Content uploaded by Michael S. Pepper
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael S. Pepper
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Journal of Cell Biology
JCB
The Rockefeller University Press, 0021-9525/2003/10/209/5 $8.00
The Journal of Cell Biology,
Volume 163, Number 2, October 27, 2003 209–213
http://www.jcb.org/cgi/doi/10.1083/jcb.200308082
209
Mini-Review
Lymphatic endothelium: morphological, molecular
and functional properties
Michael S. Pepper
1
and Mihaela Skobe
2
1
Department of Morphology, University Medical Center, 1206 Geneva, Switzerland
2
Derald H. Ruttenberg Cancer Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029
The lymphatic microvasculature is uniquely adapted for
the continuous removal of interstitial fluid and proteins,
and is an important point of entry for leukocytes and
tumor cells. The traditional view that lymphatic capillaries
are passive participants in these tasks is currently being
challenged. This overview highlights recent advances in
our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying
the formation and function of lymphatic vessels.
Introduction
The lymphatic system complements functions of the blood
vascular system by regulating tissue fluid balance, facilitating
interstitial protein transport, and serving immunological
functions. Fluid and macromolecules that exit blood capillaries
are collected from the interstitial space by lymphatic capillaries
and returned back to the blood circulation through the
network of larger lymphatics. Lymphatics are also responsible
for absorption of fat from the gut. By directing leukocytes
and antigens from tissues to lymph nodes, lymphatic vessels
play an essential role in initiating the immune response.
Although the lymphatic and blood vascular systems rely on
each other for the maintenance of tissue homeostasis, they
are structurally and functionally distinct entities.
Whereas the main function of large lymphatics is efficient
transport of lymph back into the blood circulation, the
lymphatic microvasculature is responsible for the uptake of
components from the interstitium. Given their central role
in regulating interstitial fluid pressure and cell trafficking,
it is surprising that lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs) have
until recently been poorly characterized, at least from a
molecular point of view. This scenario is changing rapidly
following the development of techniques for the isolation
of pure LECs and the characterization of their molecular
properties.
Structure–function relationships of the lymphatic capillary
Lymphatic capillaries are blind-ending vessels, comprised of a
single, nonfenestrated endothelial cell layer, that is optimally
adapted for the uptake of fluid, macromolecules, and cells.
Although LECs have many properties in common with the
endothelium of blood vessels, they also have very distinct
structural features that have been best characterized at the ul-
trustructural level. Lymphatic capillaries generally possess a
more irregular and wider lumen than blood capillaries, and
their endothelium is extremely attenuated. In contrast to
blood vessels, lymphatic capillaries have an incomplete base-
ment membrane and are not invested by pericytes. They
are generally observed in a partially or fully collapsed
state (Schmid-Schönbein, 1990a; Aukland and Reed, 1993).
Unique to lymphatic capillaries are also overlapping intercellular
junctions that are formed by the extensive superimposition of
adjacent LECs. An increase in interstitial fluid pressure causes
these junctions to open, thereby permitting the easy passage of
fluid and particles into the vessel. As fluid enters the lumen,
pressure differences across the vessel wall decrease and the
junctions begin to close, preventing retrograde flow back into
the interstitium (Fig. 1) (Schmid-Schönbein, 1990b; Ikomi
and Schmid-Schönbein, 1996). Lymphatic capillary function
is critically dependent on its connections with the ECM.
LECs are attached to interstitial collagen by anchoring fila-
ments, composed of elastic fibers (Leak and Burke, 1966;
Gerli et al., 1990), which preserve functionality of lymphatics
when interstitial pressure rises by preventing vessel collapse.
The composition and organization of the ECM are thus also
likely to play a critical role in lymphangiogenesis.
