Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Jul 23;15(7):e0235965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235965

Evidence of stage progression in a novel, validated fluorescence-navigated and microsurgical-assisted secondary lymphedema rodent model

P A Will 1,*, A Rafiei 1, M Pretze 2, E Gazyakan 1, B Ziegler 1, U Kneser 1, H Engel 1,3, B Wängler 2, J Kzhyshkowska 4,5, C Hirche 1
Editor: Raffaele Serra6
PMCID: PMC7377415  PMID: 32701960

Abstract

Secondary lymphedema (SL)is a frequent and devastating complication of modern oncological therapy and filarial infections. A lack of a reliable preclinical model to investigate the underlying mechanism of clinical stage progression has limited the development of new therapeutic strategies. Current first line treatment has shown to be merely symptomatic and relies on lifetime use of compression garments and decongestive physiotherapy. In this study, we present the development of a secondary lymphedema model in 35 rats using pre- and intraoperative fluorescence-guided mapping of the lymphatics and microsurgical induction. In contrast to the few models reported so far, we decided to avoid the use of radiation for lymphedema induction. It turned out, that the model is nearly free of complications and capable of generating a statistically significant limb volume increase by water displacement measurements, sustained for at least 48 days. A translational, accurate lymphatic dysfunction was visualized by a novel VIS-NIR X-ray ICG-Clearance-Capacity imaging technology. For the first-time SL stage progression was validated by characteristic histological alterations, such as subdermal mast cell infiltration, adipose tissue deposition, and fibrosis by increased skin collagen content. Immunofluorescence confocal microscopy analysis suggested that stage progression is related to the presence of a characteristic α SMA+/HSP-47+/vimentin+ fibroblast subpopulation phenotype. These findings demonstrate that the in-vivo model is a reliable and clinically relevant SL model for the development of further secondary lymphedema therapeutic strategies and the analysis of the veiled molecular mechanisms of lymphatic dysfunction.

Introduction

Secondary lymphedema (SL) is a significant complication after oncological therapy and filarial infections. It is associated with disfiguring appearance and psychological morbidity [1]. SL is one of the leading disability causes, affecting as many as 140 to 250 million people worldwide, associated with a huge burden to the healthcare system [24].

In western populations, breast cancer is not only the most frequent female cancer but also the main cause of SL [5]. As a late complication of breast cancer therapy, 5–70% of the patients suffer from SL depending on the extent of surgical lymph basin dissection and adjuvant oncological therapy [6]. Furthermore, SL occurs commonly as a surgical complication in skin (28%), gynecological (20%), and urological (10%) cancers [79].

SL becomes manifest when extravasated fluid remains accumulated in the intercellular space followed by locoregional soft tissue alterations. If this phenomenon endures, a chronic form of hardened swelling, fibrosis, adipose tissue accumulation, immune cell infiltration, and limb deformation occurs [7,10,11]. This collective of progressive and sequential morphological changes are defined as stage progression [12].

Current treatment strategies consist of a multimodal approach, including exercise, skin care, compression bandaging, and complex decongestive physiotherapy [13], as the leading therapeutic strategies are merely symptomatic. In recent years, causal therapies like lymph node transfer (LNT) [14] and lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) [15] have emerged. These supermicrosurgical procedures require sophisticated surgical equipment and exceptionally skilled microsurgeons that are not available in most developing countries [16]. Furthermore, supermicrosurgical procedures have proven limited effectiveness [17] and when LNT is performed, an iatrogenic donor site SL might develop [18]. Currently, drugs or cellular therapy do not play a therapeutic role, since the effects of cellular pathogenesis, immunological regulatory mechanisms, and the molecular key players of stage progression have only been identified to a limited degree [5].

To understand the molecular mechanisms causing this disease and to further investigate the pathophysiology of stage progression, a simple, yet reproducible and validated animal model would be useful. Despite the fact that several rodent tail models for lymphedema have been reported [1923], none employed a selective lymphatic excision but an indiscriminate dermal incision of practically the entire circumference of the tail, overlooking that damage of the venous plexus and main dermal veins might be the cause for the observed edema by means of venous insufficiency. Histologically, most of the rat tail is epidermis and cartilage [24], consequently, rodent tail lymphedema models might resemble human limb lymphedema inaccurately from a translational an anatomical perspective. Therefore, some rodent limb models for SL were proposed (Table 1).

Table 1. Descriptive summary of the methodology and pitfalls of the existing rat Secondary Lymphedema (SL) models.

Rat hind limb model Methods for LE induction N Clinical outcome Definition of LE Functional outcome Histological outcome analysis Comments
Wang et al. (1985) Skin strip and popliteal LN and LV excision. Tracer: 0.5% azo-blue 70 Mean circumferential and volumetric water displacement measurement Not reported Not reported H&E staining of paraffin sections with histological analysis Mortality rate of 21%
Kanter et al. (1990) 6 groups of different combination of femoral vein obliteration, skin strip resection and 4.5 Gy RT. Tracer: 0.05ml isosulfan blue 28 Mean circumferential and volumetric water displacement measurement Not reported Tc-99 lymphoscintigraphy Not reported Mortality rate 8%
Huang et al. (1990) Incision of all soft tissue (including muscles) circumferentially with no skin, LN or LV resection. Tracer: 0.1% methylene blue 50 Mean circumferential measurement Not reported Not reported H&E staining of paraffin sections with histological analysis Mortality 4%
Lee- Donaldson et al. (1999) 4 groups of skin strip and femoral LN and LV excision and RT with 4.5 Gy. Tracer: 1% Evans blue 45 Mean circumferential measurement; Subgroup indirect by MR imaging (n = 3) Not reported Tc-99 lymphoscintigraphy (n = 9) Not reported Mortality up to 13%, skin breakdown and, bone necrosis
Kawahira et al. (1999) Mice bone marrow MF isolated by FACS. Patent blue 26 Mean circumferential measurement Not reported Not reported H&E staining of paraffin sections with histological analysis No real model, more a primordial LNT
Yang et al. (2014) Whole inguinal fat pad and popliteal LN removal. Dyed vessel removal. No Skin gap left. Radiation 20–40 Gy Tracer: 0.1ml Evans blue 71 Indirect by CT imaging and volumetric calculation Not reported Tc-99 nanocolloid -SPECT lymphoscintigraphy Not reported Mortality and complication rate high (38%) Low success rate (57.7%)

Abbreviations: LE = Lymphedema LN = Lymph node RT = Radiotherapy LNT = Lymph node transfer LV = Lymph vessel MR = Magnetic resonance.

Unfortunately, the currently published models for SL fail to induce a solid and persistent SL [25] presented several major translational drawbacks (Table 1). Some key pitfalls to overcome are unreliable in-vivo generation of SL, high complication rates, missing diagnostic criteria for induced SL, and absence of translational disease progression hallmarks [25]. Hydrophilic blue dyes, applied by all previous studies to identify the lymphatics, are also taken-up by connective tissue and veins (example shown in Fig 1I). An unprecise excision could trigger non-lymphedema induced fibrosis or limb swelling following vein insufficiency [25].

Fig 1. (Blue box) Preoperative in-vivo near-infrared, fluorescence-guided mapping with Indocyanine green (ICG) and Fluobeam® camera.

Fig 1

A color-coded mapping of the lymphatic system of the inguinal (A) and popliteal (B) regions guided the preoperative markings. (Red Box) Intraoperative in-vivo near-infrared, fluorescence-guided mapping and navigation including color-coded visualization. In (C) the inguinal lymph nodes (orange arrows) and lymphatic vessels (yellow arrows) are identified before excision. Fluorescence-guided intraoperative control of the removed inguinal structures is showed in (D). The red arrow indicates intraoperative vision of a popliteal lymph node before (F) and after microsurgical excision (G). Intraoperative ICG navigation permits highly sensitive fluorescence differentiation of tissues (E). Orange and red arrows show removed inguinal and popliteal lymph nodes respectively, while the yellow arrow shows lymphatic vessels in fascia and the green arrow resected vein tissue. (Green Box) In (H) the skin strip to be circumferentially excised is marked intraoperatively. The postoperative skin gap after suturing is shown in (I).

Near-infrared imaging of indocyanine green (ICG) is a standard procedure in the clinical assessment of the lymphatic system [2629]. ICG based NIR imaging has been used both to evaluate lymphatic function in animal models and NIR functional imaging [20,2931], nevertheless, it has not been used as a standardized tool for pre- and intraoperative lymphangiographic navigation to guide a precise lymphatic injury for in-vivo studies.

Notorious volumetric regression was reported in several SL models, as a consequence, many authors added high dose radiotherapy to the surgery in order to generate an SL [25]. Radiation might account for the high complication rates in preexistent SL models. Even more, a differentiation between the outcomes of the subsequent actinic process and SL is not feasible. Further, the underlying molecular disease mechanisms of SL stage progression would be impossible to discriminate from the radiation-induced chronic inflammation.

Stage progression is a key feature of the disease but, upon now, has only received limited attention in the current literature [12], and has not been shown in a rat model as a consistent process over the follow-up period. Isolated pathophysiological components of stage progression like H&E dermal alterations [29,32], increased adipose tissue [33,34], mast cell infiltration [35,36], and sclerosis [32,33,37,38] have been reported. Furthermore, a decisive methodological aspect is missing in all the preceding in-vivo SL models: a translational definition of SL [25]. Reported induction rates are meaningless when diagnostic criteria are lacking. To overcome these important challenges and restrictions, our objective was to establish a reproducible in-vivo model for SL with clear definitions and translational outcome assessment, by quantitative and standardized clinical, functional, and morphological analysis.

