Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 11, 2025

Saline Lavage for Sampling of the Canine Nasal Immune Microenvironment
Published on: December 27, 2024
Flow cytometry of non-hematopoietic cells in canine effusions
Federica Sini1, Maverick Melega1, Francesca Tiziana Cannizzo1
1Department of Veterinary Sciences, School of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, University of Turin, Grugliasco, TO, Italy.
Insights
Flow cytometry offers a faster alternative to immunohistochemistry for identifying non-hematopoietic cells in canine effusions using cytokeratin, vimentin, and desmin markers. While generally concordant, flow cytometry may have lower sensitivity for vimentin detection.
Area of Science:
- Veterinary Cytopathology
- Immunophenotyping
- Flow Cytometry
Background:
- Identifying non-hematopoietic cells in effusions is diagnostically challenging in veterinary cytology.
- Immunohistochemistry on smears or cell blocks are common ancillary tests.
- Cavitary effusions are suitable for flow cytometry analysis.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate flow cytometry as an alternative to immunohistochemistry for detecting cytokeratin (CK), vimentin (VIM), and desmin (DES) in canine effusions.
- To assess the concordance between flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry for these markers.
- To establish a flow cytometric panel for differentiating cell origins (epithelial, mesothelial, mesenchymal).
Main Methods:
- Flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry were performed on 36 canine effusions.
- Expression of CK, VIM, and DES was determined using both methods.
- A panel interpretation was used to classify cell origins: epithelial (CK+VIM-DES-), mesothelial (CK+VIM+DES+), or mesenchymal (CK-VIM+DES-).
Main Results:
- Perfect concordance (100%) for CK, substantial for VIM (77.8%), and almost perfect for DES (97.2%) between flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry.
- Panel interpretation concordance was 75%.
- Flow cytometry showed potentially lower sensitivity for VIM detection, with observed high VIM expression in epithelial cells and variable VIM in mesothelial cells.
Conclusions:
- Flow cytometry is a time-saving alternative to immunohistochemistry for detecting CK, VIM, and DES in canine effusions.
- The flow cytometric panel is largely concordant with immunohistochemistry but requires careful interpretation, especially for VIM.
- Further multicentric studies are needed to confirm findings and establish diagnostic utility.
Abstract:
The identification of non-hematopoietic cells in effusions is a diagnostic challenge in cytology. Biopsies from mesothelium or primary lesions are infrequently performed in clinical settings and immunochemistry on smears or immunohistochemistry on cell blocks are the most common ancillary test to refine the cytological diagnosis. Cavitary effusions are an ideal matrix for flow cytometry and the availability of a cytometric panel to describe non-hematopoietic cells would represent a useful tool. Here we present the results of the flow cytometric and immunohistochemical determination of cytokeratin (CK), vimentin (VIM) and desmin (DES) in 36 canine effusions. The concordance between the two methods was perfect for CK (100%), substantial for VIM (77.8%), and almost perfect for DES (97.2%). The panel was interpreted to define the epithelial (CK+VIM-DES-), mesothelial (CK+VIM+DES+), or mesenchymal (CK-VIM+DES-) origin of the cells. Unexpected profiles were considered doubtful and observed patterns were individually discussed. The concordance of the panel interpretation between two methods was 75%. The evaluation of discordant and doubtful cases suggests a lower sensitivity of flow cytometry in detecting VIM expression and revealed a high frequency of VIM+ epithelial cells, variable expression of VIM in mesothelial cells, and an important role of DES in excluding an epithelial origin when positive. Multicentric studies based on histopathological diagnoses are necessary to confirm these findings and evaluate the diagnostic utility of the panel to refine cytological diagnosis. Our results show that flow cytometry can be a timesaving alternative to IHC on cell blocks in clinical settings to detect CK, VIM and DES expression. The interpretation of the panel is similar in most cases; however, occasional discordant results, particularly for VIM, may occur.