Molecular regulation of lymphatic vessel formation
and differentiation
During development and wound healing, angiogenesis generally
preceeds lymphangiogenesis, implying the existence of
distinct yet spatially and temporally coordinated regulatory
mechanisms. Two members of the VEGF family, VEGF-C
and VEGF-D, have been demonstrated to play a critical role
in lymphangiogenesis via activation of VEGFR-3, which is
expressed mainly by LECs in normal adult tissues (Joukov et
al., 1996; Lee et al., 1996; Achen et al., 1998). VEGFR-3
Address correspondence to Mihaela Skobe, Derald H. Ruttenberg Cancer
Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave L. Levy Place,
Box 1130, New York, NY 10029. Tel.: (212) 659-5570. Fax: (212) 987-
2240. email: mihaela.skobe@mssm.edu
Abbreviations used in this paper: BEC, blood endothelial cell; CCL, che-
mokine ligand; CCR, chemokine receptor; CLEVER-1, common lym-
phatic endothelial and vascular endothelial receptor-1; LEC, lymphatic
endothelial cell; MR, mannose receptor; VEGF, vascular endothelial
growth factor.
The Journal of Cell Biology
210 The Journal of Cell Biology
|
Volume 163, Number 2, 2003
signaling is important for development of the embryonic
lymphatic system, lymphatic regeneration in the adult, and
tumor lymphangiogenesis (Alitalo and Carmeliet, 2002).
VEGF-C and VEGF-D, when fully proteolytically pro-
cessed, can also activate VEGFR-2 (Joukov et al., 1997),
but whether VEGFR-2 plays a direct role in lymphangio-
genesis is less clear.
VEGF-C also binds to a nonkinase receptor neuropilin-2
(NRP2) (Karkkainen et al., 2001), a classic receptor for class
III semaphorins, which regulate chemorepulsive guidance of
developing axons. Recent studies in NRP2-deficient mice
demonstrated impeded development of lymphatic capillaries
in most tissues, suggesting a role for NRP2 in LEC prolifer-
ation and, perhaps, guidance. NRP2 may cooperate with
VEGFR-3 to mediate VEGF-C–dependent lymphangiogen-
esis (Yuan et al., 2002).
Finally, Ang2 is expressed by LECs (Petrova et al., 2002;
Podgrabinska et al., 2002) and is required for the proper de-
velopment of the lymphatic system (Gale et al., 2002). Mice
deficient in Ang2 displayed disorganization and hypoplasia
of lymphatic capillaries, and collecting lymphatic vessels
were not properly invested by smooth muscle. As a result,
Ang2 knockout mice developed severe lymphedema. Inter-
estingly, the lymphatic phenotype caused by Ang2 defi-
ciency was rescued by Ang1, suggesting redundant roles for
these molecules in lymphatic development.
The homeobox transcription factor Prox-1 appears to be re-
quired for the commitment of endothelial cells to the lym-
phatic differentiation program (Wigle and Oliver, 1999;
Wigle et al., 2002). Prox-1 expression in embryos localizes to
a subpopulation of endothelial cells in embryonic veins, which
are commited to the lymphatic pathway. Functional inactiva-
tion of Prox-1 in mice results in the arrest of lymphatic vessel
development. In adult tissues, Prox-1 is expressed exclusively
by LECs, and overexpression of Prox-1 in blood endothelial
cells
(
BECs) down-regulated BEC-specific transcripts and up-
regulated LEC-specific transcripts, thus conferring the lym-
phatic endothelial phenotype on these cells (Hong et al.,
2002; Petrova et al., 2002). Most recent evidence suggested
that the adaptor protein SLP76 and the tyrosine kinase syk,
which are expressed primarily in hematopoietic cells, may also
contribute to the anatomical separation of the blood and lym-
phatic vasculature (Abtahian et al., 2003).
Isolation and molecular characterization of LECs
Many attempts have been made in the past to isolate and
culture LECs from a variety of species (Pepper, 2001). All of
these studies have described isolation of the cells from large
lymphatic vessels and have employed crude mechanical
methods of cell separation. Since large lymphatics are sup-
plied by a rich network of nutritive blood vessels, the purity
of the isolated cell populations has remained in question.
