Department of Comparative, Diagnostic, and Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Vet Q. 2021 Dec;41(1):30-35. doi: 10.1080/01652176.2020.1867329.
Unique features of elephant hematology are known challenges in analytical methodology like two types of monocytes typical for members of the Order Afrotheria and platelet counts of the comparatively small elephant platelet. To investigate WBC differential and platelet data generated by an impedance-based hematology analyzer without availability of validated species-specific software for recognition of elephant WBCs and platelets, compared to manual blood film review. Blood samples preserved in ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) of 50 elephants (n = 35 and n = 15 ) were used. A Mann-Whitney test for independent samples was used to compare parameters between methods and agreement was tested using Bland-Altman bias plots. All hematological variables, including absolute numbers of heterophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, basophils, and platelets, were significantly different ( < 0.0001) between both methods of analysis, and there was no agreement using Bland-Altman bias plots. Manual review consistently produced higher heterophil and monocyte counts as well as platelet estimates, while the automated analyzer produced higher lymphocyte, eosinophil, and basophil counts. The hematology analyzer did not properly differentiate elephant lymphocytes and monocytes, and did not accurately count elephant platelets. These findings emphasize the importance of manual blood film review as part of elephant complete blood counts in both clinical and research settings and as a basis for the development of hematological reference intervals.
大象血液学的独特特征是分析方法学中的已知挑战，例如两种类型的单核细胞，这是非洲有蹄类动物成员的典型特征，以及相对较小的大象血小板的血小板计数。为了研究白细胞分类和血小板数据，使用基于阻抗的血液学分析仪进行分析，而该分析仪没有经过验证的特定于物种的软件可用于识别大象的白细胞和血小板，与手动血涂片检查进行比较。使用乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）保存的 50 头大象（n = 35 和 n = 15）的血液样本。使用独立样本的曼-惠特尼检验比较两种方法之间的参数，并使用 Bland-Altman 偏差图测试一致性。所有血液学变量，包括异嗜性粒细胞、淋巴细胞、单核细胞、嗜酸性粒细胞、嗜碱性粒细胞和血小板的绝对值，在两种分析方法之间均有显著差异（ < 0.0001），并且使用 Bland-Altman 偏差图没有一致性。手动检查始终产生更高的异嗜性粒细胞和单核细胞计数以及血小板估计值，而自动化分析仪产生更高的淋巴细胞、嗜酸性粒细胞和嗜碱性粒细胞计数。血液学分析仪不能正确区分大象的淋巴细胞和单核细胞，也不能准确计数大象的血小板。这些发现强调了在临床和研究环境中作为完整的大象血液计数的一部分进行手动血涂片检查的重要性，并且作为血液学参考区间的基础。