Materials and methods

Development of rodent microsurgical lymphedema model

Female albino Lewis rats (n = 35; Lew/Crl-RT1 each 250–270 g) were purchased from Charles-River Laboratories (Sulzfeld, Germany). All animal procedures were performed according to European animal welfare guidelines and regulations, after gathering the approval of the local ethic committee (BG Klinik Ludwigshafen) federal authorities. For this project, the specific approval of the states of Rheinland-Pfalz (Landesuntersuchungsamt Mainz, Nr. G-206-15) and Baden-Württemberg (Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe, Nr. 35–9185.81) were obtained prior to animal experimentation.

The right hind limb served for intervention, while the left hind limb served as a control (untreated). Isoflurane (2–4%) was used for anesthesia. Following 0.01 mL subcutaneous injection of 5 mg/mL indocyanine green (ICG) solution (Verdye®, Diagnostic Green, Germany) on the dorsum of the shaved right paw and the inner thigh 2 cm lateral to the vagina, the main lymphatic vessels and lymph nodes were identified with a highly sensitive near-infrared camera (NIRC) (Fluobeam 800 NIR, Grenoble, France) after a latency of 5min for dye uptake. The lymphosomes [39] were mapped on the right ventral and dorsal limb and marked on the shaved skin prior to incision (Fig 1A and 1B). Next, a vertical oriented incision was made in the mid-groin, and an 8–10 mm wide strip of skin and subcutaneous tissue was excised circumferentially down to the fascia (Fig 1H and 1I). The superficial lymphatics were surgically removed within the skin strip as previously reported [40]. NIRC was fixed at 20 cm above the operating site, and the whole intervention was visualized under real-time navigation of the lymphatic structures (Fig 1C–1G).

Using a microsurgical microscope for magnification (Carl Zeiss F170, Jena, Germany) and microsurgical instruments, the subcutaneous tissue was dissected, and the deep lymphatics and lymph nodes skeletonized carefully, without injuring blood vessels. Then, the deep lymphatic vessels were excised in addition to the popliteal and inguinal lymph nodes. To prevent reconnection of the superficial lymphatics, the wound edges were sutured with Poly-p-dioxanon 5–0 (PDS) (Ethicon, Norderstedt, Germany) to the groin muscle fascia, and a gap of 5 mm was left (Fig 1I). Wound closure spray (Opsite®, S&N, Hamburg, Germany) was applied as a wound dressing after wound closure.

Postsurgical care consisted of isolation of the animals for 2 days and subcutaneous application of weight adapted (0.05 mg/kg) buprenorphine three times per day for the first five days. The medication was adapted based on distress monitoring 5 times per day with the rat grimace scale protocol. Physiological circadian cycles of rodents were respected by automated and preprogrammed lights. Enrichment materials as well as shelter were permanently provided. After 48 h, the isolated rats were returned to the original cage in order to respect normal social interactions. Prior and after interventions, rats were kept with food and water ad libidum. No perioperative antibiotic treatment, NSAIDs or steroids were used. At a predetermined timepoint the rats were sacrificed by Narcoren® i.v application and cervical dislocation under deep Isoflurane anesthesia.

Objective validation of induced secondary lymphedema

Postoperative complications were monitored and documented. For SL diagnosis, the clinical equivalent human diagnostic criteria (increase of limb circumference >2 cm, volume more than 200 cm3 or >10% of volume increase compared to contralateral) were applied translationally to the rats [41]. For this study, an increase of the limb circumference of >10% was set as the threshold for clinical diagnostic of SL. Water displacement method was used during this study for the volumetric assessment. While muscle relaxation was achieved under anesthesia, each hind limb was completely introduced up to the inguinal region into a 58 mL polypropylene tube, filled with an exact volume of 58 mL of water. While introduced, the limb displaced water proportional to its volume. The remaining water was measured, and the hind limb volume calculated.

This procedure was repeated independently three times at the day of surgery and at postoperative days (POD) 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, 30, and 45. The mean values were documented. In order to overcome a potential measurement bias, such as subconsciously dipping the operated limb further inside the tube, the polypropylene tube employed were fitted to specifically block the limb submersion once the inguinal region was reached. To avoid inter-operator variability, all measurements were performed by the second author. Since the majority of reported incidences of SL were described in the first 3 years after ceasing the oncological therapy in patients, the follow-up period was set as a four human year equivalent. Rats older than 63 days have a translational equivalent of one human year every 11.8 days [42], representing a translational follow-up period of 45 days after the SL induction.

Physiological analysis of the lymphatic system

To compare the lymphatic dysfunction and dermal backflow pattern, we injected the dorsum of the paw and inner upper thigh with each 0.01 mL ICG s.c. at POD 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, 30, and 45 under isoflurane anesthesia. After the ICG application on both limbs, rats were positioned inside a multispectral bioluminescence VIS-NIR X-ray imaging optical device (In vivo Xtreme, Bruker, Ettlingen, Germany), one hour after the injection. At that time point, simultaneously a whole-body X-ray, optical image, and a highly sensitive bioluminescence image were acquired. The settings were: Exposure time 30 sec, field of view 18 cm, X-ray filter 0,8 mm, 45 kVP 10 sec, reflectance 1 sec, fluorescent excitation wavelength 750 ± 20 nm, and emission wavelength 830 ±20 nm. By this modality, the lymphatic anatomy was contrasted and detected by means of the fluorescence signal, which was overlaid with bone and soft tissue anatomical landmarks provided by the X-ray and optical image. The ICG VIS-NIR X-ray imaging was always performed at 1h after injection because it was observed that the ICG signal intensity on intact limbs decreased progressively until the first hour at the pilot group while establishing the protocol. After that timepoint only a NIR imaging signal was detected at the injection sites (S1 Fig).

Using the VIS-NIR settings described above, the measurements were obtained from the intervened limb and the control simultaneously. The capacity of transporting the ICG from the peripheric tissue and clear it into the venous system was called ICG clearance capacity (ICC). The results were obtained by two approaches. First, semi quantitatively by bioluminescence signal overlaid too soft tissue with a color correlation of the signal intensity to a scale bar. This pictures were later classified into Yamamoto dermal backflow pattern [43] by a blinded observer. Second, at the X-ray images overlaid with the ICG fluorescence signal a region of interest (ROI) was selected at the intervened and control extremities (excluding the injection sites). Here, the software of the VIS-NIR X-ray imaging optical device determined the median ICG fluorescence intensity as counts per second (cps). Then the mean background cps of the image was subtracted from the median fluorescence value of each measured limb in order to get semiquantitative data of the ICC fluorescence signal.

Morphological stage progression and fibroblast phenotyping

As a translational aspect of chronic SL, we defined stage progression in this project as histopathological dermal changes, local cellular alterations, and modification of the connective tissue, consecutive to interstitial progressive fluid accumulation over time. To evaluate this and after clinical and physiological measurements, the rats were sacrificed at POD 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 30, or 45. At these specific time points, skin tissue samples from the foot (zone A), popliteal region (zone B), and thigh (zone C) were obtained of the intervened limb (right) and control limb (left). The samples were harvested at a size of 0.5 x 0.5 mm, fixed in 4% PFA, and paraffin embedded or snap frozen in 2-metylbutan. For the staining, 5 μm tissue samples were cut out of the sample blocks (Leica CM3050S, Wetzlar, Germany). In the paraffin slides antigen retrieval was performed for 15 min in an alkaline heat-induced epitope retrieval solution (ZUC040, Zytomed, Berlin, Germany) at 95 ºC. To determine changes in the morphology and composition of the skin layers, H&E (Merck 109249, Darmstadt, Germany) staining was performed according the manufacture’s protocol.

As recently published [44], collagen density at tissue sections can be detected and quantified by rhodamine fluorescence microscopy analysis after performing a pico-sirus red (PSR) staining. For detection of collagen fibers type 1 and 3, representing fibrosis (e.g. In SL), PSR (Sigma 365548, St Louis, USA) staining was performed. In order to get a quantitative approximation of the collagen content for the whole sample, each PSR stained slide was automatically scanned with the MosaiX fluorescence module in Rhodamine and FITC filter mode (Zeiss Primo Star Microscope, Oberkochen, Germany). The results of the fluorescence analysis were converted into 32 bit grayscale Tiff images and with the use of ImageJ (Version 1.5i, U.S National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA) and saved in the hard drive.

The mean spectral overlap of the FITC channel, autofluorescence of cells and PEGs, was subtracted digitally from the Rhodamine signal to gain the mean intensity of the collagen fibers. In order to determine the mean collagen density, the mean intensity of the collagen fibers was normalized to the respective sample size (measured area in mm3). Fat deposition, as a histological hallmark of late phases of stage progression in SL, was detected by Oil Red O staining solution (Sigma O1391, St. Louis, USA) in frozen slides. Toluidine blue (Sigma 89640, St. Louis, USA) was used in order to identify mast cells in the deparaffinized samples as a sign of chronic inflammatory changes.

To identify the presence of activated fibroblasts and their relationship with a profibrotic phenotypical pathway, double immunofluorescence (IF) staining of vimentin, α-SMA, collagen I, and heat-shock protein 47 (HSP-47) was performed. To identify co-expression confocal microscopy was used at 63-magnification (Leica TCS-SP8, Wetzlar, Germany). At predefined slide regions, the already obtained confocal images were randomly mixed in a Power Point presentation and the α-SMA+/HSP-47+/vimentin+ cells counted by a blinded observer. The mean count of triple positive cells per field of view for the different time points and zones was then compared and statistically analyzed.

Statistical analysis

All statistical tests were performed using GraphPad Version 8.00 (La Jolla, California, USA). For central tendency and data dispersion, the arithmetic mean and standard deviation were obtained, and grouped into datasets. The dataset of the plethysmography (water displacement method) was tested for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk omnibus normality test (α 0.05). Once the data proved to be normally distributed, first one-way ANOVA was tested in order to determine the overall statistic difference of the two paired groups (intervened and control limb).

