目的 總結(jié)康龍化成（北京）生物技術(shù)有限公司安評(píng)機(jī)構(gòu)臨床病理實(shí)驗(yàn)室2014—2016年測(cè)定的SD大鼠和比格犬的血液學(xué)、生化、血凝指標(biāo)的參考值范圍。方法 收集并分析了2014—2016年的SD大鼠和比格犬的血液學(xué)、血清生化、血凝指標(biāo)數(shù)據(jù)，其中548只SD大鼠（266只雄性和282只雌性）和2010只比格犬（998只雌性和1 012只雄性）。SD大鼠平均10～12周齡，雄性SD大鼠體質(zhì)量350～400 g，雌性SD大鼠體質(zhì)量220～270 g。比格犬平均7～9月齡，體質(zhì)量8～11 kg。收集終末期剖檢時(shí)對(duì)照組SD大鼠的血液樣本、最近1次給藥前比格犬健康體檢的血液樣本。采血前實(shí)驗(yàn)動(dòng)物禁食過(guò)夜，SD大鼠使用70% CO₂和30% O₂混合麻醉，比格犬不麻醉。測(cè)試使用Siemens Advia 2120i血常規(guī)分析儀、Hitachi 7080生化分析儀、Instrumentation Laboratory ACL 9000血凝分析儀。采用均數(shù)加減1.96個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差計(jì)算出正常參考值范圍。結(jié)果 計(jì)算得出的SD大鼠的血液學(xué)、血清生化、血凝指標(biāo)背景參考值與已有國(guó)外報(bào)道的文獻(xiàn)基本一致；比格犬的血液學(xué)、血清生化、血凝指標(biāo)背景參考值未見(jiàn)報(bào)道，填補(bǔ)了本部分研究的空白。結(jié)論 得出的SD大鼠和比格犬的血液學(xué)、血清生化、血凝指標(biāo)背景參考值有助于毒理學(xué)家、病理學(xué)家分析比較，判定解釋實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果。

Objective To summarily introduce how to establish the range of reference values for SD rat and Beagle dog in Pharmaron's pathology laboratory. Methods Clinical pathology data within three years (2014—2016) from 548 SD rats (266 males and 282 females) and 2 010 Beagle dogs (1 012 males and 998 females) were corrected and analyzed. The average age of SD rats and Beagle dogs were 10 to 12 weeks (body weight at 350—400 g for male rats, at 220—270 g for female rats) and 7 to 9 months (body weight at 8—11 kg for dogs), respectively. Blood samples of SD rats were collected from control groups at the phase of terminal sacrifice, while Beagle dogs' were collected from all groups at the phase of recent pre-dose prior to randomization. All rats and dogs were food fasted over night for clinical pathology blood sampling. Analysis were performed using Bayer Advia 2120i hematology analyzer, Hitachi 7080 automatic chemistry analyzer and Instrumentation Laboratory ACL 9000 coagulation analyzer. Statistical analysis determined the mean (x), standard deviation (s) and 95% confidence intervals using the formula of x±1.96 s to calculate the range of reference value. Results By comparison, our clinical pathology data of SD rats were similar to the results from existing reports. The background reference values of hematology, serum biochemistry and blood coagulation indexes of Beagles dogs have not been reported, which fills the blank of this part of the study. Conclusion The results indicated that our clinical pathology parameters from SD rats and Beagle dogs were reliable and useful for toxicological pathologists and study directors in their data interpretation.

R965.3