Ny A , Vandevelde W , Hohensinner P , Beerens M , Geudens I , Diez-Juan A , Brepoels K , Plaisance S , Krieg PA , Langenberg T , Vinckier S , Luttun A , Carmeliet P , Dewerchin M .

	Fig. 1. GFP expression in blood and lymphatic vessels of Tg(Flk1:eGFP) tadpoles. All panels depict lateral views of the tadpoles, head facing left. (A) Stage 40�45 Tg(Flk1:eGFP) tadpole showing GFP signal in the entire blood and lymphatic vasculature. (B) Higher magnification of fluorescent LH (encircled) and connecting lymphatic vessels in a stage 45 tadpole. The region demarcated by the left square in panel A is shown. (C) Higher magnification of GFP+ blood and lymphatic vessels in the trunk of a stage 45 tadpole. The region demarcated by the right square in panel A is shown. (D) Angiography by intracardial injection of high molecular TRITC-dextran exclusively labeled the blood vasculature (shown in orange). (E) Reversely, lymphangiography by injecting the TRITC-dextran dye in the fin adjacent to the DCLV (black asterisk denotes site of injection), showing specific uptake of the dye by the lymphatics (shown in orange) and draining towards the lymph heart. Inset shows higher magnification of the zone proximal to the injection site. CLD, cephalic lymph duct; DA, dorsal aorta; DCLV, dorsal caudal lymph vessel; DLAV, dorsal longitudinal anastomosing vessel; ISV, intersomitic vessel; LH, lymph heart; LLD, lateral lymph duct; PCV, posterior cardinal vein; VCLV, ventral caudal lymphatic vessel. Scale bars: 500 �m (A), 200 �m (B�E).
	Fig. 2. In vivo labeling of lymphendothelial cells allows parallel blood- and lymph vessel analysis. (A,B) Specific �LEC labeling� of lymph vessels (orange) by TRITC-dextran 24 hours after angiography of stage 46 tadpoles, allowing prolonged visualization of the vessels in the lymph heart (asterisk) area (A) and tail (B). (C�C″) Confocal imaging of cross sections of a LEC labeled tadpole confirmed exclusive labeling of lymphatics (DCLV, VCLV), while blood vessels (PCV, DA) remain green. C′�C″ are higher magnifications of the dorsal (C′) and ventral (C″) frames in panel C. (D) High magnification of vascular sprouting into the fin showed distinct morphology between smooth blood vessels (green) and the spiky lymphatics (red/orange). (E,F) Blood vessel (PCV, green) and lymph vessel (VCLV, yellow/organge) in close proximity. LECs of the VCLV exhibit small protrusions and filopodia (arrowheads). (G�G″) Newly forming blood vessel sprouts display a typical tip cell phenotype (arrowheads) with several filopodia. G′�G″ are higher magnifications of angiogenic tip cells. (H) Lymphatic tip cell with protruding filopodia (arrowhead). (I,I′) High magnification of lymphatic tip cells with filopodia (arrowheads) at the forefront of a lymph vessel in the fin (I) or of a new sprout forming from the DCLV (I′). (J) Lymphatics (red) occasionally sprouted at the same site as blood vessels (green), seemingly using them as a scaffold for further elongation into the fin. CLD, cephalic lymph duct; DA, dorsal aorta; DCLV, dorsal caudal lymph vessel; LLD, lateral lymph duct; NC, notochord; PCV, posterior cardinal vein; VCLV, ventral caudal lymph vessel. Scale bars: 200 �m (A,B), 100 �m (C), 50 �m (C′,C″,D,G), 20 �m (E,F,H,I′,J), 10 �m (G′,G″,I).
	Fig. 3. Tg(Flk1:eGFP) transgenic tadpoles as a tool to study developmental lymphangiogenesis. All panels depict lateral views of stage 45 tadpoles, head facing left. All insets show higher magnification of the dorsal side, with top and lower bracket denoting DCLV and DLAV, respectively. (A�C) Control embryo showing normal morphology (A) and correctly formed GFP+ (B) and LEC labeled lymphatics (C). (D�F) Morpholino knockdown (KD) of xProx1 resulted in edema around heart, gut and cloaca (arrowheads in panel D). GFP fluorescent microscopy showing that Prox1KD tadpoles possess few and disorganized LECs failing to assemble into the dorsal and ventral lymphatics (E). LEC labeling showing fewer LECs in xProx1KD tadpoles. Arrowheads denote sites where longitudinal lymph vessels are missing or malformed (green: DLAV, orange: DCLV) (F). (G�I) Morpholino knockdown (KD) of xVEGF-C resulted in edema in the heart and gut (arrowheads in panel G). Reporter VEGF-CKD tadpoles revealing a fragmented DCLV consisting of dispersed and scattered LECs on the dorsal side while the VCLV appears grossly normal as shown by fluorescent microscopy (H) and LEC labeling (I). Arrowheads denote sites where longitudinal lymph vessel is missing. (J�L) Chemical inhibition of VEGFR-3 by MAZ51 treatment (10 �M) resulted in edema in the heart and gut (arrowheads in panel J). Fluorescent microscopy (K) and LEC labeling (L) revealing a disorganized and fragmented DCLV consisting of few LECs, while the VCLV appeared normal. Arrowheads denote where longitudinal lymph vessels are missing. DA, dorsal aorta; DCLV, dorsal caudal lymph vessel; DLAV, dorsal longitudinal anastomosing vessel; PCV, posterior cardinal vein; VCLV, ventral caudal lymph vessel. Scale bars: 1 mm (A,D,G,J), 250 �m (B,E,H,K).
