Research Article

 

Morphological and Histological Study of the Cecum and Colon in Adult Local Camelus dromedarius

 

Ahmed Adeeb Mohamed1*, Khalid Hadi Kadhim2, Diyar Mohammad Hussein2

1College of pharmacy, AL Muthanna University, Samawa, Iraq, 66001; 2Department of Anatomy and Histology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Al Muthanna University, Samawa, Iraq, 66001.

 

Editor | Kuldeep Dhama, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Received | May 12, 2018; Accepted | June 27, 2018; Published | July 25, 2018

*Correspondence | Ahmed Adeeb Mohamed, College of pharmacy, AL Muthanna University, Samawa, Iraq, 66001; Email: ahmedadeeb57@mu.edu.iq

Citation | Mohamed AA, Kadhim KH, Hussein DM (2018). Morphological and histological study of the cecum and colon in adult local camelus dromedarius. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 6(7): 286-291.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2018/6.7.286.291

ISSN (Online) | 2307-8316; ISSN (Print) | 2309-3331

Copyright © 2018 Mohamed et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

 

Introduction

 

Camels belong to the taxonomic order Artiodactyla (even toed Ungulates), sub-order Tylopoda (Pad-footed), of the family Camelidae. The Camelidae is a relatively small family of two genera: Camelus (Old world camels) and Lama (New world camels). The genus Camelus consists of Camelus dromedarius, commonly known as the dromedary, one-humped or Arabian camels and Camelus bactrianus, the Bactrian or two-humped camels (Burton et al., 1969; Burton, 1972; Wilson, 1984). The one-humped Dromedary is the largest mammalianspecies. It is adapted to the desert where thorny plants with rough and hard stems grow and with its high temperatures and extreme desiccation (Bello et al., 2012). Dromedary camel is widely distributed in the desert of the Arabian countries. It is characterized by its ability to tolerate greater than 30% water loss, which is generally impossible for other mammals (Rizk et al., 2017). One- humped Camel is an important multi-purpose animal in arid and semi-arid areas of the world. There are about 20 million camels in the world (FAO, 1992). They are kept for a variety of purposes e.g. transportation, racing (Osuebeni et al., 1999), and as source of human food (Dorman, 1986). The digestive anatomy and physiology of dromedarian camel at embryonic level is least understood when compared to Llama, Guanaco, Cattle, Sheep, Goat and Pig (Cummings et al., 1972; Bustinza, 1979). The description of dromedarian camel is usually made as if it is identical with Llama species (Cummings et al., 1972).Though, they are pseudo-ruminants that possess a three-chambered stomach, lacking the omasum that is part of the four-chambered stomach of the order Ruminantia (Bustinza, 1979; Wilson, 1995). The true camels (Camelus dromedarius and Camelus bacterianus) are closely related anatomically to the South American Camelids (Franco et al., 2004).The large intestine consists of different parts (segments) with various functions. The segments of these parts are: the transverse colon, ascending colon, appendix (when present), descending colon, rectum and anus (Dyce et al., 2010). In the process, fecal balls are formed, which can be passed through the rectum and are expelled out the anus (Cummings et al., 1972). Review of literature revealed scarce information concerning colon and cecum micro and macro anatomy of local Iraqi camel. Consequently, this study designed to describe the gross and microscopic features of the cecum and colon of the one-humped Dromedary (Camelus dromedarius).

 

Materials and methods

 

Specimens were collected from five healthy local one-humped camel males (Camelus dromedarius), between 4 to 5 years old that slaughtered at AL-Muthanna abattoir. All collected specimens were free from gross pathological changes. For gross study the intestinal tract was separated and dissecting it away from it attachments to the dorsal abdominal wall, the total length, thickness of wall and weight of the cecum and colon (weight after empty of the parts) (Perez, 2016), measured by digital electronic verinia, measurement tape and ruler. The cecum was taken from the apex border to the caeco-colic junction. The length of the colon was taken from the ileo-caeco-colic junction to the beginning of the sacculation at colo-rectal junction. For histological study one centimeter of different segments of cecum and the colon (proximal anza, centripetal, centrifugal, and distal anza) were fixed in 10% formalin for 48 hours at room temperature. The tissues were processed following standard histological procedure (dehydration with an ascending grade of alcohol, clearing in xylene and impregnation (embedding) in liquid paraffin wax) was performed. Immediately after embedding, the specimens were processed for histology using standard histological techniques. The tissues were sectioned at 5 μm thickness and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) (Luna, 1968). The slides were then dipped in xylene and mounted with cover slip using DPX mounting medium. The slides were examined under light microscope and images were captured by connected digital camera. The following layers were examined and measured:

 

1- Thickness of the tunica mucosa (epithelium, lamina propria and muscularis mucosa), tunica submucosa, tunica muscularis (circular and longitudinal layers) and tunica serosa.

