anatomical word to describe pre-collector. Even if the word is correct, they should avoid using it for this study. “Connecting” has another meaning, “connecting between the lymphatic gap” and therefore the readers may confuse the meaning with “detour”. To avoid confusion, I recommend pre-collector is a more suitable word for this manuscript. For example, in page 21, line 363-364, “The detour comprised…” The authors wrote “connecting or pre-collecting LV” but this should be “pre-collecting (connecting) LV”. Another example in page 22, line 376, “there appeared to be no occurrence of connecting LVs…” The author used the word “connecting” as meaning of filling the gap. It appears that the authors were confused as well.

R4. We changed connecting LVs to pre-collecting LV according to your suggestion.

Q5. I suggest that the manuscript should be edited by English speaking persons to retain the scientific accuracy of the study before the review process.

R5. We thank the editor for these relevant comments. As you suggested, a native English language speaker from an English editing company has edited our revised manuscript and has improved grammar and scientific accuracy.

Decision Letter 2

Rudolf Kirchmair

31 Dec 2019

Pre-collecting lymphatic vessels form detours following obstruction of lymphatic flow and function as collecting lymphatic vessels

PONE-D-19-17179R2

Dear Dr. Nakatani,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Rudolf Kirchmair

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: All comments have been addressed

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed all reviewers’ suggestions. The manuscript became easier to read and improved in English writing.

**********

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: No

Acceptance letter

Rudolf Kirchmair

6 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-17179R2

Pre-collecting lymphatic vessels form detours following obstruction of lymphatic flow and function as collecting lymphatic vessels

Dear Dr. Nakatani:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof Rudolf Kirchmair

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: Response_to_Reviewer_2019.11.4.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES