Histomorphometric and Microscopic Assessment of Gastric Mucosa in Guinea pig and White Rat Models
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52331/cvj.v30i1.52Keywords:
Anatomy, Histology, Guinea pig, Rat, StomachAbstract
The understanding of rodent gastrointestinal morphology is important for several medical applications, including experimental surgical procedures, the diagnosis of gastric disorders, and providing information about diet adaptation and gut physiology. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the anatomical, morphometric, and microscopic characteristics of the gastric mucosa in adult guinea pigs and white rats. Stomachs from five healthy adult guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) and five white rats (Rattus norvegicus) were collected and preserved in 10% formalin. The samples were later processed, sectioned, and stained with Harris Hematoxylin and Eosin. Microscopic measurements were made for the depth of gastric pits, diameter of gastric glands, and the thickness of the gastric mucosa, tunica submucosa, tunica muscularis, and tunica serosa. The number of parietal and chief cells was counted in the fundic and pyloric regions of both animals. The rat stomach was crescent-shaped, with distinct non-glandular and glandular regions. While the stomach of guinea pig was pear-shaped, totally glandular. The mucosal microstructure exhibited variations in thickness and morphology. The rat's non-glandular mucosa had keratinized squamous epithelium, while the guinea pig lacked a non-glandular region. Histologically, gastric pits and glands differed in size, density, and cellular composition, with guinea pigs showing thicker muscular layers and larger, less dense glands, while rats had more parietal and chief cells in the fundic and pyloric regions. This study enhances the understanding of how dietary habits shape gastric anatomy and physiology. Future research could explore enzymatic activity, gut microbiota interactions, developmental anatomy, and the mechanisms underlying these adaptations.
References
1. CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National hospital ambulatory medical care survey: 2010 emergency de-partment summary tables. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 2013. Updated March 29, 2012. Accessed May 2, 2013. www.cdc.gov.
2. CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National ambulatory medical care survey: 2010 outpatient department summary tables. 2010. Updated March 29, 2012. Accessed May 2, 2013. www.cdc.gov.
3. Guo Y, Bao Y, Meng Q, Hu X, Meng Q, Ren L, Li N, Zhao Y. Immunoglobulin genomics in the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus). PloS one. 2012 ;7(6):e39298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039298
4. Szpirer C. Rat models of human diseases and related phenotypes: a systematic inventory of the causative genes. J. Biomed. Sci. 2020;27(1):84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-020-00673-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-020-00673-8
5. Musser G. rodent. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2024. https://www.britannica.com/animal/rodent
6. Natale G, Lazzeri G, Blandizzi C, Gherardi G, Lenzi P, Pellegrini A, Del Tacca M. Seriate histomorphometry of whole rat stomach: an accurate and reliable method for quantitative analysis of mucosal damage. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2001 ;174(1):17-26. https://doi.org/10.1006/taap.2001.9193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/taap.2001.9193
7. Tack J., & Pandolfino JE. Pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterol. 2018; 154(2): 277-288. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.09.047. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.09.047
8. Keller J, Bassotti G, Clarke J, Dinning P, Fox M, Grover M, Hellström PM, Ke M, Layer P, Malagelada C, Parkman HP. Advances in the diagnosis and classification of gastric and intestinal motility disorders. Nature reviews Gastroenterol. hepatol. 2018;15(5):291-308. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2018.7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2018.7
9. Nwafor JA, OM'Niabohs FA. Comparative histomorphological study of the stomach of Rattus norvergicus, Agama agama, and Bufo marinus. Annal. Bioanthropol. 2014;2(2):54. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2315-7992.153817. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2315-7992.153817
10. Rickard RW, Dorough HW. In vivo formation of nitrosocarbamates in the stomach of rats and guinea pigs. J. Toxicol. Environm. Heal. Part A Current Issues. 1984; 14(2-3):279-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287398409530580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15287398409530580
11. Ghoshal NG, Bal HS. Comparative morphology of the stomach of some laboratory mammals. Lab. Anim. 1989 ;23(1):21-9. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367789780886911.