Figure 1. Characteristic structure and function
of the lymphatic microvasculature. The lymphatic
capillary is uniquely adapted for the uptake of fluid,
lipids, macromolecules, and cells from the intersti-
tium. In contrast to the blood capillary, the lymphatic
capillary has poorly developed basal lamina (BM)
and is devoid of pericytes (P). Lymphatic endothelium
is highly attenuated, and cells are connected directly
to the interstitial collagen via anchoring filaments
(AF). T, T cell; D, dendritic cell; APC, antigen
presenting cell.
The Journal of Cell Biology
Lymphatic endothelium |
Pepper and Skobe 211
Furthermore, given the heterogeneity of endothelial cells
from different vascular beds, large vessel endothelial cells are
likely to be inappropriate for the study of lymphatic capil-
lary structure–function relationships. The identification of
cell surface markers that reliably distinguish lymphatic endo-
thelium from blood vascular endothelium (Sleeman et al.,
2001) has led to the development of superior techniques for
the isolation of pure lymphatic and blood vascular endothe-
lial cells. LECs have been isolated by positive selection using
antibodies to podoplanin (Kriehuber et al., 2001), VEGFR-3
(Makinen et al., 2001), or LYVE-1 (Podgrabinska et al.,
2002), and by a negative selection with antibodies to CD34
(Hirakawa et al., 2003).
The above studies demonstrated that LECs and BECs re-
tain their differentiated phenotypes in culture. LECs were
distinguished by their homotypic association, selective re-
sponsiveness to VEGF-C in terms of growth, survival and
morphogenesis, differential ECM requirements, and the dis-
tinct gene expression profile. LECs established by the differ-
ent methods, however, exhibited certain differences in gene
expression that may be attributed to the different source of
tissues employed, i.e., adult versus neonatal skin. Alterna-
tively, the different isolation strategies may select for specific
subpopulations of LECs. LECs isolated using VEGFR-3
antibodies may be partly contaminated with BECs, since
VEGFR-3 can also be expressed by the blood vascular endo-
thelium (Partanen et al., 1999). Finally, isolated LECs were
propagated under different conditions, which may further
account for the variations in phenotype. It remains to be de-
termined which purification strategy and culture conditions
allow for optimal preservation of the lymphatic endothelial
phenotype in vitro.
The availability of microvascular LECs now permits anal-
yses of their molecular and functional characteristics. The
molecular signature of LECs appears to reflect their unique
functional characteristics and provides novel insight into the
molecular basis of lymphatic function (Petrova et al., 2002;
Podgrabinska et al., 2002; Hirakawa et al., 2003). For exam-
ple, LECs express remarkably high levels of genes implicated
in protein metabolism, sorting and trafficking (Podgrabin-
ska et al., 2002). Genes with particularly high representation
were those encoding proteins that control specificity of vesi-
cle targeting and fusion, such as members of the SNARE
family, rab GTPases, AAA ATPases, and sec-related proteins
(Mellman and Warren, 2000), indicating the existence of a
robust vesicular transport system. The lymphatic endothe-
lium is characterized by an abundance of membrane invagi-
nations and cytoplasmic vesicles (Leak, 1972, 1976), yet
their functional significance has not been established. Inter-
cellular clefts are considered to be a major pathway for the
movement of fluid and proteins into lymphatics (Schmid-
Schönbein, 1990b). However, some early studies also dem-
onstrated the presence of interstitially injected molecular
tracers within intracellular vesicles of LECs (Leak, 1972,
1976). In agreement with these findings, the results of the
gene profiling studies suggest that, in addition to intercellu-
lar transport, transendothelial pathways may also be used
as a mechanism for entry of molecules into lymphatics
(Podgrabinska et al., 2002). This raises the intriguing possi-
bility that lymphatics may have the capacity to selectively re-
move molecules from the interstitium and thereby actively
control the composition of lymph and interstitial fluid.