The results were corrected with Barlett’s test. Further, multiple comparisons between the different timepoints were performed by 2-ways ANOVA and the assumption of equal variability tested with Geisser-Greenhouse correction (α 0.05 and 0.01). As post-hoc correction tests primarily Sidak was used for the multiple comparisons, yet Bonferoni and Benjamini, Krieger and Yekutieli tests were also calculated (α 0.05). The dataset for ICG clearance capacity did not pass the D’Angostino & Pearsons normality test nor the Shapiro-Wilk omnibus normality test with α 0.05. Therefore Kruskal-Wallis test with Friedman correction was applied (α 0.05 and 0.01).

Multiple comparisons of the different timepoints was later performed using the two-stage step-up method of Benjamini, Krieger and Yekutieli with α 0.05. The statistical analysis of the mean fluorescence intensity of PSR stained collagen was performed with one-way ANOVA and corrected with Barlett’s test at α 0.05, since the dataset distribution proved to be normally distributed by the Shapiro-Wilk test (α 0.05). The mean count of α-SMA+/HSP-47+/vimentin+ cells per field of view of the SL samples analyzed by confocal microscopy did not passed the Shapiro-Wilk omnibus normality test with α 0.05 and was analyzed for statistical significance with Kruskal-Wallis test at α 0.05. For a better understanding, the statistical tests used were added to the respective figure legends. To all the figures the statistical marking were added as follows * if p≤0,05, ** if p≤0,01, and *** if p≤0,001.

An overview of the experimental setting for the outcome analysis is offered in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of the experimental design.

Parameter N = Postoperative days Methodology
Volumetric analysis 34 1, 3, 5, 7,10, 14, 21, 30, and 45 Water displacement
Lymphatic dysfunction- imaging 34 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, 30, and 45 Dermal backflow pattern
Lymphatic dysfunction- clearance 34 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, 30, and 45 ICG clearance capacity (ICC)
Histomorphological pattern 34 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 30, and 45 H&E staining
Chronic inflammation 34 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 30, and 45 Toluidine Blue staining
Collagen content 34 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 30, and 45 Pico sirus red staining and Rhodamine filter fluorescence microscopical analysis
Fat tissue deposition 30 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 30, and 45 Oil red O staining
Fibroblast phenotype 34 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 30, and 45 Double immunofluorescence staining for vimentin, α-SMA, and heat shock protein 47

Results

Perioperative outcomes: The proposed SL model is reproducible and free of major complications

In 34 rats out of 35 rats, the microsurgical induction could be performed according to the planned experimental study (success rate 97.1%). In one rat the popliteal lymph node was missing. Representative images of intraoperative navigation and in-vivo mapping, before and after the intervention are shown in Fig 1.

No postoperative mortality was observed. In only five out of the 34 rats (14.7%), a self-biting behavior into the wound edges, was observed despite proper analgesia. This complication was attributed to sutures itching or dermatitis related to the occlusive wound spray. This complication was resolved by changing the sutures to Monocryl 4–0 (Ethicon, Norderstedt, Germany) and obviating the wound dressing. In contrast to other SL rodent models reported in literature, no infection, wound dehiscence, soft tissue necrosis, bone necrosis, seroma, or bleeding were observed during the follow-up period.

An in-vivo microsurgical model induces a consistent secondary lymphedema

The mean volume difference of the intervened (red) and control (blue) hind limbs, for the intervention day are shown and presented graphically in Fig 2. At the intervened hind limb, a categoric difference of the mean circumferences (higher than >10%) was observed on each timepoint after the induction, thereby being specific for SL induction. This difference was statistically significant with α 0.05 and α 0.01 for all timepoints except day 0 (day of surgery). After a clear and progredient volume increase in the intervened hind limb, a progressive mean volume reduction was observed from day 21 until the end of the follow-up period, without spontaneous regeneration.

Fig 2. Plethysmography by hind limb water displacement measures after induction of secondary lymphedema.

Fig 2

The mean volume differences (with SD) between the interventional (red) and control (blue) hind limb groups, related to the days after intervention, are displayed graphically in (A). A numerical detail of the mean volume of the groups is provided in (B). Statistics: One-way ANOVA for the overall statistic difference of the two paired groups and 2-ways ANOVA and Sidak post-hoc correction test. For the comparisons between the different timepoints.

The limb with induced secondary lymphedema presents significantly reduced ICG clearance capacity and characteristic dermal backflow pattern

In the intervened hind limb, an overall significantly reduced ICG clearance capacity (ICC) was observed after 1 hour of s.c. ICG injection when compared to the control limb (Fig 3). In the intervened right limbs, ICG seemed to accumulate particularly in the thigh and the gluteal region, in contrast, the left hind limbs presented complete, physiological, clearance. While during the first week a “splash” dermal pattern was observed at the right limbs, starting in the second week and until day 45, a “star dust” dermal backflow pattern was predominantly noticed. This pattern evolved into a diffuse dermal backflow pattern around day 45 and after (Fig 3). After day 21, a slight ICC normalization was detected in the flare pattern of the NIR-VIS analysis. The mean fluorescence intensity difference of the intervened and the control limbs (Fig 3) resulted statistically significant for all timepoints after the first postinterventional day with α 0.05 and α 0.01. Interestingly, the ICC showed a recovery after POD 14, with a lower mean cps intensity on POD 21, 30, and 45. In summary, despite an ICC recovery after POD 14, a clear lymphatic dysfunction was detected in the NIR-VIS analysis as part of model validation.

Fig 3. Impaired lymphatic ICG clearance capacity (ICC) of the intervened limb is shown with color-coded mapping (upper row) and without color-coding (lower row) for POD 7, 14, 21, 30, and 45.

Fig 3

In the upper row of the figure the fluorescence intensity after 1 hour of injection is shown with flare mode merged with X-ray, for anatomical relation with the skeleton of the rat. In the lower row, ICG fluorescence is shown overlaid with the soft tissue to determine the dermal backflow pattern after 1 hour of injection. Mean ICG clearance capacity (ICC) is presented on the right side. The mean ICG clearance capacity (with SD) of the intervened (blue) and control (grey) hind limbs are shown for POD 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, 30, and 45. Statistics: Kruskal-Wallis test with Friedman correction and for multiple comparisons of the different timepoints two-stage step-up method of Benjamini, Krieger and Yekutieli.

Lymphedema stage progression: Dermal hypereosinophilia, skin layer distortion and sebaceous gland expansion are SL benchmarks in the rodent model

In the first 21 postoperative days no tissue architecture or staining intensity difference were observed in the 34 SL samples from zone A, B, or C. In contrast, at POD 30 all SL samples presented a stronger eosin signal compared to the corresponding control. Particularly, the dermal and subdermal regions stained into intense red, implying a higher protein content in SL (Fig 4). In addition, after POD 30 an evident distortion in the histological architecture was observed with no clear interphase between the superficial and deeper dermal layers and a substantial sebaceous gland expansion.

Fig 4. Grey box: Microscopic analysis of Oil Red O staining of frozen tissue sections derived from skin samples of the secondary lymphedema in-vivo model.

Fig 4

Representative stained samples from different timepoints are shown on the left. After induction, only isolated lipids stained on the dermis (red arrow). After day 7, fat deposition in the deep dermis was observed (orange arrow). During postoperative D14 (week 2) and D30 (week 4) fat deposition was detected systematically in deep and superficial dermis (green arrows). After D30 a strong diffuse dermal fat deposition was detected (yellow arrows). Scale bar 100μm. Magnification 100x. Blue box: Microscopic analysis of Hematoxylin & Eosin staining of paraffin sections derived from skin samples of the secondary lymphedema in-vivo model. Representative stained samples from different timepoints are shown. On the left side, skin samples from the left limb serve as control. On the right, the samples of the right extremity, with secondary lymphedema, are offered as comparison. Scale bar 100μm. Magnification 100x.

Lymphedema stage progression: Increased collagen presence is detected progressively in the hind limb with secondary lymphedema

As shown in Fig 5, in some SL samples a much higher collagen density was observed by PSR analysis under IF microscopy with Rhodamine filter. The mean intensity quantification, determined with Image J for each timepoints, is also shown graphically in Fig 5. A higher mean collagen intensity was detected on the PSR stained samples obtained from zone A, B, and C of the limb with SL. These results suggest a higher collagen I and III density, fiber size, or augmented production in the SL samples. The data showed to be statistically significant after day 14 for zone B (p = 0,033) and zone C (p = 0,032). Zone A showed a trend but failed to be globally significant (p = 0,085).

Fig 5. Pico Sirus Red (PSR) fluorescence analysis of whole skin samples obtained from rat at day 30 after secondary lymphedema induction are presented at the left side.

Fig 5

(A) Whole skin section from zone B of the left, not intervened, hind limb is shown as a fluorescence scan. At (B) a representative whole skin section from zone B of the right, intervened, hind limb is presented as a fluorescence scan under FITC and Rhodamine filter. On the right side, collagen density determined by PSR rhodamine fluorescence scan are shown for zones A, B, and C. The median optical density of collagen fibers under Rhodamine filter fluorescence analysis is presented for days 7, 14, 30, and 45 in red for the intervened limb and in blue for the control extremity. Statistics: One-way ANOVA and correction with Barlett’s test for the mean fluorescence intensity of PSR stained collagen.