	Fig. 4. Modulation of lymphatic sprouting. All photos depict lateral views of LEC labeled stage 49 Tg(Flk1:eGFP) tadpoles (blood vessels green, lymph vessels orange), head facing left. (A�C) Representative micrographs showing inhibition of lymphatic sprouting into the fin (arrowheads) upon MAZ51 treatment (5 �M) (B), as compared to DMSO treated controls (A). Quantification of lymphatic sprout numbers in panel C (*P<0.001 compared to DMSO control). (D�J) Representative micrographs of effect of GFP (control) (D), VEGF-A (E) and VEGF-C (F) overexpression on blood and lymph vessel sprouting after injection of transfected cells in the fin. Asterisk denotes the location of the cell cluster. Quantification of the number of blood vessel sprouts (G), lymph vessel sprouts (H), total blood vessel length (I) and total lymph vessel length (J) (*P<0.001 compared to GFP control, #P<0.001 compared to VEGF-A overexpression). (K�M) Chemical inhibition of VEGF-C induced lymphatic sprouting by MAZ51. Representative micrographs of tadpoles injected with VEGF-C overexpressing cells and treated with DMSO (K) or MAZ51 (L). Corresponding control with GFP overexpressing cells (quantified in panel M) is not shown. Asterisk denotes the location of the cell cluster. Quantification of the number of lymphatic sprouts after MAZ51 treatment in panel M (*P<0.001 compared to GFP control, #P<0.001 compared to VEGF-C overexpression). Scale bars: 500 �m (A,B), 250 �m (D�F,K,L). Quantitative data are mean � s.e.m.
	Fig. S3. Development of the blood- and lymphatic vascular network in the fin. All panels depict lateral views of the tadpoles, head facing left. Each fluorescence picture (A�D) is accompanied by a schematic redrawing of the blood vascular sprouts (green) and lymphatic sprouts (red) (A9�D9). A single tadpole was followed during the indicated stages. (A,A9) First blood vessel sprouting into the ventral fin is seen from stage 46 (6 days post fertilization (dpf)) onwards. (B,B9) Blood vessel sprouting is followed by lymphatic sprouting into the ventral fin, commencing at stage 47. Denoted by arrowheads, already formed blood vessels turning back towards the PCV to form a closed loop (8 dpf). (C,C9) Start of vessel sprouting into the dorsal fin (12 dpf). (D,D9) No or very few new blood and lymphatic sprouts are formed from the longitudinal vessels from this stage onwards (15 dpf and older). Instead, expansion of the dorsal and ventral vascular network depends on the growth of the already established primary sprouts and the formation of new secondary sprouts. Scale bars: 0.5 mm.
	Fig. S4. Cell cluster formation after cell injection into the fin. Example of an injection of cells into the fin showing the formation of a cell cluster at the injection site. Injected cells remain clearly visible under the microscope for up to 1 week. Only tadpoles with comparable cell cluster size were used in the experimental analysis. Scale bar: 200 mm.