Role of lymphatic vessels in tumor dissemination
The importance of the lymphatic system as a pathway for
metastasis has been well recognized. Metastasis of most can-
cers occurs initially through the lymphatics and the extent of
lymph node involvement is one of the most important prog-
nostic indicators of patient outcome. Traditionally, the lym-
phatic system has not been considered to be actively in-
volved in the process of metastasis. Tumor cells are believed
to be passively carried into the lymphatic vessels with the in-
terstitial fluid and proteins (Hartveit, 1990), and the prevail-
ing view has been that lymphangiogenesis is not a part of tu-
morigenesis (Carmeliet and Jain, 2000; Leu et al., 2000;
Padera et al., 2002).
Recent studies, however, have demonstrated enlarged lym-
phatic vessels and lymphangiogenesis in peritumoral areas of
several human tumors using lymphatic endothelial markers
(Stacker et al., 2002; Pepper et al., 2003). The number of tu-
mor-associated lymphatics has been correlated with lymph
node metastases, yet intratumoral lymphatics have so far
been observed only in human head and neck cancers and in
melanoma. The relative importance of preexisting versus
newly-formed lymphatic vessels to lymphogenous metastasis
is not understood. Although preexisting peritumoral lym-
phatics are likely to be sufficient for tumor spread, recruit-
ment of lymphatic vessels into the close proximity of a tumor
may increase the propensity of tumors to metastasize. In-
creased lymphatic vessel density and/or presence of intratu-
moral lymphatics should therefore be regarded as an addi-
tional pathway rather than a necessity for metastasis.
Notably, a large number of studies demonstrated a strik-
ing correlation between the VEGF-C expression in human
tumors and lymph node metastases (Stacker et al., 2002;
Pepper et al., 2003). Moreover, recent experimental studies
using VEGF-C–overexpressing tumor cells have provided
direct evidence for the causal role of VEGF-C in tumor lym-
phangiogenesis and lymphogenous metastasis (Mandriota et
al., 2001; Skobe et al., 2001). Although an increase in lym-
phatic vessel density may promote tumor spread simply by
creating more opportunities for metastatic tumor cells to
leave the primary tumor site, lymphatic vessels may also play
a more active role in metastasis. For example, soluble factors
constitutively expressed by LECs may facilitate tumor cell
invasion of lymphatic vessels. Activation of LECs by VEGF-C
or other factors produced by a tumor could promote release
of chemokines, which may attract tumor cells into the lym-
phatics. As the migration of cancer cells to regional lymph
nodes resembles physiological migration of leukocytes, it is
conceivable that the chemokine-mediated normal mecha-
nisms of lymphocyte homing may also be used for metastatic
dissemination.
Thus far, the importance of two chemokine receptors
(CCRs) in lymph node metastasis has been established:
CXCR4 and CCR7. CXCR4 was found to be up-regulated
in malignant melanoma and in breast cancer, whereas its
ligand CXCL12 is highly expressed in lymph nodes and
other target organs for breast cancer metastasis. A neutraliz-
ing antibody to CXCR4 inhibited metastases to lymph
The Journal of Cell Biology
212 The Journal of Cell Biology
|
Volume 163, Number 2, 2003
nodes and other organs, demonstrating a critical role for this
chemokine/receptor system in mediating tumor cell homing
(Muller et al., 2001). CCR7 and its ligands chemokines
CCL19 and CCL21 are of crucial importance for the migra-
tion of lymphocytes and dendritic cells to lymph nodes.
CCR7 was also found to be highly expressed by human ma-
lignant melanoma and breast cancer cells (Muller et al.,
2001), and its expression has been associated with lymph
node metastasis in gastric cancer (Mashino et al., 2002) and
in nonsmall cell lung cancer (Takanami, 2003). Overexpres-
sion of CCR7 in a mouse model of melanoma enhanced me-
tastases to lymph nodes, which could be blocked by neutral-
izing its ligand CCL21 (Wiley et al., 2001). CCL21 and
several other chemokines are constitutively expressed by
LECs (Kriehuber et al., 2001; Makinen et al., 2001; Podgra-
binska et al., 2002), suggesting an active role for LECs in
governing cell migration in normal physiology and in can-
cer. However, a direct role for lymphatic endothelium in the
process still remains to be demonstrated.
