OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to systematically assess the mucus thickness in the gastrointestinal tract of laboratory animals commonly used in preclinical studies. METHODS: Mucus thickness was studied post-mortem in the rat, rabbit and pig, using cryosections stained by the modified periodic acid Schiff/Alcian blue method. KEY FINDINGS: The mucus thickness in the fundus region of the stomach was higher in the pig (190.7 ± 80.7 µm) than in the rabbit (155.1 ± 85.8 µm) and the rat (31.3 ± 11.4 µm). However, along the small intestine (ileum), mucus was thicker in the rabbit (147.8 ± 115.6 µm), followed by the pig (53.8 ± 22.1 µm) and the rat (34.1 ± 14.9 µm). This rank order was also observed in the ascending colon. CONCLUSIONS: Inter-species variability in mucus thickness along the gut was demonstrated and suggests that the pig resembles more closely the mucus pattern of humans. This may be highly relevant when preclinical animal models are used in drug absorption studies or in the development of oral mucoadhesive drug delivery systems.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to systematically assess the mucus thickness in the gastrointestinal tract of laboratory animals commonly used in preclinical studies. METHODS: Mucus thickness was studied post-mortem in the rat, rabbit and pig, using cryosections stained by the modified periodic acid Schiff/Alcian blue method. KEY FINDINGS: The mucus thickness in the fundus region of the stomach was higher in the pig (190.7 ± 80.7 µm) than in the rabbit (155.1 ± 85.8 µm) and the rat (31.3 ± 11.4 µm). However, along the small intestine (ileum), mucus was thicker in the rabbit (147.8 ± 115.6 µm), followed by the pig (53.8 ± 22.1 µm) and the rat (34.1 ± 14.9 µm). This rank order was also observed in the ascending colon. CONCLUSIONS: Inter-species variability in mucus thickness along the gut was demonstrated and suggests that the pig resembles more closely the mucus pattern of humans. This may be highly relevant when preclinical animal models are used in drug absorption studies or in the development of oral mucoadhesive drug delivery systems.
Authors: Suzanne E Thompson; Maggie T Young; Michelle T Lewis; Steven M Boronyak; Jeffrey W Clymer; Elliott J Fegelman; Deborah A Nagle Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Abhinav Sharma; Jun-Goo Kwak; Kristopher W Kolewe; Jessica D Schiffman; Neil S Forbes; Jungwoo Lee Journal: ACS Appl Bio Mater Date: 2020-01-29
Authors: Ana M Rodríguez-Piñeiro; Joakim H Bergström; Anna Ermund; Jenny K Gustafsson; André Schütte; Malin E V Johansson; Gunnar C Hansson Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: Xiaoyun Yang; Katrien Forier; Lennert Steukers; Sandra Van Vlierberghe; Peter Dubruel; Kevin Braeckmans; Sarah Glorieux; Hans J Nauwynck Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Larry J Dishaw; Brittany Leigh; John P Cannon; Assunta Liberti; M Gail Mueller; Diana P Skapura; Charlotte R Karrer; Maria R Pinto; Rosaria De Santis; Gary W Litman Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Flore Dossou-Yovo; Godefroy Mamadou; Imar Djibrine Soudy; Nicolas Limas-Nzouzi; Joe Miantezila; Jehan-François Desjeux; Bruno Eto Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Natalia Ziółkowska; Bogdan Lewczuk; Wojciech Petryński; Katarzyna Palkowska; Magdalena Prusik; Krystyna Targońska; Zygmunt Giżejewski; Barbara Przybylska-Gornowicz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stefanie Klinger; Patrick Lange; Elisabeth Brandt; Karin Hustedt; Bernd Schröder; Gerhard Breves; Jens Herrmann Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2018-01