Lymphedema stage progression: A progressive dermal fat deposition is observed after the first week

After performing Oil Red O staining and analysis of frozen sections obtained from 30 out of 34 in-vivo induced SL, a dermal fat deposition was observed in zone B and C consistently. In zone A, no trend was determined. Despite a volumetric increase observed during the first week in the hind limb of the model, no significant adipose tissue proliferation was detected (Fig 4). Between the first and second week, a fat cell deposition in the deep layer of the dermis was observed in the skin samples with lymphedema (Fig 4). Around week 4, the adipose tissue proliferation protracted to the superficial dermal layer and gained volume diffusely until the second month of follow-up (Fig 4). No staining difference was detected at an epidermal level on the intervened limb skin samples, when compared to control.

Lymphedema stage progression: Sub-epidermal mast cell deposition increases notably after SL induction

After performing toluidine blue staining of 30 different samples of the rodent SL model, a discernible trend was observed in zone A, B, and C. At POD 1 only isolated mast cells at a subdermal level were detected, in contrast, after POD 14 a significant increase of perivascular and subdermal mast cell deposition was observed (Fig 6). The mast cell deposition showed no notorious trend change between POD 14 and POD 45. Around POD 45 a clear increase in toluidine positive cells were detected (Fig 6).

Fig 6. Microscopic analysis of toluidine blue staining of paraffin embedded sections derived from skin samples of the secondary lymphedema in-vivo model.

Fig 6

In the blue box, the whole scanned slides for POD 7, 14, 21, 30, and 45 are offered as a visual reference. Closer magnification (x100 or x200) of each slide for representative areas of interest can be seen in respectively A, B, and C. If to many toluidine positive cells were observed in the area of interest, a x100 magnification was used to deliver a representative overview.

Secondary lymphedema samples presented a subcutaneous α-SMA+/HSP-47+/Vimentin+ myofibroblast phenotype

Confocal microscopy analysis of SL derived samples from the rat model, demonstrated a high co-expression of α-SMA+/vimentin+ cells forming clusters in the dermis (Fig 7), as well as a similar co-localization pattern for HSP-47 with vimentin in all sections examined (Fig 7). Under close examination, α-SMA+/HSP-47+/vimentin+ cells showed a morphology and markers distribution expected for myofibroblasts (Fig 7). After POD 30, α-SMA+/HSP-47+/vimentin+ myofibroblasts were remarkably more ubiquitously distributed in the dermis, suggesting a proliferative pattern. Matching, the expression of several strongly positive HSP-47 cells was observed in the dermis of the intervened limb after POD 30. As expected, HSP-47+ cells colocalized in ECM rich in collagen+ fibers at double immunofluorescence. The blinded analysis of triple positive cells per field of view revealed a general increase of α-SMA+/HSP-47+/vimentin+ cells in zones A, B, and C after day 14, reaching a maximum at POD 45. However, merely in zone C the mean counts of triple positive cells were found to be gradually increasing after the induction. On the other hand, in some of the samples at day 0 (control before induction) α-SMA+/HSP-47+/vimentin+ cells were detected. Nevertheless, the mean count per field was extremely low in the control slides, with mean counts of 0,53 cells for zone A, 0,26 cells for zone B, and 0,46 cells for zone C at day 0 (Fig 8). Despite the clear trend of increased counts of triple positive fibroblasts in lymphedema at later stages, zones A and B failed to be overall statistically significant.

Fig 7. Immunofluorescence co-expression of α smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), vimentin, collagen I, and heat shock protein 47 (HSP-47) in skin samples obtained from the rat SL model.

Fig 7

Left are control samples while right is intervened (SL) samples. The primary antibodies were mouse a- α-SMA or a-HSP-47 (visualized in green, Alexa flour 488 donkey a-mouse) and rabbit a-vimentin or rabbit a-collagen I (visualized in red, Cy3 goat a-rabbit). Nuclear staining was performed using DRAQ5 (visualized in blue). Co-localization in visualized in yellow in the merge channel. All scale bars are 50 μm while d30 indicates that the samples were obtained at day 30 after induction of secondary lymphedema.

Fig 8. Counts of α-SMA+/HSP-47+/vimentin+ fibroblasts in skin samples obtained from the rat SL model of zones A, B, and C at days 0, 14, 30, and 45.

Fig 8

The mean count of triple positive cells per field of view of all the samples at the different timepoints is shown in blue for zone A, in red for zone B, and green for zone C with the respective SD. The statistical analysis was performed with Kruskal-Wallis test.

In Fig 9 a graphic summary of the main results of the proposed rodent SL and the hereby generated evidence for lymphedema stage progression is offered.

Fig 9. Summary of the validation of the proposed SL rat hind limb model and the evidence generated for the lymphedema stage progression on the intervened extremity.

Fig 9

On the right, the clinical volume changes, ICG evaluation of the lymphatic insufficient, and the hystomorphological hallmarks of lymphedema stage progression are presented in a table. On the left the same outcomes are shown for the control extremities.

Conclusions and discussion

Translational research on SL addressing supermicrosurgical, immunological or cell-based therapies require a reproducible, validated, and stable rodent model. In contrast, the published models varied significantly in their methodology although shared significant limitations [25]. In the available hind limb models, radiation was used as a response to failed induction or spontaneous regression of SL [25]. To employ radiation during the induction of a SL in-vivo model might have the advantage to partially mimic the tissue transformations that occur in patients that underwent radiotherapy as part of their oncological management. On the other hand, the use of high radiation doses resulted in frequent and severe complications and might interfere in the natural development of SL stage progression due to unspecific inflammatory triggers and actinic fibrosis [25]. Further, mechanistic insights of the disease will be exceptionally difficult to investigate in a preexisting actinic microenvironment. To overcome these shortcomings, rodent tail models emerged as counterpart [20,23,4547]. In such models a consistent edema was established without radiation and noteworthy molecular experimentations were performed [19,20,22,23,46,47]. Nevertheless, the rat tail in our opinion does not seem to anatomically, functionally, nor histologically be the optimal translational body segment compared to a human limb, which is mostly affected by SL. Furthermore, extremity models provide significant advantages in translational research as they involve the opportunity of a direct comparison to the unaffected extremity.

The lack of surgical refinement and intraoperative mapping of most rodent tail models are likely to induce unspecific soft tissue edema or venous insufficiency, in addition to a plausible lymphedema. Since in rodent tail models local lymph nodes are usually not excised, locoregional immunological and molecular findings might have an inadequate translational validity. This fact is expressly relevant because lymphadenectomy is the most relevant contributing SL risk factor in oncological patients [8,9,41,48]. Besides the unclear overlapping of probable causes for the observed edema on the SL rodent hind limb and tail models, the current literature universally lacks a translational definition for SL, reporting hereby non-comparable success rates.

In the presented and validated in-vivo SL model with intraoperative fluorescence-guided ICG navigation and lymphosome mapping, unspecific soft-tissue and vein excision could be avoided. By real-time identification of lymphatic structures with ICG and the precision of microsurgery, the mortality rate of SL models could be reduced from 21% [25] to 0% in our study. Significant complication rates, reported up to 38% [49], were not observed in this model. The disparities might be explained by shorter surgery times, absence of neurovascular bundle lesions, and an effective induction of SL without the need for adjuvant radiation. During this project, for the first time, a clinically translated definition of lymphedema induction was offered. A volumetric difference of 10% (translational definition for SL) in the intervened hind limbs after the induction, was so unmistakably achieved, that it was statistically significant even with p<0,01 for all the rats intervened, for the entire follow-up period, and further. The authors are aware that the chosen follow-up period in the rats, of 45 days, might not fully represent a translational equivalent of 3 human years since temporal kinetics of extracellular matrix, cell proliferation, enzymatic turnover rates, and DNA repair might vary interspecies during aging. In order to minimize this error the best available translational approximation currently available in the literature [42] was employed.

In the validation process of this model, the first step was to accurately detect lymphatic dysfunction. This could be achieved by the use of a simple, painless, fast, and radiation free technology. In our project we developed a protocol by VIS-NIR X-ray imaging technology for ICG-Clearance-Capacity, based on the principles of lymphangiography. A dermal backflow pattern, characteristic to SL chronification in patients [50], was shown for the first time in an animal model.

These clinical findings were validated by detection of abnormal ICG clearance capacity on the intervened hind limb, resembling patient’s lymphatic dysfunction. Remarkably, the clinical and pathophysiological changes were so manifest that the SL in-vivo model achieved to be statistically significant with α 0.05 and α 0.01. Even after precise induction, clear SL development, lymphatic dysfunction, and histological stage progression, there was a trend to mean hind limb volume reduction and partial recovery on the ICG clearance capacity on almost all animals after POD 21. This phenomenon, well known in scientific literature on rodents [25], was reported far more dramatically and earlier in appearance in the published models than what we observed in our model. However, and despite presenting stage progression, our rodent model is unlikely to provide an appropriately prolonged lymphedema to be ground for the study of elephantiasis-like skin modifications or oncological complications of lymphedema like Steward-Treves syndrome [51].

The mechanisms by which the rodent’s regenerates function of the lymphatic system is still unknown, further investigations on the model might permit its comprehension and hereby the generation of new therapeutic concepts in lymphangiogenesis. It is fair to recognize that, none of the cited rodent models in this article, nor ours, might be suitable for the study of filariasis induced SL. The scientific community is currently certain, that in contrast to traumatic, surgical, or oncological caused lymphedema, the SL provoked by parasites are primary generated by autoimmune mechanisms in response to the infection [52,53].

In patients, after the onset of SL a progressive chronification occurs, called SL stage progression or migration [12]. This process is suspected to be regulated by an chronic inflammatory cascade, in which several pathophysiological mechanisms like fibrosis, adipose tissue deposition, and local immune cell infiltration coexist [38]. This is why a merely volumetric analysis for a translational SL in-vivo model seems inaccurate and insufficient. Despite the fact that numerous publications portrayed the central features of SL stage progression, until now a translational definition of SL was missing for in-vivo SL models. Consequently, stage progression as a progressive process with the co-occurrence of fibrosis, adipogenesis, histological modifications, and immune cell infiltration was not shown in SL animal models until now [25]. This crucial prerequisite for the development of translational therapies for SL was, to our consideration, not covered by the current in-vivo models.