Mechanisms mediating tumor cell transmigration across
the lymphatic endothelium into this lymphatic vessels also
remain obscure. The prevailing view has been that tumor
cells passively enter lymphatics between intercellular junc-
tions. Based on the differences in their structure, it has been
assumed that the entry of cells into lymphatics is easier than
into blood vessels. An alternative novel hypothesis is that tu-
mor cell entry requires adhesive interactions with LECs.
There is no direct experimental evidence in support of either
concept.
Thus far, very few cell adhesion molecules expressed by
LECs have been identified. Several genes encoding proteins
that constitute adherens junctions, such as desmoplakin,
plakoglobin, plakophillin 2, H-cadherin, and zona occlu-
dens 2, were identified in LECs by gene profiling (Petrova
et al., 2002; Podgrabinska et al., 2002). Another junctional
adhesion molecule belonging to the immunoglobulin su-
perfamily, JAM-2, was found to be expressed in tight
junctions of lymphatic vessels and was shown to facilitate
lymphocyte transmigration (Aurrand-Lions et al., 2001; John-
son-Leger et al., 2002). The nature of the lymphatic endo-
thelial junctions may indeed facilitate cell entry and the
identification of adhesion molecules typical for lymphatic
endothelium may be particularly important for the under-
standing of leukocyte trafficking and tumor metastasis via
lymphatics.
In this regard, macrophage mannose receptor (MR) I ex-
pressed by LECs has been shown to mediate adhesion of
lymphocytes to lymphatics in lymph nodes (Irjala et al.,
2001). MR on LECs supports lymphocyte binding to lym-
phatic vessels in an L-selectin–dependent fashion, and this
interaction has been suggested to control lymphocyte exit
from the lymph nodes. MR was also found to be selectively
expressed by cultured LECs (Petrova et al., 2002; Podgra-
binska et al., 2002), and its presence on afferent lymphatics
suggests its possible involvement also in lymphocyte exit
from peripheral tissues. Common lymphatic endothelial and
vascular endothelial receptor-1 (CLEVER-1) is another re-
cently identified adhesion molecule implicated in binding of
lymphocytes to LECs in lymph nodes (Irjala et al., 2003b).
Because CLEVER-1 is an inducible vascular adhesion mole-
cule, it has been suggested to regulate migration of leuko-
cytes to sites of inflammation. MR and CLEVER-1 expres-
sion have also been detected on peri- and intratumoral
lymphatic vessels in human head and neck, and breast carci-
nomas (Irjala et al., 2003a). Notably, expression of MR on
intratumoral lymphatic vessels was associated with increased
lymph node metastases in breast cancer. These pioneering
studies aid in shaping the new concept of a more active role
of lymphatic vessels in cancer.
Summary and perspectives
Exquisitely detailed descriptive studies performed almost
100 years ago provided the basis for our understanding of
the structure–function relationships in the lymphatic sys-
tem. Today, we can truly speak of a renaissance in the field,
owing to the identification of lymphatic specific markers
and growth factors, as well as the sophistication of the tech-
niques for isolation of pure LECs. The groundwork has thus
been laid for study of the molecular mechanisms underlying
the characteristic functions of lymphatic vasculature. Better
understanding of the lymphatic endothelial properties and
how they may be altered in inflammation and in cancer may
open a new door to therapeutic interventions.
Submitted: 18 August 2003
Accepted: 15 September 2003
References
Abtahian, F., A. Guerriero, E. Sebzda, M.M. Lu, R. Zhou, A. Mocsai, E.E. Myers,
B. Huang, D.G. Jackson, V.A. Ferrari, et al. 2003. Regulation of blood and
lymphatic vascular separation by signaling proteins SLP-76 and Syk.