 

2- Crypts of Lieberkuhn and goblet cells counts, ten sections from each part, in each section the crypts and cells in ten microscopic fields were counted. (Longitudinal sections used only).

 

The mean (X-) and the standard error (S.E) were calculated for 5 slides for each part of the examined tissue (Al-Rawi and Kalaf-Allah, 1980).

 

Results

 

The cecum was appeared as a blind-ending piece of gut that arises at the junction of the ileum and colon and attached to mesentery at the right side of abdomen (Figure 1). Thececum mean length, weight after removed of the contents and mesenteriesand thickness of wall were (51.35± 6.40) cm, (72.5± 9.4) gm and (0.124 ± 0.07) cm respectively (Table 1). The colon appeared as one long continuous hollow tube (Figure 1), and its mean length, weight after removed of the contents and mesenteries and wall thickness were (642.44±34.12) cm. (863.6±32.4)gm and (0.158±0.06) cm respectively (Table 1).

 

Table 1: Measurement of length(cm), weight(gm) and thickness of the wall(cm), of the cecum and colon (X± S.E).

 

Measure/Part	Length (cm)	Weight(gm)	Thickness(cm)
Cecum	51.35 ± 6.40	72.5 ± 9.4	0.124 ± 0.07
Colon	642.44 ±34.12	863.6 ± 32.4	0.158 ± 0.06

 

Macroscopically, the colon was divided into ascending, transverse and descending parts. The ascending colon had three ansa: the proximal ansa, the spiral ansa and the distal ansa. The ascending colon was the most developed portion of the colon and located in the abdomen left side (Figure 2).

 

 

 

Table 2: Measurement of thickness of the wall layers of the cecum and colon (µm) (X± S.E).

 

Measure /Part	Mucosa	Submucosa	Muscularisexternia	Serosa or Adventatia
Cecum	366.7± 34.1	243.2± 44.3	513.9± 46.3	187.9± 17.6
Colon	487.9± 26.6	124.8± 16.6	694.7± 37.4	212.7 ± 14.1

 

The cecum and colon wall was composed of the four tunicae (mucosa, submucosa, muscularis externa and serosa or adventitia).The tunica mucosa or the inner layer lined of the cecum and colon lumenwithout villi or plicae circulares. Colon mucosa and the submucosa exhibited temporary folds (Figure 3 and 4). The mean thickness of these tunica in colon was more than that in cecum (487.9±26.6) μm and (366.7 ± 34.1) μm respectively (Table 2). The tunica mucosa were included three different layers; the lining simple columnar epithelium, the lamina proparia composed of loose connective tissue and several crypts of Lieberkuhn; and smooth muscle of the muscularis mucosa (Figure 5 and 6). The colon epithelium has large number of goblet cells. Goblet cells appeared as globular shaped unicellular mucous that dispersed among the columnar cells of the epithelium and lined of crypts of Lieberkuhn in tunica mucosa of the whole cecum and colon (Figure 5, 6 and 7).

 

 

 

The colon revealed large number of crypts of Lieberkuhn and goblet cells (31 ± 4) and (262 ± 11) respectively more than that in cecum (27 ± 5) and (218 ± 12) respectively (Table 3). The cecum and colon submucosa showed dense connective tissue that revealed absence of glands and aggregates of lymphatic nodules (Figure 5). The mean thickness of cecum submucosa was more than that in colon (243.2±44.3)μm and (124.8±16.6)μm respectively (Table. 2). The smooth muscle layers of muscularis externia revealed inner circular muscle layer in colon, however it wasrandomly oriented in cecum and its modified thickenings of the outer longitudinal muscle of the colon called taenia

 

 

coli. The mean thickness of these tunica in colon was more than that in cecum (694.7±37.4)μm and (513.9±46.3)μm respectively. The colon and cecum revealed also both adventitia and serosa loose connective tissues with mesothelium, the mean thickness of these tunica in colon was more than that in cecum (212.7±14.1)μm and (187.9±17.6)μm respectively.

 

Table 3: The number of crypts of Lieberkuhn and goblet cells per microscopic field (40X) in cecum and colon (µm) (X± S.E).

