FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Veterinary clinical pathology2025; 54(2); 171-181; doi: 10.1111/vcp.70015

Comparison of Electrophoretic and Bromocresol Green Albumin Methods in Chickens and Other Veterinary Species.

Abstract: The bromocresol green albumin assay (ALB) has been used in birds and reportedly is noncomparable with electrophoretic albumin (ALB) in many species. It is accepted for use in some species and rejected in others. Objective: We aimed to compare the performance of ALB and ALB methods within backyard chickens and compare the performance of ALB in chickens with other veterinary species where the ALB method is accepted and used clinically. Methods: Chicken plasma collected during reference interval development and samples submitted for diagnostic biochemistry profile were evaluated using the ALB and ALB assays. Method comparison was performed according to current recommendations, including the use of Passing-Bablok and Bland-Altman analysis. ALB and ALB were also measured in other avian species, dogs, cats, horses, and domestic ruminants. Method comparison was evaluated within and between species, including clinical utility based on the percentage of cases discordantly interpreted as hypo-, normo-, or hyperalbuminemic by ALB and ALB. Results: In chickens, ALB and ALB were not comparable, having a constant bias (-0.4 g/dL) and proportional bias. Similarly, the methods were not comparable in other species; > 10% of samples had > TE (15%) difference in all species. The clinical utility of albumin interpretation in chickens did not differ significantly from that in dogs and horses, as determined by ANOVA. Conclusions: The data suggest that ALB is not comparable with ALB and performs similarly across all tested species. There is no evidence to support the continued rejection of the ALB in chicken and other avians and acceptance in some mammals.
© 2025 The Author(s). Veterinary Clinical Pathology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-06-02 PubMed ID: 40454730PubMed Central: PMC12289121DOI: 10.1111/vcp.70015Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Comparative Study

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study evaluated the comparability between two albumin measurement methods—the bromocresol green albumin assay (ALB) and electrophoretic albumin measurement (ALB)—in chickens and various veterinary species.
  • The researchers investigated whether discrepancies in albumin measurement methods justified limiting the use of the ALB assay in birds while accepting it in mammals.

Background

  • Albumin is a critical blood protein measured to assess health status in veterinary patients.
  • The two common methods for quantifying albumin are:
    • Bromocresol green albumin assay (ALB) – a dye-binding colorimetric method widely used for its convenience.
    • Electrophoretic albumin measurement (ALB) – a technique separating proteins based on electric charge, considered more specific.
  • While ALB assay use is accepted in several mammals, its validity in avian species, particularly chickens, has been questioned due to reported discrepancies compared to electrophoretic measurements.
  • This has led to inconsistency in clinical acceptance of ALB in birds versus mammals.

Study Objectives

  • To compare the performance and agreement of ALB and ALB albumin measurement methods within backyard chickens.
  • To compare the performance of ALB in chickens with that in other veterinary species, including birds, dogs, cats, horses, and domestic ruminants.
  • To assess clinical utility by analyzing how often the two methods resulted in different clinical interpretations of albumin status (hypoalbuminemic, normoalbuminemic, hyperalbuminemic).

Methods

  • Samples:
    • Chicken plasma samples collected during reference interval development and diagnostic routine tests.
    • Plasma samples from multiple other veterinary species for cross-species comparison.
  • Assays:
    • Both ALB (bromocresol green) and ALB (electrophoretic) methods were applied to all samples.
  • Statistical Analysis:
    • Passing-Bablok regression: A non-parametric method used to assess agreement between two quantitative measurement methods.
    • Bland-Altman analysis: Assesses bias (systematic differences) and agreement limits between two assays.
    • Clinical utility was analyzed by comparing the percentage of samples where the two methods disagreed in clinical interpretation categories.
    • ANOVA was used to compare clinical utility differences among species.

Results

  • In Chickens:
    • The ALB assay and ALB method were not directly comparable.
    • A consistent constant bias of approximately -0.4 g/dL was observed, along with proportional bias, indicating the degree of disagreement depended on albumin concentration.
  • Across Other Species:
    • ALB and ALB methods were also not comparable.
    • Over 10% of samples in all species showed greater than total allowable error (TE) of 15% difference between methods.
    • This indicates that differences between the methods are a general phenomenon, not limited to chickens or birds.
  • Clinical Utility:
    • The frequency of discordant clinical interpretations (e.g., one assay indicating hypoalbuminemia while the other did not) was similar between chickens, dogs, and horses.
    • ANOVA showed no statistically significant differences in clinical interpretation disagreement rates among species.