Science.
299:247–251.
Achen, M.G., M. Jeltsch, E. Kukk, T. Makinen, A. Vitali, A.F. Wilks, K. Alitalo,
and S.A. Stacker. 1998. Vascular endothelial growth factor D (VEGF-D) is a
ligand for the tyrosine kinases VEGF receptor 2 (Flk1) and VEGF receptor 3
(FLT-4).
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.
95:548–553.
Alitalo, K., and P. Carmeliet. 2002. Molecular mechanisms of lymphangiogenesis
in health and disease.
Cancer Cell.
1:219–227.
Aukland, K., and R.K. Reed. 1993. Interstitial-lymphatic mechanisms in the con-
trol of extracellular fluid volume.
Physiol. Rev.
73:1–78.
Aurrand-Lions, M., L. Duncan, C. Ballestrem, and B.A. Imhof. 2001. JAM-2, a
novel immunoglobulin superfamily molecule, expressed by endothelial and
lymphatic cells.
J. Biol. Chem.
276:2733–2741.
Carmeliet, P., and R.K. Jain. 2000. Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases.
Na-
ture.
407:249–257.
Gale, N.W., G. Thurston, S.F. Hackett, R. Renard, Q. Wang, J. McClain, C.
Martin, C. Witte, M.H. Witte, D. Jackson, et al. 2002. Angiopoietin-2 is re-
quired for postnatal angiogenesis and lymphatic patterning, and only the lat-
ter role is rescued by Angiopoietin-1.
Dev. Cell.
3:411–423.
Gerli, R., L. Ibba, and C. Fruschelli. 1990. A fibrillar elastic apparatus around hu-
man lymph capillaries.
Anat. Embryol.
181:281–286.
Hartveit, E. 1990. Attenuated cells in breast stroma: the missing lymphatic system
of the breast.
Histopathology.
16:533–543.
Hirakawa, S., Y.K. Hong, N. Harvey, V. Schacht, K. Matsuda, T. Libermann, and
M. Detmar. 2003. Identification of vascular lineage-specific genes by tran-
scriptional profiling of isolated blood vascular and lymphatic endothelial
cells.
Am. J. Pathol.
162:575–586.
Hong, Y.K., N. Harvey, Y.H. Noh, V. Schacht, S. Hirakawa, M. Detmar, and G.
Oliver. 2002. Prox1 is a master control gene in the program specifying lym-
phatic endothelial cell fate.
Dev. Dyn.
225:351–357.
Ikomi, F., and G.W. Schmid-Schönbein. 1996. Lymph pump mechanics in the
rabbit hind leg.
Am. J. Physiol.
271:H173–H183.
Irjala, H., K. Alanen, R. Grenman, P. Heikkila, H. Joensuu, and S. Jalkanen.
2003a. Mannose receptor (MR) and common lymphatic endothelial and
vascular endothelial receptor (CLEVER)-1 direct the binding of cancer cells
to the lymph vessel endothelium.
Cancer Res.
63:4671–4676.
The Journal of Cell Biology
Lymphatic endothelium |
Pepper and Skobe 213
Irjala, H., K. Elima, E.L. Johansson, M. Merinen, K. Kontula, K. Alanen, R. Gren-
man, M. Salmi, and S. Jalkanen. 2003b. The same endothelial receptor con-
trols lymphocyte traffic both in vascular and lymphatic vessels.
Eur. J. Im-
munol.
33:815–824.
Irjala, H., E.L. Johansson, R. Grenman, K. Alanen, M. Salmi, and S. Jalkanen.
2001. Mannose receptor is a novel ligand for L-selectin and mediates lym-
phocyte binding to lymphatic endothelium.
J. Exp. Med.
194:1033–1042.
Johnson-Leger, C.A., M. Aurrand-Lions, N. Beltraminelli, N. Fasel, and B.A. Im-
hof. 2002. Junctional adhesion molecule-2 (JAM-2) promotes lymphocyte
transendothelial migration.