 

Measure/Part	Crypts of Lieberkuhn	Goblet cells
Cecum	27 ± 5	218 ± 12
Colon	31 ± 4	262 ± 11

 

 

Discussion

 

Digestive system of camelids is somehow alike to ruminants in several aspects, including regurgitation of ingesta and active microbial fermentation in the stomach (Frandsonet al., 2003). The small and large intestine of the Llama and the Alpaca occupy most of the space caudally and caudodorsal to the abomasum, particularly in the right paralumbar fossa (Cebra et al., 2002). However, it lies almost entirely to the right of the midline, packed mainly into the dorsal part of the abdomen, partially in the hypochondriac sub region, in ruminants (Dyce et al., 2010). Both caecum and colon were smooth externally and had no sacculations or bands. Colon is larger in its part and coiled in manner similar to that of the pig (Dyce et al., 2010).The gross anatomy of this study showed that ascending colon of the camel had three ansae (proximal, spiral and distal) and this results are in agreement with observations described previously for bovine, ovine and caprine (Franco et al., 1993) and Myocastor coypus (Perez et al., 2008). The main function of the cecum and colon as parts of the large intestine is to reclaim excess moisture and return it to the body (Franco et al., 1993). Fecal balls are formed and passed through the rectum and are expelled out the anus (Cumming,1972). One of the functions of the colon is to absorption of vitamins B and K, some electrolytes (Na+ and Cl−), and most of the remaining water, to form stools, and to eliminate it (Maloiy et al., 1980). The proximal half of the colon absorbs salts (e.g., sodium chloride), water, and vitamins produced by bacteria. Storage, however the distal half of the colon holds feces until it is eliminated (Pérez et al., 2016).

 

In the present study the cecum appeared as a blind-ending piece of gut that arises at the junction of the ileum and colon. Moreover, its attached to mesentery and the colon was structured as one long continuous hollow tube. Simultaneously, the colon was divided into ascending, transverse and descending parts. The ascending colon had three ansa: the proximal ansa, the spiral ansa and the distal ansa. The ascending colon was the most developed portion of the colon that located in left side of abdomen. These observations arein agreement with previous reported findings in the alpaca, dromedary and Giraffe (Pérez et al., 2016; Pérez et al., 2009).

 

The cecum and colon wall was composed of the four tunicae (mucosa, submucosa, muscularis externa and serosa or adventitia). The tunica mucosa is the inner layer that lined the cecum and colon lumen and didn’t revealed villi. This result is in agreement with observations reported previously in ruminants and camelid (Dellmann and Brown, 1987; Althnaian et al., 2013). The tunica mucosa of cecum and colon was included three different layers;the lining simple columnar epithelium with large number of goblet cells, the lamina proparia composed of loose connective tissue and several crypts of Lieberkuhn and smooth muscle of the muscularis mucosa. However, the submucosa of cecum and colon revealed dense connective tissue and no gland and aggregates of lymphatic nodules extending to the mucosa. The smooth muscle layers of muscularis externia revealed inner circular muscle layer in colon and were slightlyand randomly oriented in cecum with modified thickenings of the outer longitudinal muscle of the colon that called taenia coli. These findings are compatible with previous observations reported for the one humped camel colon (Al Hussany et al., 2013).

 

The lining epithelium of the entire colon is simple columnar with large number of goblet cells. The glands appeared as simple straight tubular with large number of goblet cells and thin muscularis mucosa that was always present below the glands separating the lamina propria from the tunica submucosa. In few regions of the tunica submucosa, a small aggregation of lymphoid tissues was observed. The tunica submucosa was composed of regular connective tissue with blood vessels, and lymphatics scattered within it. Submucosal nerve plexus and ganglia were present inside the tunica submucosa. The tunica muscularis appeared to consist of relatively thick inner circular layer and much smaller outer longitudinal cell layers. Inner circular layer appeared to consist of two layers of almost equal sizes separated by thin intermuscular connective tissue and the cecum of the camel likely cecum of the Giraffe, which was smooth externally and had no sacculations or bands (Perez et al., 2009). These observations are unlikely to previous reported results of equine cecum and in cattle, sheep and goat (Kadam et al., 2011). In conclusion, this study described the macro and microscopical observations on the camel and cecum and colon. The authors recommend more studies on the different parts of the camelids digestive system and compare it with others ruminants.

 

Acknowledgements

 

The authors gratefully acknowledge college of veterinary medicine / the university of AL Muthanna for the their gracious assistance.

 

Conflict of Interest

 

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 

Authors Contribution

 

All authors contributed equally.

 

References

 

• Al-Hussany BF, AbassTh A, Morteta Al-Medhtiy (2013). Histological investigation of the cells in colon one humped camel (Camelus dromedarius). Bio. J. Kufauni. (5) (1) : 1-13.

• Al-Rawi KM, Kalaf-Allah IS (1980). Design and Analysis Agriculture Experiments. Dar-Al Kutub-Mosul, Iraq. Pp: 65: 95-107.

