Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 24, 2026
Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Testing Analyzer for Measuring Peripheral Blood Leukocytes
Published on: March 22, 2022
Evaluation of mouse red blood cell and platelet counting with an automated hematology analyzer
Teruko Fukuda1, Eri Asou2, Kimiko Nogi2
1Department of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Teikyo University, 2-1-11 Kaga Itabashi, Tokyo 173-8605, Japan.
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.
Insights
Automated hematology analyzers accurately count mouse red blood cells (RBCs) and platelets (PLTs). However, manual methods may be necessary for DBA/2 mice due to significant count differences observed in this strain.
Area of Science:
- Hematology
- Laboratory Animal Science
- Comparative Pathology
Background:
- Accurate red blood cell (RBC) and platelet (PLT) counts are crucial for hematological assessments in research.
- Automated hematology analyzers offer potential for high-throughput and precise cell counting.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the accuracy of an automated hematology analyzer for RBC and PLT counting across three common mouse strains: C57BL/6, BALB/c, and DBA/2.
- To compare automated optical methods with manual counting techniques.
Main Methods:
- Automated hematology analyzer used for RBC and PLT enumeration.
- Comparison of automated counts with manual counting methods.
- Analysis performed on blood samples from C57BL/6, BALB/c, and DBA/2 mice.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in RBC and PLT counts between manual and automated methods were observed in C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice.
- DBA/2 mice showed significant discrepancies: manual RBC counts were lower, and manual PLT counts were higher than automated optical method results (P<0.05).
Conclusions:
- Automated hematology analyzers are reliable for RBC and PLT counting in C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice.
- Specific method selection is critical for DBA/2 mice samples to ensure accurate hematological data.
- Further investigation into strain-specific variations in hematology analysis may be warranted.
