Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Vet Med Sci ; 79(10): 1707-1711, 2017 Oct 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28845024

ABSTRACT

An evaluation of mouse red blood cell (RBC) and platelet (PLT) counting with an automated hematology analyzer was performed with three strains of mice, C57BL/6 (B6), BALB/c (BALB) and DBA/2 (D2). There were no significant differences in RBC and PLT counts between manual and automated optical methods in any of the samples, except for D2 mice. For D2, RBC counts obtained using the manual method were significantly lower than those obtained using the automated optical method (P<0.05), and PLT counts obtained using the manual method were higher than those obtained using the automated optical method (P<0.05). An automated hematology analyzer can be used for RBC and PLT counting; however, an appropriate method should be selected when D2 mice samples are used.


Subject(s)
Autoanalysis/veterinary , Erythrocyte Count/veterinary , Platelet Count/veterinary , Animals , Autoanalysis/instrumentation , Autoanalysis/mortality , Erythrocyte Count/instrumentation , Erythrocyte Count/methods , Male , Mice , Mice, Inbred BALB C/blood , Mice, Inbred C57BL/blood , Mice, Inbred DBA/blood , Platelet Count/instrumentation , Platelet Count/methods , Reproducibility of Results
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...