Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Video Abstracts
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Clinical innovation and scientific progress in GLP-1 medicine (Nov 2025)
    • Pancreatic Cancer (Jul 2025)
    • Complement Biology and Therapeutics (May 2025)
    • Evolving insights into MASLD and MASH pathogenesis and treatment (Apr 2025)
    • Microbiome in Health and Disease (Feb 2025)
    • Substance Use Disorders (Oct 2024)
    • Clonal Hematopoiesis (Oct 2024)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Editorials
    • Commentaries
    • Editor's notes
    • Reviews
    • Viewpoints
    • 100th anniversary
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Video Abstracts
  • In-Press Preview
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Editorials
  • Commentaries
  • Editor's notes
  • Reviews
  • Viewpoints
  • 100th anniversary
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact

Usage Information

Proteolytic activation defines distinct lymphangiogenic mechanisms for VEGFC and VEGFD
Hung M. Bui, David Enis, Marius R. Robciuc, Harri J. Nurmi, Jennifer Cohen, Mei Chen, Yiqing Yang, Veerpal Dhillon, Kathy Johnson, Hong Zhang, Robert Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Traxler, Andrey Anisimov, Kari Alitalo, Mark L. Kahn
Hung M. Bui, David Enis, Marius R. Robciuc, Harri J. Nurmi, Jennifer Cohen, Mei Chen, Yiqing Yang, Veerpal Dhillon, Kathy Johnson, Hong Zhang, Robert Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Traxler, Andrey Anisimov, Kari Alitalo, Mark L. Kahn
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Vascular biology

Proteolytic activation defines distinct lymphangiogenic mechanisms for VEGFC and VEGFD

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Lymphangiogenesis is supported by 2 homologous VEGFR3 ligands, VEGFC and VEGFD. VEGFC is required for lymphatic development, while VEGFD is not. VEGFC and VEGFD are proteolytically cleaved after cell secretion in vitro, and recent studies have implicated the protease a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with thrombospondin motifs 3 (ADAMTS3) and the secreted factor collagen and calcium binding EGF domains 1 (CCBE1) in this process. It is not well understood how ligand proteolysis is controlled at the molecular level or how this process regulates lymphangiogenesis, because these complex molecular interactions have been difficult to follow ex vivo and test in vivo. Here, we have developed and used biochemical and cellular tools to demonstrate that an ADAMTS3-CCBE1 complex can form independently of VEGFR3 and is required to convert VEGFC, but not VEGFD, into an active ligand. Consistent with these ex vivo findings, mouse genetic studies revealed that ADAMTS3 is required for lymphatic development in a manner that is identical to the requirement of VEGFC and CCBE1 for lymphatic development. Moreover, CCBE1 was required for in vivo lymphangiogenesis stimulated by VEGFC but not VEGFD. Together, these studies reveal that lymphangiogenesis is regulated by two distinct proteolytic mechanisms of ligand activation: one in which VEGFC activation by ADAMTS3 and CCBE1 spatially and temporally patterns developing lymphatics, and one in which VEGFD activation by a distinct proteolytic mechanism may be stimulated during inflammatory lymphatic growth.

Authors

Hung M. Bui, David Enis, Marius R. Robciuc, Harri J. Nurmi, Jennifer Cohen, Mei Chen, Yiqing Yang, Veerpal Dhillon, Kathy Johnson, Hong Zhang, Robert Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Traxler, Andrey Anisimov, Kari Alitalo, Mark L. Kahn

×

Usage data is cumulative from January 2025 through January 2026.

Usage JCI PMC
Text version 1,010 167
PDF 137 52
Figure 471 6
Supplemental data 55 11
Citation downloads 90 0
Totals 1,763 236
Total Views 1,999
(Click and drag on plot area to zoom in. Click legend items above to toggle)

Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.

Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts