Comparison of various canine blood-typing methods

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare canine blood-typing results determined by use of the card (CARD), gel (GEL), Michigan State University (MSU), and tube (TUBE) tests. SAMPLE POPULATION: Blood samples from 23 healthy dogs. PROCEDURES: Blood samples anticoagulated with EDTA were screened by use of each blood-typing method according to manufacturers' protocols. RESULTS: Strong RBC agglutination reactions were observed with dog erythrocyte antigen (DEA) 1.1 reagents of the CARD and GEL tests as well as MSU test (only after adding Coombs' reagent) in 9 blood samples. By use of the CARD test, RBCs from 4 additional dogs agglutinated weakly; on the basis of MSU test results, these 4 dogs were classified as DEA 1.2 positive. All blood samples agglutinated with the B antigen reagent of the TUBE test. All but 2 blood samples had strong positive reactions with the DEA 4 reagent of the MSU test. All but 3 blood samples reacted with the E antigen reagent of the TUBE test. Three blood samples agglutinated with the DEA 3 reagent of the MSU test and A antigen reagent of the TUBE test. Five blood samples had strong agglutination reactions with the DEA 5 reagent of the MSU test. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Use of the CARD test allows for rapid identification of DEA 1.1 but may produce weak reactions with blood from DEA 1.2-positive dogs. The GEL test is a reliable and rapid clinical laboratory method for identification of DEA 1.1. The MSU test requires Coombs' reagent for identification of DEA 1.1 and 1.2.