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. 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 of the section, and we do not know whether “plaque fissures” arise through a different set of processes to plaque ruptures. In other words, this means that we do not know whether ruptures, erosions and fissures are ontogenically similar or different. We are therefore moving beyond the boundaries …
Read full abstract