Conclusions

  • The bromocresol green albumin assay (ALB) is not strictly interchangeable with electrophoretic albumin measurement (ALB) in chickens or any other tested veterinary species.
  • The level of disagreement between ALB and ALB assays is consistent across both avian and mammalian species.
  • Given similar performance and clinical interpretation reliability, there is no scientific justification for rejecting the ALB assay in chickens and other birds while accepting it in some mammals.
  • This study supports broader acceptance and clinical use of the bromocresol green albumin assay in avian medicine similar to its accepted use in mammals.

Implications for Veterinary Practice

  • Veterinarians can consider the bromocresol green albumin assay for albumin measurement in chickens without concern about unique biases compared to mammals.
  • Awareness that methodological differences exist generally between ALB and ALB remains important for all species.
  • Interpretations of albumin levels should take into account that some variability is expected depending on the assay used, which should be factored into clinical decision-making.

Cite This Article

APA
Brandon J, Reider H, Pabilonia KL, Moore AR. (2025). Comparison of Electrophoretic and Bromocresol Green Albumin Methods in Chickens and Other Veterinary Species. Vet Clin Pathol, 54(2), 171-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/vcp.70015

Publication

Veterinary clinical pathology
ISSN: 1939-165X
NlmUniqueID: 9880575
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 54
Issue: 2
Pages: 171-181

Researcher Affiliations

Brandon, Jeffrey
  • Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Reider, Heather
  • Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratories, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Pabilonia, Kristy L
  • Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratories, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Moore, A Russell
  • Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Chickens / blood
  • Dogs / blood
  • Serum Albumin / analysis
  • Bromcresol Green
  • Cats / blood
  • Horses / blood
  • Electrophoresis / veterinary
  • Electrophoresis / methods
  • Albumins / analysis

Grant Funding

  • CSU Young Investigator Grant
  • CSU Clinical Pathology Research and Development Funds

