Brandon Jeffrey, Reider Heather, Pabilonia Kristy L, Moore A Russell
Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratories, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Vet Clin Pathol. 2025 Jun;54(2):171-181. doi: 10.1111/vcp.70015. Epub 2025 Jun 2.
The bromocresol green albumin assay (ALB) has been used in birds and reportedly is noncomparable with electrophoretic albumin (ALB) in many species. It is accepted for use in some species and rejected in others.
We aimed to compare the performance of ALB and ALB methods within backyard chickens and compare the performance of ALB in chickens with other veterinary species where the ALB method is accepted and used clinically.
Chicken plasma collected during reference interval development and samples submitted for diagnostic biochemistry profile were evaluated using the ALB and ALB assays. Method comparison was performed according to current recommendations, including the use of Passing-Bablok and Bland-Altman analysis. ALB and ALB were also measured in other avian species, dogs, cats, horses, and domestic ruminants. Method comparison was evaluated within and between species, including clinical utility based on the percentage of cases discordantly interpreted as hypo-, normo-, or hyperalbuminemic by ALB and ALB.
In chickens, ALB and ALB were not comparable, having a constant bias (-0.4 g/dL) and proportional bias. Similarly, the methods were not comparable in other species; > 10% of samples had > TE (15%) difference in all species. The clinical utility of albumin interpretation in chickens did not differ significantly from that in dogs and horses, as determined by ANOVA.
The data suggest that ALB is not comparable with ALB and performs similarly across all tested species. There is no evidence to support the continued rejection of the ALB in chicken and other avians and acceptance in some mammals.
溴甲酚绿白蛋白测定法（ALB）已用于鸟类，据报道在许多物种中与电泳白蛋白（ALB）不可比。该方法在某些物种中被接受使用，而在其他物种中则被拒绝。
我们旨在比较后院鸡中ALB和ALB方法的性能，并将鸡中ALB的性能与临床上接受并使用ALB方法的其他兽医物种进行比较。
使用ALB和ALB测定法评估在参考区间制定期间收集的鸡血浆以及提交用于诊断生化分析的样本。根据当前建议进行方法比较，包括使用Passing-Bablok和Bland-Altman分析。还对其他鸟类、犬、猫、马和家养反刍动物进行了ALB和ALB测量。在物种内部和物种之间评估方法比较，包括基于ALB和ALB将病例不一致地解释为低白蛋白血症、正常白蛋白血症或高白蛋白血症的百分比的临床实用性。
在鸡中，ALB和ALB不可比，存在恒定偏差（-0.4 g/dL）和比例偏差。同样，这些方法在其他物种中也不可比；在所有物种中，超过10%的样本差异>TE（15%）。通过方差分析确定，鸡中白蛋白解释的临床实用性与犬和马中的临床实用性没有显著差异。
数据表明ALB与ALB不可比，并且在所有测试物种中的表现相似。没有证据支持继续拒绝在鸡和其他鸟类中使用ALB而在某些哺乳动物中接受该方法。
