Comparison of various blood-typing methods for the feline AB blood group system

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
,
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 Sciences, 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
, and
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

Abstract

Objective—To compare feline blood-typing results determined by use of the card (CARD), gel (GEL), tube (TUBE), University of Pennsylvania (Penn) tube, and Penn slide tests.

Sample Population—Blood samples from 38 healthy cats.

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

Results—On the basis of the standard Penn tube and slide test results, 20, 11, and 7 cats were classified as type A positive, type B positive, and type AB positive, respectively. The same results were obtained with the anti-B and anti-B reagents of the TUBE test. Use of anti-A antibodies of original polyclonal and current monoclonal CARD tests resulted in mostly 2+ to 3+ (scale, 0 to 4+) agglutination reactions with blood samples from type A-positive cats; agglutination reactions with blood samples from type AB-positive cats were weak (1+). The anti-B lectin of the CARD test induced a 2+ to 4+ reaction with blood from all type B- and type AB-positive cats. Use of the GEL test allowed recognition of type A and type B blood samples; following addition of anti-A serum to control columns, type B blood was differentiated from type AB blood.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Use of the inpractice CARD test allows identification of type A and type B-positive cats, but weak reactions of type AB blood with the anti-A monoclonal antibody raise concerns. The modified GEL and TUBE tests appear to be reliable clinical laboratory methods for feline blood typing. (Am J Vet Res 2005;66:1393–1399)

Abstract

Objective—To compare feline blood-typing results determined by use of the card (CARD), gel (GEL), tube (TUBE), University of Pennsylvania (Penn) tube, and Penn slide tests.

Sample Population—Blood samples from 38 healthy cats.

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

Results—On the basis of the standard Penn tube and slide test results, 20, 11, and 7 cats were classified as type A positive, type B positive, and type AB positive, respectively. The same results were obtained with the anti-B and anti-B reagents of the TUBE test. Use of anti-A antibodies of original polyclonal and current monoclonal CARD tests resulted in mostly 2+ to 3+ (scale, 0 to 4+) agglutination reactions with blood samples from type A-positive cats; agglutination reactions with blood samples from type AB-positive cats were weak (1+). The anti-B lectin of the CARD test induced a 2+ to 4+ reaction with blood from all type B- and type AB-positive cats. Use of the GEL test allowed recognition of type A and type B blood samples; following addition of anti-A serum to control columns, type B blood was differentiated from type AB blood.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Use of the inpractice CARD test allows identification of type A and type B-positive cats, but weak reactions of type AB blood with the anti-A monoclonal antibody raise concerns. The modified GEL and TUBE tests appear to be reliable clinical laboratory methods for feline blood typing. (Am J Vet Res 2005;66:1393–1399)

Advertisement