Normal blood indices, bone marrow imprints, and the spleen of white rats
- 29 Downloads
Morphological composition of the blood and hemopoietic organs was studied in 200 healthy albino male rats. New hematological methods previously never applied by Soviet investigators were used (determination of erythrocytometric curve with the aid of celloscope study of the quantitative bone marrow composition).
A significant difference was noted in the total leucocyte, reticulocyte, and thrombocyte count, as well as in the hemoglobin content of blood obtained from the caudal vein and from the corpse. Higher indices were obtained in the first case.
The average diameter of rat erythrocytes determined with the aid of a celloscope was 6.52+0.02.
The figures of morphological blood composition obtained approached mostly those given in literature sources. It was only the average hemoglobin figures of the blood flowing from the corpse that proved lower than those recorded by the majority of investigators. Bone marrow volume in the rat femur was 27.8±0.84 mm3; bone marrow cell count per 1 mm3 was 2.125±0.039 million.
Just as in other species of laboratory animals, in the bone marrow imprint of rats there were more myeloid elements than erythroblasts, and more mature cells than young cells. There were 23.6±0.45 erythroblastic elements, and 59±0.66 myeloid elements. Lymphoid elements preponderated in splenic imprints, forming 84.0±0.53% of the total; granulocytes accounted for only 5.2±0.29%, and erythroblastic elements 1.6±0.14%.
KeywordsCaudal Vein Average Hemoglobin Thrombocyte Count Blood Index Blood Composition
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.A. A. Kudryavtsev, Blood investigation in veterinary diagnosis [in Russian] Moscow (1952), Part 1, p. 326.Google Scholar
- 2.V. A. Pokrovskii, Labor. prakt. (1940), No. 10, p. 17.Google Scholar
- 3.S. Duvolon, Sang (1947), Vol. 18, p. 205.Google Scholar
- 4.P. Liessens, Ibid. (1946), Vol. 17, p. 470.Google Scholar
- 5.J. M. Mantz, C. R. Soc. Biol. (1957), Vol. 151, p. 1957.Google Scholar
- 6.J. Stansey and G. M. Higgins, Anat. Rec. (1935), Vol. 63, p. 77.Google Scholar
- 7.K. Taylor, Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N. Y.), (1916), Vol. 13, p. 131.Google Scholar