E C Penington1, J M Hutson. 1. Department of General Surgery, F. Douglas Stephens Research Laboratory, Royal Children's Hospital, Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. bpening@attglobal.net
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differences in the embryology of the anorectal and urogenital area, previously examined in sheep, pigs, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs, producing varying conclusions, may be secondary to differences in species development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rat and human embryos were studied at the time of genital tubercle development and cloacal partition by standard serial-section histology, and by immunohistochemistry, dissection and scanning electron microscopy. The images obtained were compared with those previously reported for pig and sheep embryos. RESULTS: The cloacal plate, a vertically orientated midline plate of epithelial cells in the caudal half of the genital tubercle, was the key structure that varied between the different species. In rats the plate maintained a vertical height along its length, while in humans and pigs it reverted to a two-layer membrane dorsally, shortly before it degenerated to expose both the anorectal and urogenital tracts. In sheep the plate was taller ventrally than in the other species but also reverted to a short membrane dorsally that exposed the hindgut when it degenerated. The anterior part of the cloacal plate persisted in all embryos as the urethral plate, which then participated in the formation of the urethra in the male and the vestibule in the female. The animal that most closely resembled humans in anogenital development was the pig. CONCLUSIONS: The cloacal plate is the key to understanding early anorectal and urogenital development and yet it is barely recognized in published reports. An appreciation of its relevance helps to explain the variations in the described embryology of the region, and is mandatory when interpreting embryological findings in animal models of human anomalies. Given the similarities between porcine and human development, the pig may be the most legitimate animal model for the study of anorectal and urogenital anomalies in humans.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differences in the embryology of the anorectal and urogenital area, previously examined in sheep, pigs, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs, producing varying conclusions, may be secondary to differences in species development. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Rat and human embryos were studied at the time of genital tubercle development and cloacal partition by standard serial-section histology, and by immunohistochemistry, dissection and scanning electron microscopy. The images obtained were compared with those previously reported for pig and sheep embryos. RESULTS: The cloacal plate, a vertically orientated midline plate of epithelial cells in the caudal half of the genital tubercle, was the key structure that varied between the different species. In rats the plate maintained a vertical height along its length, while in humans and pigs it reverted to a two-layer membrane dorsally, shortly before it degenerated to expose both the anorectal and urogenital tracts. In sheep the plate was taller ventrally than in the other species but also reverted to a short membrane dorsally that exposed the hindgut when it degenerated. The anterior part of the cloacal plate persisted in all embryos as the urethral plate, which then participated in the formation of the urethra in the male and the vestibule in the female. The animal that most closely resembled humans in anogenital development was the pig. CONCLUSIONS: The cloacal plate is the key to understanding early anorectal and urogenital development and yet it is barely recognized in published reports. An appreciation of its relevance helps to explain the variations in the described embryology of the region, and is mandatory when interpreting embryological findings in animal models of humananomalies. Given the similarities between porcine and human development, the pig may be the most legitimate animal model for the study of anorectal and urogenital anomalies in humans.
Authors: Dagan Jenkins; Maria Bitner-Glindzicz; Louise Thomasson; Sue Malcolm; Stephanie A Warne; Sally A Feather; Sarah E Flanagan; Sian Ellard; Coralie Bingham; Lane Santos; Mark Henkemeyer; Andrew Zinn; Linda A Baker; Duncan T Wilcox; Adrian S Woolf Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: Megan L Falsetta; David C Foster; Collynn F Woeller; Stephen J Pollock; Adrienne D Bonham; Constantine G Haidaris; Richard P Phipps Journal: J Pain Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: David C Foster; Megan L Falsetta; Collynn F Woeller; Stephen J Pollock; Kunchang Song; Adrienne Bonham; Constantine G Haidaris; Chris J Stodgell; Susan P Messing; Michael Iadarola; Richard P Phipps Journal: Pain Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Laura A Runck; Anna Method; Andrea Bischoff; Marc Levitt; Alberto Peña; Margaret H Collins; Anita Gupta; Shiva Shanmukhappa; James M Wells; Géraldine Guasch Journal: Dis Model Mech Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 5.758
Authors: Nutmethee Kruepunga; Jill P J M Hikspoors; Hayelom K Mekonen; Greet M C Mommen; Krai Meemon; Wattana Weerachatyanukul; Somluk Asuvapongpatana; S Eleonore Köhler; Wouter H Lamers Journal: J Anat Date: 2018-10-07 Impact factor: 2.610