Charcot–Leyden crystals: do they exist in veterinary species? A case report and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Charcot-Leyden crystal (CLC) is a major human eosinophil protein that readily crystallizes; these crystals are common in eosinophilic diseases. Although anecdotal existence of these crystals is known in veterinary pathology, definitive reports do not exist, to our knowledge. We identified eosinophilic crystals in a laryngeal myxosarcoma from a 2-y-old, spayed female, Labrador Retriever dog that were tentatively interpreted as CLCs. However, Ziehl-Neelsen acid-fast stain was negative, arguing against CLCs. The crystals stained red with Masson trichrome, precluding collagen. Periodic acid-Schiff and alcian blue were negative. The crystals stained positively with Okajima, and no myoglobin immunoreactivity was detected, supporting their identity as hemoglobin crystals. In the absence of a hematologic abnormality, these crystals were interpreted to be abnormal hemoglobin breakdown products. Protein sequence comparison was pursued to determine whether a protein similar to CLC exists in mammals. Only 3 nonhuman primate species, the Sumatran orangutan ( Pongo abelii), rhesus macaque ( Macaca mulatta), and cynomolgus monkey ( Macaca fascicularis), had a sequence similarity of >80%. Of the crystal-forming residues, 12 of 54 (22%) were different in the Sumatran orangutan and 15 of 54 (28%) were different in the Macaca spp., which may affect the crystallization process. The lack of reports of CLCs in nonhuman species and our results collectively suggest that CLCs are human-specific.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".