↓ Skip to main content

Modeling lymphangiogenesis: Pairing in vitro and in vivo metrics

Overview of attention for article published in Microcirculation, February 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Modeling lymphangiogenesis: Pairing in vitro and in vivo metrics
Published in
Microcirculation, February 2023
DOI 10.1111/micc.12802
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aileen C. Suarez, Jennifer H. Hammel, Jennifer M. Munson

Abstract

Lymphangiogenesis is the mechanism by which the lymphatic system develops and expands new vessels facilitating fluid drainage and immune cell trafficking. Models to study lymphangiogenesis are necessary for a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms and to identify or test new therapeutic agents that target lymphangiogenesis. Across the lymphatic literature, multiple models have been developed to study lymphangiogenesis in vitro and in vivo. In vitro, lymphangiogenesis can be modeled with varying complexity, from monolayers to hydrogels to explants, with common metrics for characterizing proliferation, migration, and sprouting of lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs) and vessels. In comparison, in vivo models of lymphangiogenesis often use genetically modified zebrafish and mice, with in situ mouse models in the ear, cornea, hind leg, and tail. In vivo metrics, such as activation of LECs, number of new lymphatic vessels, and sprouting, mirror those most used in vitro, with the addition of lymphatic vessel hyperplasia and drainage. The impacts of lymphangiogenesis vary by context of tissue and pathology. Therapeutic targeting of lymphangiogenesis can have paradoxical effects depending on the pathology including lymphedema, cancer, organ transplant, and inflammation. In this review, we describe and compare lymphangiogenic outcomes and metrics between in vitro and in vivo studies, specifically reviewing only those publications in which both testing formats are used. We find that in vitro studies correlate well with in vivo in wound healing and development, but not in the reproductive tract or the complex tumor microenvironment. Considerations for improving in vitro models are to increase complexity with perfusable microfluidic devices, co-cultures with tissue-specific support cells, the inclusion of fluid flow, and pairing in vitro models of differing complexities. We believe that these changes would strengthen the correlation between in vitro and in vivo outcomes, giving more insight into lymphangiogenesis in healthy and pathological states.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 27%
Unspecified 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Materials Science 2 13%
Unspecified 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 8 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2023.
All research outputs
#8,212,171
of 25,436,226 outputs
Outputs from Microcirculation
#98
of 453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,887
of 422,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microcirculation
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,436,226 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 453 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,632 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.