Blood.
100:2479–2486.
Joukov, V., K. Pajusola, A. Kaipainen, D. Chilov, I. Lahtinen, E. Kukk, O. Sak-
sela, N. Kalkkinen, and K. Alitalo. 1996. A novel vascular endothelial
growth factor, VEGF-C, is a ligand for the Flt4 (VEGFR-3) and KDR
(VEGFR-2) receptor tyrosine kinases.
EMBO J.
15:290–298.
Joukov, V., T. Sorsa, V. Kumar, M. Jeltsch, W.L. Claesson, Y. Cao, O. Saksela, N.
Kalkkinen, and K. Alitalo. 1997. Proteolytic processing regulates receptor
specificity and activity of VEGF-C.
EMBO J.
16:3898–3911.
Karkkainen, M.J., A. Saaristo, L. Jussila, K.A. Karila, E.C. Lawrence, K. Pajusola,
H. Bueler, A. Eichmann, R. Kauppinen, M.I. Kettunen, et al. 2001. A
model for gene therapy of human hereditary lymphedema.
Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA.
98:12677–12682.
Kriehuber, E., S. Breiteneder-Geleff, M. Groeger, A. Soleiman, S.F. Schoppmann,
G. Stingl, D. Kerjaschki, and D. Maurer. 2001. Isolation and characteriza-
tion of dermal lymphatic and blood endothelial cells reveal stable and func-
tionally specialized cell lineages.
J. Exp. Med.
194:797–808.
Leak, L.V. 1972. The transport of exogenous peroxidase across the blood-tissue-
lymph interface.
J. Ultrastruct. Res.
39:24–42.
Leak, L.V. 1976. The structure of lymphatic capillaries in lymph formation.
Fed.
Proc.
35:1863–1871.
Leak, L.V., and J.F. Burke. 1966. Fine structure of the lymphatic capillary and the
adjoining connective tissue area.
Am. J. Anat.
118:785–810.
Lee, J., A. Gray, J. Yuan, S.M. Luoh, H. Avraham, and W.I. Wood. 1996. Vascular
endothelial growth factor-related protein: a ligand and specific activator of
the tyrosine kinase receptor Flt4.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.
93:1988–1992.
Leu, A.J., D.A. Berk, A. Lymboussaki, K. Alitalo, and R.K. Jain. 2000. Absence of
functional lymphatics within a murine sarcoma: a molecular and functional
evaluation.
Cancer Res.
60:4324–4327.
Makinen, T., T. Veikkola, S. Mustjoki, T. Karpanen, B. Catimel, E.C. Nice, L.
Wise, A. Mercer, H. Kowalski, D. Kerjaschki, et al. 2001. Isolated lymphatic
endothelial cells transduce growth, survival and migratory signals via the
VEGF-C/D receptor VEGFR-3.
EMBO J.
20:4762–4773.
Mandriota, S.J., L. Jussila, M. Jeltsch, A. Compagni, D. Baetens, R. Prevo, S. Ban-
erji, J. Huarte, R. Montesano, D.G. Jackson, et al. 2001. Vascular endothe-
lial growth factor-C-mediated lymphangiogenesis promotes tumour me-
tastasis.
EMBO J.
20:672–682.
Mashino, K., N. Sadanaga, H. Yamaguchi, F. Tanaka, M. Ohta, K. Shibuta, H. In-
oue, and M. Mori. 2002. Expression of chemokine receptor CCR7 is associ-
ated with lymph node metastasis of gastric carcinoma.
Cancer Res.
62:2937–
2941.
Mellman, I., and G. Warren. 2000. The road taken: past and future foundations of
membrane traffic.
Cell.
100:99–112.
Muller, A., B. Homey, H. Soto, N. Ge, D. Catron, M.E. Buchanan, T. McClana-
han, E. Murphy, W. Yuan, S.N. Wagner, et al. 2001. Involvement of che-
mokine receptors in breast cancer metastasis.
