A Review of Current Standards and the Evolution of Histopathology Nomenclature for Laboratory Animals

Abstract

The need for international collaboration in rodent pathology has evolved since the 1970s and was initially driven by the new field of toxicologic pathology. First initiated by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer for rodents, it has evolved to include pathology of the major species (rats, mice, guinea pigs, nonhuman primates, pigs, dogs, fish, rabbits) used in medical research, safety assessment, and mouse pathology. The collaborative effort today is driven by the needs of the regulatory agencies in multiple countries, and by needs of research involving genetically engineered animals, for "basic" research and for more translational preclinical models of human disease. These efforts led to the establishment of an international rodent pathology nomenclature program. Since that time, multiple collaborations for standardization of laboratory animal pathology nomenclature and diagnostic criteria have been developed, and just a few are described herein. Recently, approaches to a nomenclature that is amenable to sophisticated computation have been made available and implemented for large-scale programs in functional genomics and aging. Most terminologies continue to evolve as the science of human and veterinary pathology continues to develop, but standardization and successful implementation remain critical for scientific communication now as ever in the history of veterinary nosology.

Keywords: International Agency for Research on Cancer; International Harmonization of Nomenclature and Diagnostic Criteria; International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium; National Cancer Institute Mouse Models of Human Cancer Consortium; National Toxicology Program Nonneoplastic Lesion Atlas; mouse pathology ontology; nomenclature; standard for exchange of nonclinical data.

Figure 1

Organizational map of INHAND.

Figure 2

Example of a goRENI manuscript.

Figure 3

Example of nomenclature map with INHAND terminology.

Figure 4

Schematic diagram describing post-composition strategy for lesions. Classes are taken from PATO, MPATH, and MA and combined to form a formal statement describing the lesion and its location. A similar process may be used for gross pathology as well; PATO contains appropriate macroscopic qualifiers for this purpose such as color, texture, size, and shape.

Figure 5

Screen shot of TCP’s histopathology data entry user interface used to annotate IMPC strains.

Figure 6

Screen shot of TCP’s histopathology data entry user interface. Note in the example for annotating a liver section that the dropdown selection list for MPATH Process Terms provides only terms applicable to liver histopathology.