In our model, despite the privation of radiation, the main components of chronic lymphedema were observed coexisting in a decisive histologic stage progression after POD 21. This was demonstrated by H&E hystomorphological modifications, categorical proliferation of sebaceous glands, adipose tissue deposition, mast cell infiltration, and dermal fibrosis by increased collagen type I and III content. A biphasic evolution of the induced SL was noticed. In the first 3 weeks (POD 21), a progressive increase in volume correlated with dysfunctional ICC but little or no histological changes. Such observations could be translated as the subacute phase of SL. This phase was followed by a slow, yet progressive, normalization tendency in the limb volume and improvement of the ICC after POD 21. However, during this period the permanent histological changes became evident. Such a bimodal evolution is not observed in patients, where the ICG transportation capacity and volume reduction remains pathologically or even worsens in correlation to histological alterations [5].

While in the literature the effect of the antigravitational postural changes of the human species, in contrast to rats, on the lymphatic network in normal and pathological conditions is still an unaddressed topic, several publications described spontaneously or postinterventional increased lymphangiogenesis in rodents [5456]. In rats spontaneous VEGF-C mediated lymphangiogenesis was reported in chronic inflammatory states like renal fibrosis, ventricular remodeling, asthma, and peritoneal fibrosis [55,5759]. Interestingly, VEGF-C seems to have a unclarified role in SL treatment and progression as it has been shown to improve [60,61] or worsen [62] SL. Fine-tuned regulation of the VEGF-C/VEGFR3 axis might elucidate the reason why rodents can revert the volume increase and lymphatic dysfunction in SL. Despite the regenerative potential of rats, the SL stage progression by means of histologic progression still happened. These initially contradictory findings might imply that the main pathophysiological mechanism of SL is not the chronic dysfunction on lymphatic transportation and interstitial fluid accumulation but a dysregulated molecular and cellular microenvironment.

Our data suggests that after reaching a threshold or a determined timepoint, and even after partial clinical resolution of the lymphedema and reconstitution of fluid drainage, some undetermined locoregional factors accounts for the microenvironmental histological disbalance characteristic for a chronic inflammatory disease. Therefore, the most remarkable breakthrough in this study was the phenotyping of a specific version of tissue myofibroblasts as plausible explanation for local induction of lymphangiogenesis and stage progression co-occurrence.

Myofibroblasts are defined, in contrast to normal skin resident fibroblasts, by the expression of α-SMA and vimentin [63,64]. These cells undergo an epithelial to mesenchymal transition, gaining hereby a profibrotic phenotype and function [6365]. After activation, myofibroblast are the major players in almost all main fibrotic diseases [6669]. Myofibroblast-mediated fibrosis is generated by increasing collagen content, which in SL becomes clinically evident during stage progression [70]. HSP-47 is an indispensable chaperone in mammals for collagen formation and has been reported as an important biomarker for tumor angiogenesis [71], proliferation [72,73], and lymphatic metastasis [73] in several cancer cells and tumor associated fibroblasts. Upregulation of HSP-47 was also related to local wound healing impairment [74], organ fibrosis [75], and systemic inflammation in graft-versus-host disease [76]. Initial insights seem to link the pathogenesis of HSP-47 to TGFβ-1 pathways [77]. Using IF staining a co-expression of α-SMA+/HSP-47+/vimentin+ cells was observed increasingly in all zones of the SL model corelated to stage progression. Especially in zone C (thigh) a statistical significance was observed in the mean count of α-SMA+/HSP-47+/vimentin+ fibroblasts in contrast to zone A (food dorsum), were barely a small tendency in increased triple positive cells was detected at later SL stages. This result implies, that the site of subcutaneous injection of ICG (foot) is not likely to experience a tissue activation of profibrotic fibroblasts and that stage progression is unlikely to be affected by ICG imaging.

By a strong HSP-47+ fibroblast subpopulation presence, particularly localized in samples with strong collagen content, a relation between infiltration of HSP-47+ myofibroblasts and stage progression occurrence in SL can be postulated. In sum, HSP 47 myofibroblast phenotyping might be explored as an early diagnostic biomarker for SL stage progression. Further insight might reveal a TGF-β1 dependent activation of HSP-47 myofibroblast as therapeutic downstream target for the inhibition of stage progression [37]. In several cases an atypical cell morphology for fibroblast was observed. Those cells might have undergone macrophage to myofibroblast phenotype transition, as reported previously during chronic inflammation [65]. Consequently, the role of antigen presenting cells and molecular crosstalk to local myofibroblasts, as well as their immunomodulation potential during stadium migration, can be addressed in the in-vivo SL model with the certainty that the observations are independent from other sources of edema or radiation. Additional refinements in current SL models are crucial for the development of reliable translational supermicrosurgical, immunological, or cell based therapeutic strategies.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Near-infrared images of the lymphatic clearance capacity in healthy rat limbs after subcutaneous application of ICG.

During preoperative mapping of the lymphatic system of the rat hind limbs and the intraoperative real-time navigation, an early appearance (2 min) of ICG contrast in the lymphatics was noticed by NIR visualization with the Fluobeam® camera. A clear contrast of the lymphatics of healthy limbs was detected with NIR visualization until 1 h after injection. By then most of the ICG was cleared from the limbs. However, at the subcutaneous injection sites, the ICG signal remained almost unaltered. This is probably to be related to the local binding of ICG molecules to tissue proteins. For further analysis, the injection sites were therefore not included in the region of interest (ROI).

