| Literature DB >> 27294128 |
Yong-Jian Ma1, Hou-De Zhang2, Yong-Qiang Ji3, Guo-Liang Zhu3, Jia-Liang Huang3, Li-Tao Du3, Ping Cao4, De-Yue Zang4, Ji-Hui Du5, Rong Li5, Lei Wang5.
Abstract
This study was to develop a CO breath test for RBC lifespan estimation of small animals. The ribavirin induced hemolysis rabbit models were placed individually in a closed rebreath cage and air samples were collected for measurement of CO concentration. RBC lifespan was calculated from accumulated CO, blood volume, and hemoglobin concentration data. RBC lifespan was determined in the same animals with the standard biotin-labeling method. RBC lifespan data obtained by the CO breath test method for control (CON, 49.0 ± 5.9 d) rabbits, rabbits given 10 mg/kg·d(-1) of ribavirin (RIB10, 31.0 ± 4.0 d), and rabbits given 20 mg/kg·d(-1) of ribavirin (RIB20, 25.0 ± 2.9 d) were statistically similar (all p > 0.05) to and linearly correlated (r = 0.96, p < 0.01) with the RBC lifespan data obtained for the same rabbits by the standard biotin-labeling method (CON, 51.0 ± 2.7 d; RIB10, 33.0 ± 1.3 d; and RIB20, 27.0 ± 0.8 d). The CO breath test method takes less than 3 h to complete, whereas the standard method requires at least several weeks. In conclusion, the CO breath test method provides a simple and rapid means of estimating RBC lifespan and is feasible for use with small animal models.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27294128 PMCID: PMC4880698 DOI: 10.1155/2016/7173156
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Schematic representation of the rebreath system for accumulating endogenous CO of rabbits.
Physiological parameters of the groups on day 20 of ribavirin treatment.
| Group |
| Weight (kg) | Blood volume (mL) | Hemoglobin (g/L) | Reticulocyte (%) | Bilirubin ( | CO (ppm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Indirect | |||||||
| CON | 5 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | 186 ± 54 | 117 ± 1.1 | 2.1 ± 0.4 | 0.8 ± 0.09 | 0.3 ± 0.11 | 0.81 ± 0.19 |
| RIB10 | 5 | 2.7 ± 0.3 | 130 ± 17 | 117 ± 5.7 | 6.5 ± 0.8 | 1.5 ± 0.28 | 0.8 ± 0.13 | 0.92 ± 0.18 |
| RIB20 | 5 | 2.8 ± 0.2 | 128 ± 14 | 107 ± 6.6 | 11.7 ± 1.8 | 1.7 ± 0.11 | 1.1 ± 0.09 | 1.00 ± 0.05 |
p < 0.05, p < 0.01 versus CON. # p < 0.05, ## p < 0.01 versus RIB10.
Comparison of RBC lifespan determined by biotin labeling versus CO breath test methods.
| Group |
| RBC lifespan (d) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biotin labeling | CO breath test | |||
| CON | 5 | 51 ± 2.7 | 49 ± 5.9 | 0.515 |
| RIB10 | 5 | 33 ± 1.3 | 31 ± 4.0 | 0.200 |
| RIB20 | 5 | 27 ± 0.8 | 25 ± 2.9 | 0.108 |
p < 0.01 versus CON. ## p < 0.01 versus RIB10.
Figure 2Comparison of the red blood cell (RBC) life span calculated by the CO breath test (Y) and the biotin-labeling measurement (X) in 15 rabbits with different statuses. The two methods show a very strong direct correlation (R 2 = 0.96, p < 0.001).