Taurunum Medical Journal
Sign in
Issue image

More articles from Volume 27, Issue 1, 2011

Pathologic findings and clinical outcome in patients undergoing retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy after multiple chemorherapy regimens for metastatic nonseminomatous testicular tumors

Praktični aspekti serološkog testiranja D weak fenotipa

Value of preoperativne levels CEA and CA 19-9 tumor markers in patients with colorectal carcinoma compering with number of lymph node metastasis

Schwanomas and Meningiomas -The most common tumors in CPA and clinical significance

OrIGINaLNI radOVI OrIGINaL arTICLEs Pure testicular teratoma in adults: experience in the treatment of 49 consecutive cases

Article views


{{ submission.title }}

Praktični aspekti serološkog testiranja D weak fenotipa

Andrijana Kulic ,
Andrijana Kulic
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar
Vesna Libek ,
Vesna Libek
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar
Ana Strugar
Ana Strugar
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar

Published: 01.12.2010.

Biochemistry

Volume 27, Issue 1 (2011)

pp. 203-207;

https://doi.org/10.5937/matmed1101203k

Abstract

Cilj našeg istraživanja je bio da utvrdimo u kom procentu je D weak antigen prisutan kod primaoca i trudnica u našoj ustanovi, kao i koji Rh fenotip dominira kod tako tipiziranih eritrocita. Za određivanje RhD antigena koristili smo dve različite serije monoklonskih antiD test reagenasa. Uzorci koji su u Indirektnom antiglobulinskom testu bili pozitivni označeni su fenotipom D weak. Dalje ispitivanje fenotipa D weak je sprovedeno sa dva monoklonska IgM anti-D test reagensa različitih proizvođača. Ispitivanim eritrocitima označenim kao D weak određen je i Rh fenotip korišćenjem monoklonskih test seruma anti-C, anti-c, anti-E i anti-e. U toku 2009. godine 11779 uzoraka bolesnika i trudnica je rutinski tipizirano na prisutnost RhD antigena. Nakon izvođenja Indirektnog antiglobulinskog testa 42 uzorka su određena kao D weak fenotip (0,35%). Dominantni Rh fenotipi kod D weak pozitivnih eritrocita su bili CcDw ee (78,5%) i CCDw ee (16,6%). Aglutinacije sa dva IgM anti-D test reagensa u pokazivale različit intezitet i stepen aglutinacije. Eritrociti 14 uzoraka (33,3%) su pokazali odsustvo aglutinacije (negativan rezultat) sa oba reagensa. Samo eritrociti 6 uzoraka (14,2%) su imale skor aglutinacije od +3 do +4. Našim ispitivanjem smo ustanovili da je procenat pojavljivanja fenotipa D weak u saglasnosti sa podacima objavljenim u literaturi. Pravilnim odabirom anti-D test seruma, kao i poštovanjem savremenih preporuka za testiranje RhD antigena moguće je serološkim testiranjem odrediti slabiju varijantu D antigena. Jedini pozudani testovi koji omogućavaju razrešavanje antigen D diskrepance su molekularni testovi, koji na žalost u našoj zemlji još uvek nisu implementirani.

Keywords

d weak antigen,

rh fenotip,

antid test serumi,

aglutinacijski skor

References

1.
Veljković M. Imunobiološki i klinički značaj krvnih grupa. Inra Net Communication Beograd. 2009;151.
2.
Wagner F, Gassner C, Muller T. Molecular basis of weak d phenotypes. Blood. 1999;385–93.
3.
Ansart-Pirenne H, Bonnet M, Pennec L, Roussel P, Patereau M, C. Noizat-Pirenne F. rhd variants in Caucasians: consequences for checking clinically relevant alleles. Transfusion. 2004;1282–6.
4.
Garratty G. do we need to be more concerned about weak d antigens? Transfusion. 2005;1547–51.
5.
Denomme Ga, Wagner F, Bj F, Li W, Wa F. Partial d, weak d types, and novel RHD alleles among 33,864 multiethnic patients: implications for anti-d alloimmunization and prevention. Transfusion. 2005;1154–60.
6. :
271–87.
7.
Marsh W. scoring of hemagglutination reactions. Transfusion. 1972;352.
8.
Denomme Ga, Dake Lr V, Di L, Judd W. rh discrepancies caused by variable reactivity of partial and weak d types with different serologic techniques. Transfusion. 2008;473–8.
9.
Lai M, Grasso C, Boschi I, Onofrio G, Pascali V, Leone. Characterization of anti-d monoclonal antibody reagents based on their reactivity with the weak d phenotype. Transfusion. 2009;937–42.
10.
Filbey D. selection of monoclonal antibodies for the identification of d variants: ability to detect weak d and to split epd2, epd5 and epd6/7. Vox sang. 1996;173–9.
11.
Williams M. Monoclonal reagents for rhesus-d typing of Irish patients and donors: a review. Br j Biomed sci. 2000;142–93.
12.
Working party of the British Committee for standards in Haematology, Blood transfusion task Force.Guidelines for compatibillity procedures in blood transfusion labaratories. TransfMed. 2004;59–73.
13.
Wa F. How I manage donors and patients with a weak d phenotype. Curr Opin Hematol. 2006;476–83.
14.
Kumpel B. are weak d rBCs really immunogenic? Transfusion. 2006;1062–6.
15.
Noizat-Pirenne F, Ma V, Mercadier A, Bonin P, Peltier-Pujol F, Fialaire-Legendre A. d phenotypes and transfusion safety:where do we stand in daily practice. Transfusion. 2007;1616–20.
16.
jovanović-srzentić. aktuelni pristup rešavanju problema u imunohematološkoj praksi. Bilten za transfuziologiju. 2006;

Citation

Copyright

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles

Partners
TT Medik
Google Schoolar
DOAJ