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We want to acknowledge the logistical and technical contributions as well as advice for this study of Fabia Fricke, Matthias Schulte, Shanna Litau, Karen Bieback, Steffanie Uhlig, Alexander Marx, Juan Enrique Berner, Christina Schmuttermaier and Sayran Arif-Said.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Nguyen TT, Hoskin TL, Habermann EB, Cheville AL, Boughey JC. Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema Risk is Related to Multidisciplinary Treatment and Not Surgery Alone: Results from a Large Cohort Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24: 2972–2980. 10.1245/s10434-017-5960-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rockson SG, Rivera KK. Estimating the Population Burden of Lymphedema. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1131: 147–154. 10.1196/annals.1413.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ribeiro Pereira ACP, Koifman RJ, Bergmann A. Incidence and risk factors of lymphedema after breast cancer treatment: 10 years of follow-up. The Breast. 2017;36: 67–73. 10.1016/j.breast.2017.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Grada AA, Phillips TJ. Lymphedema. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77: 1009–1020. 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.03.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chang DW, Masia J, Garza R, Skoracki R, Neligan PC. Lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138: 209S–218S. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002683 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Murdaca G, Cagnati P, Gulli R, Spanò F, Puppo F, Campisi C, et al. Current views on diagnostic approach and treatment of lymphedema. Am J Med. 2012;125: 134–40. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.06.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Warren AG, Brorson H, Borud LJ, Slavin SA. Lymphedema. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59: 464–472. 10.1097/01.sap.0000257149.42922.7e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Williams SK, Rabbani F. Complications of Lymphadenectomy in Urologic Surgery. Urol Clin North Am. 2011;38: 507–518. 10.1016/j.ucl.2011.07.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yost KJ, Cheville AL, Al-Hilli MM, Mariani A, Barrette BA, McGree ME, et al. Lymphedema after surgery for endometrial cancer: prevalence, risk factors, and quality of life. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124: 307–15. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000372 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fibrosis worsens chronic lymphedema in rodent tissues. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 11.Cuzzone D a, Weitman ES, Albano NJ, Ghanta S, Savetsky IL, Gardenier JC, et al. IL-6 regulates adipose deposition and homeostasis in lymphedema. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2014;306: H1426–34. 10.1152/ajpheart.01019.2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Society TI, Document C, Congress XI, Inter- XVI, Icl X, Committee E, et al. THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF PERIPHERAL LYMPHEDEMA: 2013 CONSENSUS DOCUMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF LYMPHOLOGY This International Society of Lymphology. 2013;46: 1–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Huang T-W, Tseng S-H, Lin C-C, Bai C-H, Chen C-S, Hung C-S, et al. Effects of manual lymphatic drainage on breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg Oncol. 2013;11: 15 10.1186/1477-7819-11-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Raju A, Chang DW. Vascularized Lymph Node Transfer for Treatment of Lymphedema. Ann Surg. 2015;261: 1013–1023. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000763 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Scaglioni MF, Fontein DBY, Arvanitakis M, Giovanoli P. Systematic review of lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) for the treatment of lymphedema. Microsurgery. 2017;37: 947–953. 10.1002/micr.30246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Basta MN, Fischer JP, Kanchwala SK, Silvestre J, Wu LC, Serletti JM, et al. A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Influence of Breast Reconstruction on Subsequent Development of Lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136: 134e–43e. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Basta MN, Gao LL, Wu LC. Operative treatment of peripheral lymphedema: A systematic meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of lymphovenous microsurgery and tissue transplantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133: 905–913. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sulo E, Hartiala P, Viitanen T, Mäki M, Seppänen M, Saarikko A. Risk of donor-site lymphatic vessel dysfunction after microvascular lymph node transfer. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2015;68: 551–558. 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.11.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Avraham T, Clavin NW, Daluvoy S V., Fernandez J, Soares MA, Cordeiro AP, et al. Fibrosis is a key inhibitor of lymphatic regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124: 438–450. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181adcf4b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Gardenier JC, Kataru RP, Hespe GE, Savetsky IL, Torrisi JS, Nores GDG, et al. Topical tacrolimus for the treatment of secondary lymphedema. Nat Commun. 2017;8 10.1038/ncomms14345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Uzarski J, Drelles MB, Gibbs SE, Ongstad EL, Goral JC, McKeown KK, et al. The resolution of lymphedema by interstitial flow in the mouse tail skin. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2008;294: H1326–34. 10.1152/ajpheart.00900.2007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zampell JC, Aschen S, Weitman ES, Yan A, Elhadad S, De Brot M, et al. Regulation of Adipogenesis by Lymphatic Fluid Stasis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129: 825–834. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182450b2d [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.García Nores GD, Ly CL, Cuzzone DA, Kataru RP, Hespe GE, Torrisi JS, et al. CD4+ T cells are activated in regional lymph nodes and migrate to skin to initiate lymphedema. Nat Commun. 2018;9 10.1038/s41467-018-04418-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Staszyk C, Bohnet W, Gasse H, Hackbarth H. Blood vessels of the rat tail: A histological re-examination with respect to blood vessel puncture methods. Lab Anim. 2003;37: 121–125. 10.1258/00236770360563750 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Frueh FS, Gousopoulos E, Rezaeian F, Menger MD, Lindenblatt N, Giovanoli P. Animal models in surgical lymphedema research-a systematic review. J Surg Res. 2016;200: 208–20. 10.1016/j.jss.2015.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hirche C, Dresel S, Krempien R, Hünerbein M. Sentinel node biopsy by indocyanine green retention fluorescence detection for inguinal lymph node staging of anal cancer: preliminary experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17: 2357–62. 10.1245/s10434-010-1010-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hirche C, Mohr Z, Kneif S, Murawa D, Hünerbein M. High rate of solitary sentinel node metastases identification by fluorescence-guided lymphatic imaging in breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105: 162–6. 10.1002/jso.22075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Triacca V, Pisano M, Lessert C, Petit B, Bouzourene K, Nahimana A, et al. Experimental Drainage Device to Reduce Lymphoedema in a Rat Model. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;57: 859–867. 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.04.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Swartz MA, Kaipainen A, Netti PA, Brekken C, Boucher Y, J. Grodzinsky A, et al. Mechanics of interstitial-lymphatic fluid transport: Theoretical foundation and experimental validation. J Biomech. 1999;32: 1297–1307. 10.1016/s0021-9290(99)00125-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Weiler MJ, Cribb MT, Nepiyushchikh Z, Nelson TS, Dixon JB. A novel mouse tail lymphedema model for observing lymphatic pump failure during lymphedema development. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 10405 10.1038/s41598-019-46797-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gousopoulos E, Proulx ST, Scholl J, Uecker M, Detmar M. Prominent Lymphatic Vessel Hyperplasia with Progressive Dysfunction and Distinct Immune Cell Infiltration in Lymphedema. Am J Pathol. 2016;186: 2193–2203. 10.1016/j.ajpath.2016.04.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zampell JC, Elhadad S, Avraham T, Weitman E, Aschen S, Yan A, et al. Toll-like receptor deficiency worsens inflammation and lymphedema after lymphatic injury. Am J Physiol—Cell Physiol. 2012;302 10.1152/ajpcell.00284.2011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rutkowski JM, Moya M, Johannes J, Goldman J, Swartz MA. Secondary lymphedema in the mouse tail: Lymphatic hyperplasia, VEGF-C upregulation, and the protective role of MMP-9. Microvasc Res. 2006;72: 161–71. 10.1016/j.mvr.2006.05.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Savetsky IL, Torrisi JS, Cuzzone DA, Ghanta S, Albano NJ, Gardenier JC, et al. Obesity increases inflammation and impairs lymphatic function in a mouse model of lymphedema. Am J Physiol—Hear Circ Physiol. 2014;307: H165–72. 10.1152/ajpheart.00244.2014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kimura T, Sugaya M, Blauvelt A, Okochi H, Sato S. Delayed wound healing due to increased interleukin-10 expression in mice with lymphatic dysfunction. J Leukoc Biol. 2013;94: 137–45. 10.1189/jlb.0812408 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Di S, Ziyou Y, Liu NF. Pathological Changes of Lymphedematous Skin: Increased Mast Cells, Related Proteases, and Activated Transforming Growth Factor-β1. Lymphat Res Biol. 2016;14: 162–171. 10.1089/lrb.2016.0010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Clavin NW, Avraham T, Fernandez J, Daluvoy S V, Soares M a, Chaudhry A, et al. TGF-beta1 is a negative regulator of lymphatic regeneration during wound repair. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2008;295: H2113–H2127. 10.1152/ajpheart.00879.2008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ghanta S, Cuzzone DA, Torrisi JS, Albano NJ, Joseph WJ, Savetsky IL, et al. Regulation of Inflammation and Fibrosis by Macrophages in Lymphedema. Am J Physiol—Hear Circ Physiol. 2015; ajpheart.00598.2014 10.1152/ajpheart.00598.2014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ito R, Suami H. Overview of Lymph Node Transfer for Lymphedema Treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134: 548–556. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kanter M. An Experimental Model for Chronic Lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Disipio T, Rye S, Newman B, Hayes S. Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14: 500–515. 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70076-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sengupta P. The Laboratory Rat: Relating Its Age With Human’s. Int J Prev Med. 2013;4: 624–30. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Yamamoto T, Matsuda N, Doi K, Oshima A, Yoshimatsu H, Todokoro T, et al. The Earliest Finding of Indocyanine Green Lymphography in Asymptomatic Limbs of Lower Extremity Lymphedema Patients Secondary to Cancer Treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128: 314e–321e. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182268da8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Vogel B, Siebert H, Hofmann U, Frantz S. Determination of collagen content within picrosirius red stained paraffin-embedded tissue sections using fluorescence microscopy. MethodsX. 2015;2: 124–134. 10.1016/j.mex.2015.02.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Yoon Y-S, Murayama T, Gravereaux E, Tkebuchava T, Silver M, Curry C, et al. VEGF-C gene therapy augments postnatal lymphangiogenesis and ameliorates secondary lymphedema. J Clin Invest. 2003;111: 717–25. 10.1172/JCI15830 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ly CL, Nores GDG, Kataru RP, Mehrara BJ. T helper 2 differentiation is necessary for development of lymphedema. Transl Res. 2019;206: 57–70. 10.1016/j.trsl.2018.12.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Mishima T, Ito Y, Nishizawa N, Amano H, Tsujikawa K, Miyaji K, et al. RAMP1 signaling improves lymphedema and promotes lymphangiogenesis in mice. J Surg Res. 2017;219: 50–60. 10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Shah C, Wilkinson J Ben, Baschnagel A, Ghilezan M, Riutta J, Dekhne N, et al. Factors Associated With the Development of Breast Cancer e Related Lymphedema After Whole-Breast Irradiation. Radiat Oncol Biol. 2012;83: 1095–1100. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.09.058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Yang C-Y, Nguyen DH, Wu C-W, Fang Y-HD, Chao K-T, Patel KM, et al. Developing a Lower Limb Lymphedema Animal Model with Combined Lymphadenectomy and Low-dose Radiation. Plast Reconstr surgery Glob open. 2014;2: e121 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Yamamoto T, Narushima M, Yoshimatsu H, Yamamoto N, Kikuchi K, Todokoro T, et al. Dynamic Indocyanine Green (ICG) Lymphography for Breast Cancer-Related Arm Lymphedema. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;00: 2–5. 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318285875f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sharma A, Schwartz RA. Stewart-Treves syndrome: Pathogenesis and management. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67: 1342–1348. 10.1016/j.jaad.2012.04.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Knopp S, Steinmann P, Hatz C, Keiser J, Utzinger J. Nematode Infections: Filariases. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2012;26: 359–381. 10.1016/j.idc.2012.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Nutman TB. Experimental infection of humans with filariae. Rev Infect Dis. 13: 1018–22. 10.1093/clinids/13.5.1018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kawai Y, Shiomi H, Abe H, Naka S, Kurumi Y, Tani T. Cell transplantation therapy for a rat model of secondary lymphedema. J Surg Res. 2014;189: 184–91. 10.1016/j.jss.2013.11.1116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Moldobaeva A, Jenkins J, Zhong Q, Wagner EM. Lymphangiogenesis in rat asthma model. Angiogenesis. 2017;20: 73–84. 10.1007/s10456-016-9529-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Saito Y, Nakagami H, Morishita R, Takami Y, Kikuchi Y, Hayashi H, et al. Transfection of human hepatocyte growth factor gene ameliorates secondary lymphedema via promotion of lymphangiogenesis. Circulation. 2006;114: 1177–84. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.602953 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Yang G-H, Zhou X, Ji W-J, Liu J-X, Sun J, Dong Y, et al. VEGF-C-mediated cardiac lymphangiogenesis in high salt intake accelerated progression of left ventricular remodeling in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2017;39: 740–747. 10.1080/10641963.2017.1324478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kinashi H, Ito Y, Mizuno M, Suzuki Y, Terabayashi T, Nagura F, et al. TGF- 1 Promotes Lymphangiogenesis during Peritoneal Fibrosis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;24: 1627–1642. 10.1681/ASN.2012030226 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Yazdani S, Poosti F, Kramer AB, Mirković K, Kwakernaak AJ, Hovingh M, et al. Proteinuria Triggers Renal Lymphangiogenesis Prior to the Development of Interstitial Fibrosis. Sen U, editor. PLoS One. 2012;7: e50209 10.1371/journal.pone.0050209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Honkonen KM, Visuri MT, Tervala T V., Halonen PJ, Koivisto M, Lähteenvuo MT, et al. Lymph node transfer and perinodal lymphatic growth factor treatment for lymphedema. Ann Surg. 2013;257: 961–967. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826ed043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Schwager S, Renner S, Hemmerle T, Karaman S, Proulx ST, Fetz R, et al. Antibody-mediated delivery of VEGF-C potently reduces chronic skin inflammation. JCI insight. 2018;3 10.1172/jci.insight.124850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Gousopoulos E, Proulx ST, Bachmann SB, Dieterich LC, Scholl J, Karaman S, et al. An Important Role of VEGF-C in Promoting Lymphedema Development. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137: 1995–2004. 10.1016/j.jid.2017.04.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kattan WM Al, Alarfaj SF, Alnooh BM, Alsaif HF, Alabdul Karim HS, Al-Qattan NM, et al. Myofibroblast-Mediated Contraction. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2017;27: 38–43. doi: 2519 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.van Caam A, Vonk M, van den Hoogen F, van Lent P, van der Kraan P. Unraveling SSc Pathophysiology; The Myofibroblast. Front Immunol. 2018;9: 2452 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02452 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Wang Y-Y, Jiang H, Pan J, Huang X-R, Wang Y-C, Huang H-F, et al. Macrophage-to-Myofibroblast Transition Contributes to Interstitial Fibrosis in Chronic Renal Allograft Injury. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;28: 2053–2067. 10.1681/ASN.2016050573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Turner NA, Porter KE. Function and fate of myofibroblasts after myocardial infarction. Fibrogenesis Tissue Repair. 2013;6: 5 10.1186/1755-1536-6-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Piera-Velazquez S, Li Z, Jimenez SA. Role of endothelial-mesenchymal transition (EndoMT) in the pathogenesis of fibrotic disorders. Am J Pathol. 2011;179: 1074–1080. 10.1016/j.ajpath.2011.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Aghasafari P, George U, Pidaparti R. A review of inflammatory mechanism in airway diseases. Inflamm Res. 2018. 10.1007/s00011-018-1191-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Fabregat I, Caballero-Díaz D. Transforming Growth Factor-β-Induced Cell Plasticity in Liver Fibrosis and Hepatocarcinogenesis. Front Oncol. 2018;8: 357 10.3389/fonc.2018.00357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Tabibiazar R, Cheung L, Han J, Swanson J, Beilhack A, An A, et al. Inflammatory manifestations of experimental lymphatic insufficiency. PLoS Med. 2006;3: 1114–1139. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030254 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Ito S, Nagata K. Roles of the endoplasmic reticulum–resident, collagen-specific molecular chaperone Hsp47 in vertebrate cells and human disease. J Biol Chem. 2018; jbc.TM118.002812. 10.1074/jbc.TM118.002812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Duarte BDP, Bonatto D. The heat shock protein 47 as a potential biomarker and a therapeutic agent in cancer research. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018;144: 2319–2328. 10.1007/s00432-018-2739-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Mori K, Toiyama Y, Otake K, Fujikawa H, Saigusa S, Hiro J, et al. Proteomics analysis of differential protein expression identifies heat shock protein 47 as a predictive marker for lymph node metastasis in patients with colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer. 2017;140: 1425–1435. 10.1002/ijc.30557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Zhu Y, Li Z, Wang Y, Li L, Wang D, Zhang W, et al. Overexpression of miR-29b reduces collagen biosynthesis by inhibiting heat shock protein 47 during skin wound healing. Transl Res. 2016;178: 38–53.e6. 10.1016/j.trsl.2016.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Rizk FH, Sarhan NI, Soliman NA, Ibrahim MAA, Abd-Elsalam M, Abd-Elsalam S. Heat shock protein 47 as indispensible participant in liver fibrosis: Possible protective effect of lactoferrin. IUBMB Life. 2018;70: 795–805. 10.1002/iub.1884 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Yamakawa T, Ohigashi H, Hashimoto D, Hayase E, Takahashi S, Miyazaki M, et al. Vitamin A–coupled liposomes containing siRNA against HSP47 ameliorate skin fibrosis in chronic graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2018;131: 1476–1485. 10.1182/blood-2017-04-779934 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Jiang X, Zhou T, Wang Z, Qi B, Xia H. HSP47 Promotes Glioblastoma Stemlike Cell Survival by Modulating Tumor Microenvironment Extracellular Matrix through TGF-β Pathway. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2017;8: 128–134. 10.1021/acschemneuro.6b00253 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Raffaele Serra

