Differentiating salient histopathologic changes from normal anatomic features or tissue artifacts can be decidedly challenging, especially for the novice fish pathologist. As a consequence, findings of questionable accuracy may be reported inadvertently, and the potential negative impacts of publishing inaccurate histopathologic interpretations are not always fully appreciated. The objectives of this article are to illustrate a number of specific morphologic findings in commonly examined fish tissues (e.g., gills, liver, kidney, and gonads) that are frequently either misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed, and to address related issues involving the interpretation of histopathologic data. To enhance the utility of this article as a guide, photomicrographs of normal and abnormal specimens are presented. General recommendations for generating and publishing results from histopathology studies are additionally provided. It is hoped that the furnished information will be a useful resource for manuscript generation, by helping authors, reviewers, and readers to critically assess fish histopathologic data.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

While the pathology peer review/pathology working group (PWG) model has long been used in mammalian toxicologic pathology to ensure the accuracy, consistency, and objectivity of histopathology data, application of this paradigm to ecotoxicological studies has thus far been limited. In the current project, the PWG approach was used to evaluate histopathologic sections of gills, liver, kidney, and/or intestines from three previously published studies of diclofenac in trout, among which there was substantial variation in the reported histopathologic findings. The main objectives of this review process were to investigate and potentially reconcile these interstudy differences, and based on the results, to establish an appropriate no observed effect concentration (NOEC). Following a complete examination of all histologic sections and original diagnoses by a single experienced fish pathologist (pathology peer review), a two-day PWG session was conducted to allow members of a four-person expert panel to determine the extent of treatment-related findings in each of the three trout studies. The PWG was performed according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Pesticide Regulation (PR) 94-5 (EPA Pesticide Regulation, 1994). In accordance with standard procedures, the PWG review was conducted by the non-voting chairperson in a manner intended to minimize bias, and thus during the evaluation, the four voting panelists were unaware of the treatment group status of individual fish and the original diagnoses associated with the histologic sections. Based on the results of this review, findings related to diclofenac exposure included minimal to slightly increased thickening of the gill filament tips in fish exposed to the highest concentration tested (1,000 μg/L), plus a previously undiagnosed finding, decreased hepatic glycogen, which also occurred at the 1,000 μg/L dose level. The panel found little evidence to support other reported effects of diclofenac in trout, and thus the overall NOEC was determined to be >320 μg/L. By consensus, the PWG panel was able to identify diagnostic inconsistencies among and within the three prior studies; therefore this exercise demonstrated the value of the pathology peer review/PWG approach for assessing the reliability of histopathology results that may be used by regulatory agencies for risk assessment.