Comparison of various canine blood-typing methods

Urs Giger Section of Medical Genetics, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Search for other papers by Urs Giger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PD, Dr med vet
,
Knut Stieger Section of Medical Genetics, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Present address is Laboratoire de Thérapie Génique, INSERM U649, 44035 Nantes, Cedex 1, France.

Search for other papers by Knut Stieger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 Dr med vet
, and
Hanna Palos Section of Medical Genetics, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Present address is the Department of Large Animal Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.

Search for other papers by Hanna Palos in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM

Abstract

Objective—To compare canine blood-typing results determined by use of the card (CARD), gel (GEL), Michigan State University (MSU), and tube (TUBE) tests.

Sample Population—Blood samples from 23 healthy dogs.

Procedures—Blood samples anticoagulated with EDTA were screened by use of each blood-typing method according to manufacturers' protocols.

Results—Strong RBC agglutination reactions were observed with dog erythrocyte antigen (DEA) 1.1 reagents of the CARD and GEL tests as well as MSU test (only after adding Coombs' reagent) in 9 blood samples. By use of the CARD test, RBCs from 4 additional dogs agglutinated weakly; on the basis of MSU test results, these 4 dogs were classified as DEA 1.2 positive. All blood samples agglutinated with the B antigen reagent of the TUBE test. All but 2 blood samples had strong positive reactions with the DEA 4 reagent of the MSU test. All but 3 blood samples reacted with the E antigen reagent of the TUBE test. Three blood samples agglutinated with the DEA 3 reagent of the MSU test and A antigen reagent of the TUBE test. Five blood samples had strong agglutination reactions with the DEA 5 reagent of the MSU test.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Use of the CARD test allows for rapid identification of DEA 1.1 but may produce weak reactions with blood from DEA 1.2-positive dogs. The GEL test is a reliable and rapid clinical laboratory method for identification of DEA 1.1. The MSU test requires Coombs' reagent for identification of DEA 1.1 and 1.2. (Am J Vet Res 2005;66:1386–1392)

Abstract

Objective—To compare canine blood-typing results determined by use of the card (CARD), gel (GEL), Michigan State University (MSU), and tube (TUBE) tests.

Sample Population—Blood samples from 23 healthy dogs.

Procedures—Blood samples anticoagulated with EDTA were screened by use of each blood-typing method according to manufacturers' protocols.

Results—Strong RBC agglutination reactions were observed with dog erythrocyte antigen (DEA) 1.1 reagents of the CARD and GEL tests as well as MSU test (only after adding Coombs' reagent) in 9 blood samples. By use of the CARD test, RBCs from 4 additional dogs agglutinated weakly; on the basis of MSU test results, these 4 dogs were classified as DEA 1.2 positive. All blood samples agglutinated with the B antigen reagent of the TUBE test. All but 2 blood samples had strong positive reactions with the DEA 4 reagent of the MSU test. All but 3 blood samples reacted with the E antigen reagent of the TUBE test. Three blood samples agglutinated with the DEA 3 reagent of the MSU test and A antigen reagent of the TUBE test. Five blood samples had strong agglutination reactions with the DEA 5 reagent of the MSU test.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Use of the CARD test allows for rapid identification of DEA 1.1 but may produce weak reactions with blood from DEA 1.2-positive dogs. The GEL test is a reliable and rapid clinical laboratory method for identification of DEA 1.1. The MSU test requires Coombs' reagent for identification of DEA 1.1 and 1.2. (Am J Vet Res 2005;66:1386–1392)

Advertisement