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 40 references
  1. Elkhoraibi C, Blatchford RA, Pitesky ME, Mench JA. Backyard Chickens in the United States: A Survey of Flock Owners. Poultry Science 93, no. 11 (2014): 2920–2931.
    pubmed: 25193256
  2. Spano JS, Whitesides JF, Pedersoli WM, Krista LM, Ravis WM. Comparative Albumin Determinations in Ducks, Chickens, and Turkeys by Electrophoretic and Dye‐Binding Methods. American Journal of Veterinary Research 49, no. 3 (1988): 325–326.
    pubmed: 3358544
  3. Gentry PA, Lumsden JH. Determination of Serum Albumin in Domestic Animals Using the Immediate Bromcresol Green Reaction. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 7, no. 1 (1978): 12–15.
    pubmed: 15314787
  4. Hill PG. The Measurement of Albumin in Serum and Plasma. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry 22, no. 6 (1985): 565–578.
    pubmed: 3935035
  5. Jaensch S, Howard JG. Establishment of Reference Intervals for Plasma Protein Electrophoresis and Comparison of Biochemical and Protein Electrophoresis Evaluation of Albumin in Central Bearded Dragons (). Australian Veterinary Journal 100, no. 9 (2022): 446–450.
    pubmed: 35619219
  6. Comolli J, Divers S, Lock B, Camus MS. Comparison of Protein Electrophoresis and Biochemical Analysis for the Quantification of Plasma Albumin in Healthy Bearded Dragons (). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 52, no. 1 (2021): 253–258.
    pubmed: 33827183
  7. Lumeij JT, De Bruijne JJ, Kwant MM. Comparison of Different Methods of Measuring Protein and Albumin in Pigeon Sera. Avian Pathology 19, no. 2 (1990): 255–261.
    pubmed: 18679936
  8. Cray C, Wack A, Arheart KL. Invalid Measurement of Plasma Albumin Using Bromcresol Green Methodology in Penguins (Spheniscus Species). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 25, no. 1 (2011): 14–22.
    pubmed: 21657183
  9. Spagnolo V, Crippa V, Marzia A, Alberti I, Sartorelli P. Hematologic, Biochemical, and Protein Electrophoretic Values in Captive Tawny Owls (). Veterinary Clinical Pathology 37, no. 2 (2008): 225–228.
    pubmed: 18533924
  10. Tamukai K, Takami Y, Akabane Y, Kanazawa Y, Une Y. Plasma Biochemical Reference Values in Clinically Healthy Captive Bearded Dragons () and the Effects of Sex and Season. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 40, no. 3 (2011): 368–373.
    pubmed: 21790696
  11. Ammersbach M, Beaufrère H, Gionet Rollick A, Tully T. Laboratory Blood Analysis in Strigiformes‐Part II: Plasma Biochemistry Reference Intervals and Agreement Between the Abaxis Vetscan V2 and the Roche Cobas c501. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 44, no. 1 (2015): 128–140.
    pubmed: 25613649
  12. Hawkins MG, Kass PH, Zinkl JG, Tell LA. Comparison of Biochemical Values in Serum and Plasma, Fresh and Frozen Plasma, and Hemolyzed Samples From Orange‐Winged Amazon Parrots (). Veterinary Clinical Pathology 35, no. 2 (2006): 219–225.
    pubmed: 16783717
  13. Board MM, Crespo R, Shah DH, Faux CM. Biochemical Reference Intervals for Backyard Hens. Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 32, no. 4 (2019): 301.
    pubmed: 31112643
  14. Peruffo L, Boyd JD, Hoppes S, Brightsmith DJ. Blood Biochemical Values of Wild Scarlet Macaw () Nestlings and Adults. Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 30, no. 3 (2016): 227–236.
    pubmed: 27736226
  15. Ruiz‐Jimenez F, Gruber E, Correa M, Crespo R. Comparison of Portable and Conventional Laboratory Analyzers for Biochemical Tests in Chickens. Poultry Science 100, no. 2 (2021): 746–754.
    pmc: PMC7858187pubmed: 33518128
  16. Chorfi Y, Lanevschi‐Pietersma A, Girard V, Tremblay A. Evaluation of Variation in Serum Globulin Concentrations in Dairy Cattle. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 33, no. 3 (2004): 122–127.
    pubmed: 15334345
  17. Keay G, Doxey DL, Station VF, Bush E. A Study of the Interaction Between Bromocresol Green Dye and Bovine, Ovine, and Equine Serum Globulins. Veterinary Research Communications 8 (1984): 25–32.
    pubmed: 6202048
  18. Hooijberg EH, Cray C, Miller M, Buss P, Steenkamp G, Goddard A. Bias Between Two Methods of Albumin Measurement in the White Rhinoceros. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 49, no. 1 (2020): 91–94.
    pubmed: 31925822
  19. Stokol T, Tarrant JM, Scarlett JM. Overestimation of Canine Albumin Concentration With the Bromcresol Green Method in Heparinized Plasma Samples. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 30, no. 4 (2001): 170–176.
    pubmed: 12024297
  20. Evans GO, Parsons CE. A Comparison of Two Dye‐Binding Methods for the Determination of Dog, Rat and Human Plasma Albumins. Journal of Comparative Pathology 98, no. 4 (1988): 453–460.
    pubmed: 3417913