• Althnaian TA, Alkhodair KM, Albokhadaim IF, Abdelhay M Ali, Homeida AM, El-Bahr SM (2013). Histological and Histochemical Investigation on Duodenum of Dromedary Camels (Camelus dromedarius). Sci. Int. 1(6): 217-221. https://doi.org/10.17311/sciintl.2013.217.221

• Bello A, Onyeanusi BI, Sonfada ML, Adeyanju JB, Umar AA, Umaru MA, Shehu SA, Hena SA (2012). Histomorphological studies of the prenatal development of esophagus of one humped camel (camelus dromedarius). Scient. J. Agric. 1.4: 100-104.

• Burton M (1972).The World Encyclopaedia of Animals. World Publishing Company. New York. Pp 1422.

• Burton M, Burton R, Marshal lC (1969).The International Wildlife Encyclopedia. BPC Publishing Limited. New York. 10: 1329 – 1331.

• Bustinza AV (1979). South American Camelids. International IFS Symposium Camels. Sudan : 73-108.

• Cebra CK, Watrous BJ, Cebra ML (2002). Transabdominal ultrasonographic appearance of the gastrointestinal viscera of healthy llamas and alpacas.Vet. Rad. Ultra. 43 (4) : 359-366 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2002.tb01019.x

• Cummings JF. (1972).The mucigenous glandular mucosa in the complex stomach of two New-World Camelids, the llama and guanaco”. J. Morphol. 137.1 :71-110. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1051370106

• Dellmann HD, Brown BM (1987). Text book of Veterinary Histology 3rd Edn Lee and Febiger Philadelphia. 209-253.

• Dorman AE (1986). Aspects of the husbandry and management of the genus Camelus. In: Higgins AJ (ed).Camel Health Dis., Baillier Tindall, London. Pp. 3-20.

• Dyce KM, Sack WO, Wensing CJG (2010). Text Book of Veterinary Anatomy.4th ed. Saunder Elsevier.

• FAO-OIE-WHO (1992). Animal Health Year Book. Food Agri. Org. United Nations, Rome, Italy. 46: 206-8.

• Franco A (1993). Histomorphometic analysis of the omasum of sheep during development”. American J. Vet. Res.

• Franco A (2004). Morphometric and immuno histochemical study of the rumen of red deer during prenatal development”. J. Anat. 204.6 : 501-513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8782.2004.00291.x

• Frandson RD, Lee Wilke W, Dee Fails A (2003). Anat. Physiol. Farm Anim. 6th Edn., Philadelphia, Lippincott: Williams and Wilkins. PP: 318-320.

• Kadam NS Bhosle, Kapadnis PJ (2011). Comparative histological study of cecum cattle , sheep and goat. Indian J. Anim. Res. 45 (1) : 67 – 69.

• Luna IG (1968). Manual of histology staining methods of the armed force institute of pathology.3rded. McGraw. Hill book company. New York. Pp :33 ,76 -168 .

• Maloiy GMO, Clemens ET (1980). Colonic absorption and secretion of electrolytes as seen in five species of East African herbivorous mammals. Comparat. Biochem. Physiol. Part A: Physiol. 67 (1): 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(80)90404-1

• Osuobeni EP, Hamidzada WA (1999). Ultrasonographic determination of the dimensions of ocular components in enucleated eyes of the one-humped camel (Camelus dromedarius) Res. Vet. Sci. 67(2): 125-9. https://doi.org/10.1053/rvsc.1998.0288

• Pe´rez1 M Lima, Clauss M (2009). Gross Anatomy of the Intestine in the Giraffe (Giraffacamelopardalis) Anat. Histol. Embryol. 38: 432–435.

• Perez W (2008). Gross anatomy of the intestine and its mesentery in the nutria (Myocastor coypus)”. Folia Morphologica. 67.4: 286-291.

• Pérez W, Horst EK, Hassen J, Marcus C (2016). Macroanatomical aspects of the gastrointestinal tractof the alpaca (Vicugnapacos Linnaeus, 1758) and dromedary (Camelus dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758). Vertebret Zoology. 66(3):419-25.

• Rizk HM, Khalifa EF, Abdelgalil AI (2017). Comparative morphometric overview between the two milk systems of the mammary gland of one humped camel (Camelus dromedarius) Res. J. Pharmaceutical. Biol. Chem. Sci. 8(3) : 2417-2425.

• Wilson RT (1984). The Camel. Longman Group Ltd, London. Pp 233.

• Wilson RT (1995). Studies on the livestock of Southern Darfur. Sudan V. Notes on camels”. Trop. Anim. Health Prod.10.1: 19-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02235296