Comparative Morphology of Human and Laboratory Animals

DOI: 10.29296/2618723X-2019-02-06

Ya. Guschin, M. Kovaleva

Saint Petersburg Institute of Pharmacy Russia,
188663, Leningradskiy region, Vsevolozhskiy district, Kuzmolovskiy, st. Zavodskaya, 3. b. 245
Е-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: skin morphology epidermis thickness of laboratory animals

For citation:

Guschin Ya., Kovaleva M. Comparative Morphology of Human and Laboratory Animals. Laboratory Animals for Science. 2019; 2.


Knowledge the characteristics of the morphological structure, the main structural and functional components of human skin and laboratory animals is the foundation of rational planning of pharmacological and toxicological preclinical studies of skin dosage forms in aspect. The choice of laboratory animals must be justified for accurate translation of the results of pre-clinical studies into clinical studies (early phase). A brief report shows the comparative morphology of human skin and certain types of laboratory animals: mouse, rat, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, ferret, minipig. Structural similarities and differences of skin layers (epidermis, dermis, gmpoderm) are described. A comparative characteristic of the thickness of the epidermis and dermis in different species, carried out on the analysis of literature data and results obtained in their own research. A comparative analysis was conducted both between humans and laboratory animals, and between species.

Full text available only in Russian


  1. Grebenyuk L.A. Utenkin A.A. Mexanicheskie svojstva kozhnogo pokrova cheloveka. Fiziologiya cheloveka; 1994; №2.
  2. Xe`m A., Kormak D. Gistologiya. V 5-ti tomax. M.: Mir, 1983.
  3. Subrtová D. Ultrastructure of the epidermis in laboratory rats under normal conditions and after percutaneous administration of an organophosphate. Sb Ved Pr Lek Fak Karlovy Univerzity Hradci Kralove. 1989. Vol. 32 (3): 221–312.
  4. George A Parker, Catherine A. Picut. Atlas of Histology of the Juvenile Rat. Academic Press, 2016: 462.
  5. Eggleston T.A., Roach W.P., Mitchell M.A., Smith K., Oler D., Johnson T.E. Comparison of two porcine (Sus scrofa domestica) skin models for in vivo near-infrared laser exposure. C omp. Med. 2000. Vol. 50 (4): 391–7.
  6. Avci P., Sadasivam M., Gupta A., De Melo W.C., Huang Y.Y., Yin R., Chandran R., Kumar R., Otufowora A., Nyame T., Hamblin M.R. Animal models of skin disease for drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2013. Vol. 8 (3): 331–5. doi: 10.1517/17460441.2013.761202.
  7. Treuting P.M., Dintzis S.M., Frevert C.W. et al. Comparative Anatomy and Histology: A Mouse and Human Atlas. Elsevier, Amster-dam-Boston-Heilderberg-London-NewYork-Oxford-Paris-SanDiego-SanFrancisco-Singapore-Sydney-Tokyo, 2012: 461.
  8. Stricker-Krongrad A., Shoemake C.R., Liu J., Brocksmith D., Bouchard G. The importance of minipigs in dermal safety assessment: an overview. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2016. Vol. 10: 1–9. doi: 0.1080/15569527.2016.1178277.
  9. Hahn P., Novak M. Development of brown and white adipose tissue. Journal of lipid research. 1975. Vol. 16: 79–91.
  10. Dauncey M.J., Wooding F.B., Ingram D.L. Evidence for the presence of brown adipose tissue in the pig. Research in veterinary science. 1981. Vol. 31 (1): 76–81.
  11. van Ravenzwaay B., Leibold E. A comparison between in vitro rat and human and in vivo rat skin absorption. Human & Experimental Toxicology. 2004. Vol. 23: 421–30.
  12. Sullivan T.P., Eaglstein W.H., Davis S.C., Mertz P. (2001). The pig as a model for human wound healing. Wound Repair. Regen. 2001. Vol. 9: 66–76.

You may be interested