  21. Serdar CC, Cihan M, Yücel D, Serdar MA. Sample Size, Power and Effect Size Revisited: Simplified and Practical Approachin Pre‐Clinical, Clinical and Laboratory Studies. Biochemia Medica 31, no. 1 (2021): 1–27.
    pmc: PMC7745163pubmed: 33380887
  22. Cray C, Rodriguez M, Zaias J. Protein Electrophoresis of Psittacine Plasma. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 36, no. 1 (2007): 64–72.
    pubmed: 17311197
  23. Moore AR, Avery PR. Protein Characterization Using Electrophoresis and Immunofixation; a Case‐Based Review of Dogs and Cats. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 48, no. Suppl. 1 (2019): 29–44.
    pubmed: 31270837
  24. Riond B, Wenger‐Riggenbach B, Hofmann‐Lehmann R, Lutz H. Serum Protein Concentrations From Clinically Healthy Horses Determined by Agarose Gel Electrophoresis. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 38, no. 1 (2009): 73–77.
    pubmed: 19171019
  25. Nagy O, Tóthová C, Nagyová V, Kováč G. Comparison of Serum Protein Electrophoretic Pattern in Cows and Small Ruminants. Acta Veterinaria Brno 84, no. 2 (2015): 187–195.
  26. Jones RG, Payne BR. Clinical Investigation and Statistics in Laboratory Medicine. .
  27. Arnold JE, Camus MS, Freeman KP. ASVCP Guidelines: Principles of Quality Assurance and Standards for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (Version 3.0): Developed by the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology's (ASVCP) Quality Assurance and Laboratory Standards (QALS) Committee. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 48, no. 4 (2019): 542–618.
    pubmed: 31889337
  28. Moore AR. A Review of Bland–Altman Difference Plot Analysis in the Veterinary Clinical Pathology Laboratory. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 53, no. Suppl. 1 (2024): 75–85.
    pubmed: 37620637
  29. Harr KE, Flatland B, Nabity MB, Freeman KP. ASVCP Guidelines: Allowable Total Error Guidelines for Biochemistry. Veterinary Clinics of North America. Small Animal Practice 42, no. 4 (2013): 424–436.
    pubmed: 24320779
  30. Myers L, Sirois MJ. Spearman Correlation Coefficients, Differences Between. .
  31. Friedrichs K. R., Harr K. E., Freeman K. P.. ASVCP Reference Interval Guidelines: Determination of de Novo Reference Intervals in Veterinary Species and Other Related Topics. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 41, no. 4 (2012): 441–453.
    pubmed: 23240820
  32. Geffré A., Concordet D., Braun J. P. P., Trumel C.. Reference Value Advisor: A New Freeware Set of Macroinstructions to Calculate Reference Intervals With Microsoft Excel. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 40, no. 1 (2011): 107–112.
    pubmed: 21366659
  33. Gislefoss R. E., Grimsrud T. K., Mørkrid L.. Stability of Selected Serum Proteins After Long‐Term Storage in the Janus Serum Bank. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 47, no. 5 (2009): 596–603.
    pubmed: 19290843
  34. Tóthova C., Nagy O., Seidel H., Kováč G.. The Effect of Storage on the Protein Electrophoretic Pattern in Bovine Serum. Iranian Journal of Veterinary Science and Technology 2, no. 2 (2010): 77–84.
  35. Schober P., Schwarte L. A.. Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation. Anesthesia and Analgesia 126, no. 5 (2018): 1763–1768.
    doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864pubmed: 29481436google scholar: lookup
  36. Westgard J. O., Westgard S. A.. Measuring Analytical Quality. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 37, no. 1 (2017): 1–13.
    pubmed: 28153359
  37. Muller K., Brunnberg L., Müller K.. Determination of Plasma Albumin Concentration in Healthy and Diseased Turtles: A Comparison of Protein Electrophoresis and the Bromcresol Green Dye‐Binding Method. Veterinary Clinics of North America. Small Animal Practice 39, no. 1 (2010): 79–82.
    pubmed: 19702665
  38. Rosenthal K. L., Johnston M. S., Shofer F. S.. Assessment of the Reliability of Plasma Electrophoresis in Birds. American Journal of Veterinary Research 66, no. 3 (2005): 375–378.
    pubmed: 15822578
  39. Kaiser J. C., Reider H., Pabilonia K. L., Moore A. R.. Additional Reference Value Data Generated During the Study “Establishment of Biochemical Reference Values for Backyard Chickens in Colorado (Gallus gallus domesticus)”. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 51 (2022): 462–463.
    pubmed: 36451518
  40. Jensen A. L., Kjelgaard‐Hansen M.. Method Comparison in the Clinical Laboratory. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 35, no. 3 (2006): 276–286.
    pubmed: 16967409

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Brandon J, Reider H, Pabilonia KL, Moore AR. Electrophoretic Plasma Protein Reference Intervals for Backyard Chickens From Northern Colorado.. Vet Clin Pathol 2025 Dec;54(4):458-466.
    doi: 10.1111/vcp.70066pubmed: 41144912google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 100,280 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.