This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jackson, C. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jackson, C. L. Related Collections Related Article

(Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2007;27:973.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.

Letters to the Editor

Defining and Defending Murine Models of Plaque Rupture

Christopher L. Jackson

From the Bristol Heart Institute, University of Bristol, UK.

Correspondence to Bristol Heart Institute, University of Bristol, Level 7, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol BS2 8HW, UK. E-mail chris.jackson@bristol.ac.uk

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

There is general agreement that atherosclerotic plaque rupture is a major clinical problem and that finding ways to prevent it would be greatly facilitated by an animal model of plaque rupture. The article by Schwartz et al¹ seeks to clarify and define the terms used in descriptions of disrupted atherosclerotic plaques, and then to apply these to murine models in order to assess their similarities to and differences from human ruptured lesions.

On the face of it this seems a reasonable thing to do, but it has some serious conceptual problems. The first is the issue of whether it is useful at all to provide definitions of disrupted plaques, especially when these are based on histopathology. The second concerns the transferability of such definitions from human to mouse. I would like also to deal with issues relating to reevaluation of existing mouse models of plaque rupture.

The Usefulness of Definitions

What do we gain from framing scientific definitions of real-world phenomena? In the context of the ruptured plaque, Schwartz et al¹ argue that this would provide an agreed upon and consistent framework that would make it easier for different labs to compare and contrast their data. There is obviously virtue in this as a general principle in science, but we have to consider the possibility that in the developing field of plaque rupture it may be premature. We do not know why plaques rupture, we do not know whether "plaque erosions" are simply the adjacent manifestations of ruptures that are out of the plane . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article:

Two Views on Plaque Rupture

Göran K. Hansson and Donald D. Heistad
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2007 27: 697. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. K. Hansson and D. D. Heistad Two Views on Plaque Rupture Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, April 1, 2007; 27(4): 697 - 697. [Full Text] [PDF]