Comparison of Giemsa and Hemacolor Staining Reveals Systematic Differences in Avian Leukocyte Profiles
- 1Department of Experimental Zoology and Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection University of Lodz Łódź Poland
Abstract
Accurate identification of avian leukocyte fractions from blood smears depends strongly on the staining method. This study provides a comparative evaluation of Giemsa and Hemacolor staining, integrating qualitative and quantitative assessments based on paired samples from 39 Great Tits Parus major . Leukocyte profiles derived from Hemacolor‐stained smears showed significantly higher heterophil counts and approximately 40% higher H:L ratios, whereas Giemsa‐stained smears yielded higher lymphocyte proportions; eosinophil counts did not differ significantly between methods. These quantitative differences were consistent with microscopic characteristics: Hemacolor generated a lighter field with distinctly defined heterophilic granules, while Giemsa provided stronger nuclear contrast and facilitated lymphocyte identification. The consistent directional differences observed between staining methods indicate a systematic bias in leukocyte assessment. Because the two methods emphasize different cellular features, they produce non‐interchangeable leukocyte profiles with implications for ecological and physiological interpretation. Accordingly, staining protocols should be explicitly reported, and a single method should be applied consistently within a dataset.
Versions
Related
- Addressing the between-group comparison problem: Detecting differences between correlation matrix populations due to single-variable perturbations for resting state fMRI
- Comparison of fruit quality and metabolome differences between three table grape varieties and their parents.
- Plant-adapted OTO staining improves ultrastructural imaging by transmission electron microscopy
- Who leaves a suicide note? A systematic review of differences between note writers and non‐note writers
- Supervised 3D Virtual Fluorescence and Pseudo-H&E Staining of Fresh Bulk Tissues via Multimodal qOBM and Fluorescence Microscopy
BibTeX
@article{skwarska2026comparison,
title = {{Comparison of Giemsa and Hemacolor Staining Reveals Systematic Differences in Avian Leukocyte Profiles}},
author = {Joanna Skwarska},
journal = {Ecology and Evolution},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1002/ece3.74540},
url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.74540},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparison of Giemsa and Hemacolor Staining Reveals Systematic Differences in Avian Leukocyte Profiles
AU - Joanna Skwarska
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Ecology and Evolution
DO - 10.1002/ece3.74540
UR - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.74540
AB - Accurate identification of avian leukocyte fractions from blood smears depends strongly on the staining method. This study provides a comparative evaluation of Giemsa and Hemacolor staining, integrating qualitative and quantitative assessments based on paired samples from 39 Great Tits Parus major . Leukocyte profiles derived from Hemacolor‐stained smears showed significantly higher heterophil counts and approximately 40% higher H:L ratios, whereas Giemsa‐stained smears yielded higher lymphocyte proportions; eosinophil counts did not differ significantly between methods. These quantitative differences were consistent with microscopic characteristics: Hemacolor generated a lighter field with distinctly defined heterophilic granules, while Giemsa provided stronger nuclear contrast and facilitated lymphocyte identification. The consistent directional differences observed between staining methods indicate a systematic bias in leukocyte assessment. Because the two methods emphasize different cellular features, they produce non‐interchangeable leukocyte profiles with implications for ecological and physiological interpretation. Accordingly, staining protocols should be explicitly reported, and a single method should be applied consistently within a dataset.
SN - 2045-7758
SN - 2045-7758
ER -