12. Igbokwe C, Obinna S. Oesophageal and gastric morphology of the African Rope Squirrel Funisciurus anerythrus (Thomas, 1890). J. Appl. Life Sci. Int. 2016;4(2):1-9. https://doi.org/10.9734/JALSI/2016/21794. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/JALSI/2016/21794
13. Vdoviaková K, Petrovová E, Maloveská M, Krešáková L, Teleky J, Elias MZ. & Petrášová D. Surgical anatomy of the gas-trointestinal tract and its vasculature in the laboratory rat. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2016; 2016(1): 2632368. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2632368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2632368
14. Khalel EM, Ghafi HD. Anatomical and histological study of stomach in adult local rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus. Al-Mustansiriyah J Sci. 2012;23(7):1-22.
15. Florin ST. Comparative study of the stomach morphology in rabbit and chinchilla. AgroLife sci. J. 2013 ;2(2). 73-78. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20143039519. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17930/AGL2013212
16. Abd AL-Rhman SA. Morphological and histological study of the stomach in local rodent species (Guinea pig) Cavia porcellus. J. Bio. Agri. and Heal. 2016;6(6):74-86. https://www.journalijar.com/article/8149/morphological-and-histological-study-of-the-stomach-in-local-rodent-species(guinea-pig)-cavia-porcellus/
17. Underwood W. and Anthony R. AVMA guidelines for the euthanasia of animals: 2020 edition. 2020; 2013(30): 2020–1
18. Johnson-Delaney CA. Anatomy and physiology of the rabbit and rodent gastrointestinal system. InProc. Assoc. Avian Vet. 2006 ;10 (1): 9-17).
19. Carson, FL. and Cappellano, CH. Histotechnology. a self-instructional text. In Fixation, Eds. Carson, F.L. and Cappellano, American-Society, ASCP press. Chicago, USA, 2015;12–15
20. Di Natale MR, Patten L, Molero JC, Stebbing MJ, Hunne B, Wang X, Liu Z, Furness JB. Organisation of the musculature of the rat stomach. J. Anat. 2022 ;240(4):711-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joa.13587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.13587
21. Matsukura N, Shirota A, Asano G. Anatomy, histology, ultrastructure, stomach, rat. InDigestive system Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 1985: 281-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-96910-2_49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-96910-2_49
22. Raja K, Ushakumary S, Rajathi S, Ramesh G, Ramesh S. Histological and Histochemical Studies on the Stomach of Guinea Pig (Cavia porcellus).2022;12(3): 407-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.30954/2277-940X.03.2022.14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30954/2277-940X.03.2022.14
23. Stan FG. Comparative macroscopic anatomy of the stomach morphology in laboratory rat and guinea pig. Lab Anim. 2018; 23(1): 21-9. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367789780886911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/002367789780886911
24. AlـShreefy MN. Histomorphological and Histochemical Study of Esophagus and Stomach in Adult Guinea Pigs (Cavia por-cellus). Wasit J. Pure Sci. 2024;3(2):306-314. https://doi.org/10.31185/wjps.412. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31185/wjps.412
25. Ofusori DA, Caxton-Martins EA. A comparative histomorphometric study of the stomach of rat (Rattus norvegicus), bat (Ei-dolon helvum) and pangolin (Manis tricuspis) in relation to diet. Int. J. Morphol. 2008 ;26(3):669-74.http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022008000300026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022008000300026
26. Zhu L, & Wang JL. Sexual dimorphism in histological structure of normal rat stomach. Int. J. Morphol., Temuco. 2016; 34(4), 1461-1464. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022016000400046. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022016000400046
27. Kararli TT. Comparison of the gastrointestinal anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of humans and commonly used labor-atory animals. Biopharmaceutics & drug disposition. 1995;16(5):351-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdd.2510160502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdd.2510160502
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Omar Younis Altaet, Ali Ahmed Hasan, Shahad Amer Rajab, Alaa Maan Jebur
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