13 Feb 2020

PONE-D-20-00067

Evidence of stage migration in a novel, validated fluorescence-navigated and microsurgical-assisted secondary lymphedema rodent model

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Will,

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 manuscript is potentially interesting. Provided the authors are willing to revise the manuscript according to reviewers' suggestions, we will reconsider it again.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 29 2020 11:59PM. 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,

Prof. Raffaele Serra, M.D., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript is potentially interesting. The authors must provide a new version of the manuscript taking into account the reviewers' comments.

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.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submission requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering. Please also provide details of animal welfare (e.g., shelter, food, water, environmental enrichment) and the frequency with which animals were monitored for signs of suffering or distress.

- In your Methods section, please provide the full name of the animal ethics committee that approved the study protocol, as well as the approval or permit number that was issued upon approval.

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should remain uploaded as separate "supporting information" files

 

[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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: In this paper, the authors describe results from a rat lymphedema model in which lymphatic vessels and nodes are removed and the resulting limb volume changes and changes within the skin are described. The observed pathology (namely fibrosis and adipocyte expansion), the methods for quantifying changes in function with ICG, or the animal model itself are all variations of work reported by others. In the authors attempt to establish the novelty of the findings, many of the claims are grossly overstated and overlook or over-simplify a significant body of literature regarding mechanisms of lymphedema development in animal models. In addition, the manuscript is missing the appropriate statistical analysis to draw conclusions. The authors need to clearly focus on the limitations that this model addresses, the novelty of the findings themselves, and the value the model adds to the field. Specifics of these are as follows:

1) Lipid accumulation and fibrosis by collagen deposition in the skin, while certainly necessary components of pathology in lymphedema models, has been reported in many other animal models (some of which have been cited) and some which are missing: (Swartz, J Biomech, 1999; Mendez, AJP, 2012; Savetsky, AJP, 2014). The authors claim “Moreover, for the first-time SL stage migration was validated by characteristic histological alterations, e.g. subdermal mast cell infiltration, adipose tissue deposition, and fibrosis by increased skin collagen expression.” While the term stage migration is not used in the non-clinical lymphedema literature (including reference 12 which the authors cite on line 54 to establish the term), many of the papers by the research groups of Melody Swartz, Babak Mehrara, Jeremy Goldman, Brandon Dixon, Michael Detmar, Stan Rockson, etc.. report events that describe the key features of this process in animal models. It is an overstatement to suggest the observations in this model have not been made before. Another example “Stage migration is a key feature of the disease but, upon now, it has never been reported in an animal model as a consistent process.” (line 87). In their effort to oversell the model, the importance of the novelty of the model and what it could be used for is lost.

2) In addition, animal models of lymphedema have been crucial in understanding many of the molecular mechanisms important in lymphedema development, a few of which have been cited but many which are missing: (Nores, Nat Comm, 2018; Nores, J Inv Det, 2017; Tian, Sci Trans Med, 2017; Ogata, J Inv Det, 2016; Gousopoulos, J Inv Det, 2017) which have also provided therapeutic targets that have been effective in the animal models, albeit their clinical effectiveness remains to be established (Gardenier, Nat Comm, 2017; Tian, Sci Trans Med, 2017; Honkonen, Ann Surg, 2013). The paper here provides no new mechanistic insight or evidence that the model can address the shortcomings of these other models in yielding new mechanistic insight and statements like “and the molecular key players of stage migration have not been yet identified” (line 63) are incorrect and give the impression that the authors are unaware of the work in the field that sets the context for their animal model.

3) NIR imaging has been used both to access lymphatic function in lymphedema models (Gousopoulos, Am J Path, 2016; Kwon, PLoS One, 2014; Nores, Nat Comm, 2018) and to guide lymphatic injury in creating animal models of lymphedema (Weiler, Sci Rep, 2019). The authors claim on line 79 “… yet it has not been applied so far for in-vivo studies” is incorrect.

4) The statement in the abstract “In contrast to the few models reported so far, in this study the authors decidedly avoided the use of radiation for the lymphedema induction” is a significant overstatement and generalization of the lymphedema literature given all of the same papers mentioned above. In addition, many animal models of lymphedema have been created without radiation (above papers), and have shown to be made more severe with radiation (Lynch, AJP, 2015; Avraham, AJP, 2010).

5) In the statistical analysis section the authors state that they used used a one-way ANOVA. While this tells you that the means are different, it does not make any claims as to which means are different from one another. Also it is not clear from the figures, when any of these tests were actually applied and what the results of the test are. If making multiple comparisons (as should be done in Fig 2, 3, and 5) a a post-hoc correction must be applied. The same is true for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Furthermore, since the appropriate statistical test is often different for each figure, the test used to determine significance for each figure should be clearly stated.

6) The figures are very poor resolution and some of the labels and fonts are difficult to read.

7) Measuring fluorescence at a single time point to quantify lymphatic function could produce erroneous results as the clearance of tracer by lymphatics has been shown to be exponential (Karlsen, AJP, 2012; Karlsen, ATCB, 2018). In addition, repeat injections of ICG has been shown to be problematic in inducing an inflammatory response (Weiler, Front Phys, 2013) additionally raw ICG fluorescence is highly dependent on protein binding (Weiler, J Biom Opt, 2012) and thus differences in fluorescent intensity (Fig 3) are difficult to interpret.