Adams, Molecular regulation of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. 2007, Pubmed

Adams, Molecular regulation of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. 2007, Pubmed
Alitalo, The lymphatic vasculature in disease. 2011, Pubmed
Aranguren, Transcription factor COUP-TFII is indispensable for venous and lymphatic development in zebrafish and Xenopus laevis. 2011, Pubmed , Xenbase
Bussmann, Arteries provide essential guidance cues for lymphatic endothelial cells in the zebrafish trunk. 2010, Pubmed
Cade, Highly efficient generation of heritable zebrafish gene mutations using homo- and heterodimeric TALENs. 2012, Pubmed
Carmeliet, Abnormal blood vessel development and lethality in embryos lacking a single VEGF allele. 1996, Pubmed
Carmeliet, Molecular mechanisms and clinical applications of angiogenesis. 2011, Pubmed
Cha, Chemokine signaling directs trunk lymphatic network formation along the preexisting blood vasculature. 2012, Pubmed
Cleaver, Neovascularization of the Xenopus embryo. 1997, Pubmed , Xenbase
De Smet, Fishing and frogging for anti-angiogenic drugs. 2006, Pubmed , Xenbase
Doherty, A flk-1 promoter/enhancer reporter transgenic Xenopus laevis generated using the Sleeping Beauty transposon system: an in vivo model for vascular studies. 2007, Pubmed , Xenbase
Fu, Endothelial cell O-glycan deficiency causes blood/lymphatic misconnections and consequent fatty liver disease in mice. 2008, Pubmed
Geudens, Role of delta-like-4/Notch in the formation and wiring of the lymphatic network in zebrafish. 2010, Pubmed
Hermans, Role of synectin in lymphatic development in zebrafish and frogs. 2010, Pubmed , Xenbase
Hogan, Ccbe1 is required for embryonic lymphangiogenesis and venous sprouting. 2009, Pubmed
Isogai, The vascular anatomy of the developing zebrafish: an atlas of embryonic and early larval development. 2001, Pubmed
Ji, Characteristics of lymphatic endothelial cells in physiological and pathological conditions. 2005, Pubmed
Jurisic, Lymphatic endothelium in health and disease. 2009, Pubmed
Karkkainen, Vascular endothelial growth factor C is required for sprouting of the first lymphatic vessels from embryonic veins. 2004, Pubmed
Karpanen, Zebrafish provides a novel model for lymphatic vascular research. 2011, Pubmed
Kirkin, Characterization of indolinones which preferentially inhibit VEGF-C- and VEGF-D-induced activation of VEGFR-3 rather than VEGFR-2. 2001, Pubmed
Kroll, Transgenic Xenopus embryos from sperm nuclear transplantations reveal FGF signaling requirements during gastrulation. 1996, Pubmed , Xenbase
Kälin, An in vivo chemical library screen in Xenopus tadpoles reveals novel pathways involved in angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. 2009, Pubmed , Xenbase
Küchler, Development of the zebrafish lymphatic system requires VEGFC signaling. 2006, Pubmed
Lawson, In vivo imaging of embryonic vascular development using transgenic zebrafish. 2002, Pubmed
Lei, Efficient targeted gene disruption in Xenopus embryos using engineered transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs). 2012, Pubmed , Xenbase
Levine, Fluorescent labeling of endothelial cells allows in vivo, continuous characterization of the vascular development of Xenopus laevis. 2003, Pubmed , Xenbase
Marino, A role for all-trans-retinoic acid in the early steps of lymphatic vasculature development. 2011, Pubmed , Xenbase
Meadows, Kruppel-like factor 2 cooperates with the ETS family protein ERG to activate Flk1 expression during vascular development. 2009, Pubmed , Xenbase
Moore, Improved somatic mutagenesis in zebrafish using transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs). 2012, Pubmed
Nagy, Vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor induces lymphangiogenesis as well as angiogenesis. 2002, Pubmed
Norrmén, Liprin (beta)1 is highly expressed in lymphatic vasculature and is important for lymphatic vessel integrity. 2010, Pubmed , Xenbase
Ny, Zebrafish and Xenopus tadpoles: small animal models to study angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. 2006, Pubmed , Xenbase
Ny, A genetic Xenopus laevis tadpole model to study lymphangiogenesis. 2005, Pubmed , Xenbase
Ny, Role of VEGF-D and VEGFR-3 in developmental lymphangiogenesis, a chemicogenetic study in Xenopus tadpoles. 2008, Pubmed , Xenbase
Okuda, lyve1 expression reveals novel lymphatic vessels and new mechanisms for lymphatic vessel development in zebrafish. 2012, Pubmed
Pedrioli, miR-31 functions as a negative regulator of lymphatic vascular lineage-specific differentiation in vitro and vascular development in vivo. 2010, Pubmed , Xenbase
Rhodin, Circulatory pattern and structure in the tail and tail fins of Xenopus laevis tadpoles. 1993, Pubmed , Xenbase
Robert, The genus Xenopus as a multispecies model for evolutionary and comparative immunobiology of the 21st century. 2011, Pubmed , Xenbase
Saharinen, Claudin-like protein 24 interacts with the VEGFR-2 and VEGFR-3 pathways and regulates lymphatic vessel development. 2010, Pubmed , Xenbase
Tammela, Lymphangiogenesis: Molecular mechanisms and future promise. 2010, Pubmed
Tao, Zebrafish prox1b mutants develop a lymphatic vasculature, and prox1b does not specifically mark lymphatic endothelial cells. 2011, Pubmed
Wang, Current views on the function of the lymphatic vasculature in health and disease. 2010, Pubmed
Wheeler, Simple vertebrate models for chemical genetics and drug discovery screens: lessons from zebrafish and Xenopus. 2009, Pubmed , Xenbase
Yaniv, Live imaging of lymphatic development in the zebrafish. 2006, Pubmed
Young, Efficient targeted gene disruption in the soma and germ line of the frog Xenopus tropicalis using engineered zinc-finger nucleases. 2011, Pubmed , Xenbase