Nature.
410:50–56.
Padera, T.P., A. Kadambi, E. di Tomaso, C.M. Carreira, E.B. Brown, Y. Boucher,
N.C. Choi, D. Mathisen, J. Wain, E.J. Mark, et al. 2002. Lymphatic me-
tastasis in the absence of functional intratumor lymphatics.
Science.
296:
1883–1886.
Partanen, T.A., K. Alitalo, and M. Miettinen. 1999. Lack of lymphatic vascular
specificity of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 3 in 185 vascular
tumors.
Cancer.
86:2406–2412.
Pepper, M.S. 2001. Lymphangiogenesis and tumor metastasis: myth or reality?
Clin. Cancer Res.
7:462–468.
Pepper, M.S., J.C. Tille, R. Nisato, and M. Skobe. 2003. Lymphangiogenesis and
tumor metastasis.
Cell Tissue Res.
In press.
Petrova, T.V., T. Makinen, T.P. Makela, J. Saarela, I. Virtanen, R.E. Ferrell, D.N.
Finegold, D. Kerjaschki, S. Yla-Herttuala, and K. Alitalo. 2002. Lymphatic
endothelial reprogramming of vascular endothelial cells by the Prox-1 ho-
meobox transcription factor.
EMBO J.
21:4593–4599.
Podgrabinska, S., P. Braun, P. Velasco, B. Kloos, M.S. Pepper, D.G. Jackson, and
M. Skobe. 2002. Molecular characterization of lymphatic endothelial cells.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.
99:16069–16074.
Schmid-Schönbein, G.W. 1990a. Mechanisms causing initial lymphatics to expand
and compress to promote lymph flow.
Arch. Histol. Cytol.
53(Suppl.):107–
114.
Schmid-Schönbein, G.W. 1990b. Microlymphatics and lymph flow.
Physiol. Rev.
70:987–1028.
Skobe, M., T. Hawighorst, D.G. Jackson, R. Prevo, L. Janes, P. Velasco, L. Ric-
cardi, K. Alitalo, K. Claffey, and M. Detmar. 2001. Induction of tumor
lymphangiogenesis by VEGF-C promotes breast cancer metastasis.
Nat.
Med.
7:192–198.
Sleeman, J.P., J. Krishnan, V. Kirkin, and P. Baumann. 2001. Markers for the lym-
phatic endothelium: in search of the holy grail?
Microsc. Res. Tech.
55:61–
69.
Stacker, S.A., M.G. Achen, L. Jussila, M.E. Baldwin, and K. Alitalo. 2002. Lym-
phangiogenesis and cancer metastasis.
Nat. Rev. Cancer.
2:573–583.
Takanami, I. 2003. Overexpression of CCR7 mRNA in nonsmall cell lung cancer:
correlation with lymph node metastasis.
Int. J. Cancer.
105:186–189.
Wigle, J.T., N. Harvey, M. Detmar, I. Lagutina, G. Grosveld, M.D. Gunn, D.G.
Jackson, and G. Oliver. 2002. An essential role for Prox1 in the induction of
the lymphatic endothelial cell phenotype.
EMBO J.
21:1505–1513.
Wigle, J.T., and G. Oliver. 1999. Prox1 function is required for the development
of the murine lymphatic system.
Cell.
98:769–778.
Wiley, H.E., E.B. Gonzalez, W. Maki, M.T. Wu, and S.T. Hwang. 2001. Expres-
sion of CC chemokine receptor-7 and regional lymph node metastasis of
B16 murine melanoma.
J. Natl. Cancer Inst.
93:1638–1643.
Yuan, L., D. Moyon, L. Pardanaud, C. Breant, M.J. Karkkainen, K. Alitalo, and A.
Eichmann. 2002. Abnormal lymphatic vessel development in neuropilin 2
mutant mice.
Development.
129:4797–4806.