8) The water displacement technique seems like it could be highly subjective to error as the method drastically depends on how far one submerges the limb into the container. The authors have done their best to control for this but it would be helpful to have a few measurements of intraoperator and interoperator variability of a few blinded users to get a better appreciation of how accurate and repeatable the measurement is.

9) Normalizing the life span of a rat and a human to equate the temporal kinetics of lymphedema development (i.e. that 1 year equals 11.8 days) is not appropriate. The remodeling of tissue depends on the turnover rates of matrix constituents, the proliferation rates of cells, etc… and these do not scale linearly with life span. In addition the statement that “nearly all reported incidences of SL were reported in the first 3 years” is not correct. While most large clinical studies have stopped tracking patients after 36 months, those that have followed patients further out continue to observe new occurrences of lymphedema long after 36 months (Armer, Lymphology, 2010; Petrek, Cancer, 2001).

10) One of the papers’ points is that the tail model damages more than just the lymphatics and thus is not clinically equivalent to human lymphedema. Given that a large amount of our understanding of the molecular mechanism’s involved in lymphedema are from the mouse tail model, there would be value in alternative models that overcome its limitations in order to understand new biology. However, it appears that all of the results in the pathology in this surgical model in the rat are identical to what has been shown in the mouse tail – lipid accumulation, mast cell infiltration, fibrosis and collagen deposition, impaired ICG clearance, etc… It would be helpful if the authors could emphasize the data in this model that produces unique results over models whose limitation it is seeking to overcome.

**********

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

[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 Jul 23;15(7):e0235965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235965.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Mar 2020

A detailed response to all the reviewers comments and concerns is provided in an attached file named "response to reviewers_plosOne". We are thankful for the very helpful literature suggestions and proposed corrections, provided by the reviewers.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_Plos One.docx

Decision Letter 1

Raffaele Serra

7 May 2020

PONE-D-20-00067R1

Evidence of stage migration in a novel, validated fluorescence-navigated and microsurgical-assisted secondary lymphedema rodent model

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Will,

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 manuscript was improved but there are still some concerns to be addressed by reviewer #1. Please amend your manuscript accordingly.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 21 2020 11:59PM. 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,

Prof. Raffaele Serra, M.D., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript was improved but there are still some major revisions that need to be made. Please see reviewers' comments.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: No

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: No

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: In this revised manuscript the authors have made some strong improvements including a detailed statistical methods section with the appropriate statistics applied and a broader inclusion of the relevant scientific literature to the into and discussion. There still are some major revisions that need to be made, some of which were brought up in the previous review and were not adequately addressed.

Major comments

1. I do not think it can be determined what exactly is being measured with the NIR imaging approach the way it was conducted here. As mentioned previously, when ICG is injected it binds to protein and there is a shift in the excitation and emission spectra and a gain in the quantum yield which has been shown to result in an increase in fluorescence of up to 500%. I would hypothesize that the total fluorescence intensity of an image in one of the operated rats taken at 1 hour after injection would be extremely brighter than an image taken immediately after injection. This is because the dye binds to protein before it is cleared by lymphatics, the intensity goes way up, and then the brighter ICG carried away where it leaks out further downstream. There was a lot of work done here and I am not asking that the NIR clearance studies be redone. However I do not think you can make definitive statements about these measurements relating quantitively to the clearance capacity of the lymphatics.

2. It is still not clear how the NIR images were quantified to produce the plots from the description in the methods: “Furthermore, the ICG fluorescence signal at one-hour post application of the gated extremities were gathered as counts per second (cps) by the VIS-NIR X-ray imaging optical device.” Usually in the context of fluorescence the term gating refers to setting a threshold for the intensity, below which the signal is considered 0. I think what the authors mean here is that they selected a ROI to include just the extremities and then calculated the fluorescence here. The authors also mentioned they validated the technique by imaging continuously for 1 hour in unoperated rats. I think this data would be helpful to include to provide a sense of how much dye is actually being cleared during this 1 hour time period. The statement that it is almost all gone contradicts several published reports that ICG can stick around for days at the site of injection.

3. In addition to a new approach to generating a lymphedema model in the rat, the primary new finding of the manuscript is the presence of this aSMA+/Vimentin+/HSP+ cell type that is present in the skin at later stages. It would add tremendous value to this data if the authors could figure out a way to better capture this rich data set across the different time points and locations, similar as to what was done for Figure 5 for collagen. Could the number of aSMA+/Vimentin+/HSP cells be counted to show their increase over disease progression? Is this localized primarily to the location of the initial lymphatic injury or is it seen in the distal end of the injured limb?

4. The manuscript would be greatly enhanced by a figure that summarizes the kinetics of the pathological changes in this animal model. A primary strength of the model is the thoroughness with which the authors looked at lymphatic physiology, collagen, lipid, mast cells, and myofibroblasts at all of these different time-points in both the injured limb and the contralateral control. For the histology, this was done in three different zones as well

Minor comments

1. I recommend replacing the phrase “stage migration” with the more descriptive phrase “lymphedema stage progression”. The term “stage migration” has never been used in the lymphedema literature and it is not immediately obvious what exactly this term means. I assume that the authors are using this to refer to the advancement of the pathology through the various clinical lymphedema stages according to the classification stages used by the ISL. While they do define more clearly what they mean by the term on p.9, the term appear in the title, the abstract, and in numerous locations in the early pages of the paper before the reader is told what the term means.

2. “Unreliable in vivo generation of SL” (p. 3), while listed as a weakness by the authors of current models, could just as easily be considered a strength. The authors heavily emphasize the “translatability” of their model as it relates to human lymphedema. Wouldn’t the more translatable model be one were lymphedema incidence is not 100%, as it is nowhere close to this rate in the clinical surgeries associated with lymphedema incidence.

3. In the abstract I suggest replacing the phrase “translatable tool” with “clinically relevant model” as an model is not translatable in the general use of the work, which is typically reserved for therapies, technologies, etc.. that could be used in the clinic.

4. Remove the term “solid” from the subtitle at the top of page 13 as this adjective is vague in this context and does not add meaning.

5. Statistical markings (e.g. * and **) need to be directly on the figures so that the reader can directly determine which comparisons are significant and what the p value range is.

6. I think it is an overgeneralization to state there is a lack of surgical refinement and intraoperative mapping inherent to the rodent tail (p. 18). While I am sure there is a large variation across the different groups that have used this technique, collecting lymphatics can be easily visualized with methylene blue injection and carefully injured in a manner that avoids unspecific venous insufficiency (for example see the methods section describing the method in Tabibiazaret et al., PLoS Medicine, 2006).

7. Intro, page 3: Identification of lymphatics with dyes such as methylene blue and evan’s blue suffer the same limitations in regard to their lymphatic specificity as does ICG. When injected in small doses into the skin, they have a very high affinity to albumin, which they bind to and are then drained by lymphatics due to the molecular weight of albumin excluding their uptake by the circulation. ICG certainly enhances visualization of lymphatics if one has the appropriate optics, but a trained researcher can easily identify and remove lymphatics with blue dye labeling as well.

8. The next revision need to be carefully read for grammar as there are numerous mistakes throughout the manuscript.

9. This was mentioned in the last revision, but NIR imaging has been used to identify lymphatics and guide surgical injury in animal models in other publications: Weiler, Sci Rep, 2019 and Nelson, Nature Biom Eng, 2019. There is still a statement in the manuscript that NIR has nor been used to “guide a precise lymphatic injury for in vivo studies” (p.3) that is not accurate.

10. The authors need to replace references to rat tail in the manuscript with mouse tail as almost all lymphedema models in the tail have been done in mice. There are no good rat tail models of lymphedema due to the large amount of cartilage (as mentioned by the author), however this is not true of the mouse tail and the histological changes in the mouse tail are remarkably similar to the human and to those reported in the paper here.

11. I suggest the authors downplay how translational their model is. As mentioned before every animal undergoing surgery swells above a “lymphedema threshold”, the appearance of lymphedema occurs on the first day after surgery, and every animal’s swelling appears to be resolving on its own without any intervention. None of these three features are common in clinical lymphedema. This model is definitely valuable, but it seems to suffer the most crucial limitations of all current rodent models of lymphedema.

Reviewer #2: The authors have satisfactorily addressed the comments by the previous reviewers

**********

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

[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 Jul 23;15(7):e0235965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235965.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Jun 2020

Please see the specific comments for Reviewer#1 and Reviewer#2 in the uploaded "Response to reviewer II" as well as the previous rebuttal letter.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers II.docx

Decision Letter 2

Raffaele Serra

26 Jun 2020

Evidence of stage progression in a novel, validated fluorescence-navigated and microsurgical-assisted secondary lymphedema rodent model

PONE-D-20-00067R2

Dear Dr. Will,

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,

Prof. Raffaele Serra, M.D., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

amended manuscript is acceptable

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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)

**********

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

Acceptance letter

Raffaele Serra

8 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-00067R2

Evidence of stage progression in a novel, validated fluorescence-navigated and microsurgical-assisted secondary lymphedema rodent model

Dear Dr. Will:

I'm 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 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 plosone@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. Raffaele Serra

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Near-infrared images of the lymphatic clearance capacity in healthy rat limbs after subcutaneous application of ICG.

    During preoperative mapping of the lymphatic system of the rat hind limbs and the intraoperative real-time navigation, an early appearance (2 min) of ICG contrast in the lymphatics was noticed by NIR visualization with the Fluobeam® camera. A clear contrast of the lymphatics of healthy limbs was detected with NIR visualization until 1 h after injection. By then most of the ICG was cleared from the limbs. However, at the subcutaneous injection sites, the ICG signal remained almost unaltered. This is probably to be related to the local binding of ICG molecules to tissue proteins. For further analysis, the injection sites were therefore not included in the region of interest (ROI).

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_Plos One.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers II.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES