Malcolm Needs

I did mean my photograph on my Public Profile bit; honest!!!!!!!!

Hi CYGI, Yes, that clears it up perfectly thanks very much (and I agree entirely with what you say). The confusion was probably all on my part. :)

No, in fact, in most cases, we don't rule them out at all. For example, if we perform a panel, and we find an anti-K present, and the K+ red cells happen to be the only Lu(a+) red cell on the panel, we would not even bother to run a cell that is K-, Lu(a+), simply because anti-Lua is not clinically significant.

I understand your "facelift" malcolm. I choked on my coffee reading that.

Now that you have reached your 1000th post- are you now a decaying/ old/ mature/ senile, or is there another term for this status as a poster on BBT?:tongue: Oh...forgot to add....the drinks are on YOU!

Well, I have put on a bit of weight lately, but I still look upon myself as a mere planet! Thanks Rashmi.

The really worrying thing is, I know that they would do this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

True, but there would be extremely few times when you would need to know. When you do need to know, you just telephone "Big Brother" (the NHSBT) and they would be able to tell you the link between the two!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We keep records on EVERYTHING (some of them, just occasionally, being useful)! :):)

Hi Rashmi, I'm not totally sure about this, but I think each "pigtail" has a unique number on it that corresponds to the bag (not the ISBT number on the bag, but the manufacturing number of the bag itself). You could also tag the segments with a sticky label with the patient's name, Date of Birth, Hospital Number, etc, on it. :confused::confused:???????????????

No problem whatsoever.

Hi JOANBALONE, I've given it a whirl. It is not so much an algorithm as a shopping list, but it is a start. If it is any use to you, I will try to refine it into a proper algorithm. :confused: ABO Grouping Problems.doc

Hi Michelle, What you actually have is an antibody directed against the Cw antigen. Normally, for an antibody to be stimulated, you either have to have had a blood transfusion from an individual whose blood expresses a red cell antigen that your own does not (and your own immune system "sees" this antigen as being "foreign", rather than "self"), or you have to have been pregnant with a baby whose blood expresses a red cell antigen that your own does not. Your immune system does not necessarily produce an antibody against a particular antigen, and certainly will not produce an antibody against every antigen which you lack, but to which you may have been exposed. In the case of certain antigens, however, and Cw being one of these, you can produce an antibody against an antigen to which you have never been exposed. We rather glibly call these antibodies "naturally occurring" (although, of course, they are not!). They are usually produced as a result of having been exposed to something in the environment that expresses an antigen very like, but not exactly the same as, in your case, the Cw antigen. These are usually benign bacteria. In your case, this sounds likely to be exactly how you have produced the antibody. The likelihood of this antibody causing either you or any baby you may have is minimal (to say the least). Firstly, if you require a transfusion, your antibody will be identified by the Hospital Blood Bank prior to you being transfused (as, indeed, they seem to have done in the case of your operation this time) and will give you antigen negative (Cw-) blood. Secondly, from your baby's point of view (and here, I'm afraid, I have to get a bit technical, but not too technical for you to understand I hope), there are a couple of things that will mitigate against your antibody affecting him or her. Firstly, your male partner would have to express the Cw antigen on his red cells. Only about 2% of the white population and 1% of the black population express this antigen, so there is a very large chance that your partner will not express the Cw antigen. Secondly, there is a extremely high chance that he will also express another antigen (called MAR) that your baby's red cells will express instead of Cw. Thirdly, and this is where it gets quite technical (for which I apologize), structurally, there are 2 types of red cell antibody. The first is quite a large molecule, known as IgM, and the other is a much smaller molecule, known as IgG. Only IgG can cross the placenta and so affect your baby's red cells. IgM cannot cross the placenta; in very basic terms, it is too big so to do. In almost all cases of a naturally-occurring anti-Cw, the type of antibody involved is IgM. Lstly, as far as I know, although there are recorded cases of slight jaundice at birth, there has only ever been one case recorded in the scientific literature of anti-Cw causing anything other than this slight jaundice. The chances of any of your babies being affected, therefore, is so minimal as to be almost zero. I hope this helps and that it is not too complicated, but if you do not understand any one bit of it, I am happy to try and put it in a different way to try to make it simpler. :):)

I'll have a go and work on one.

Hi Jeff, and WELCOME! :D:D:D:D

I'm not certain that you mean what you have posted do you CYGI? The way it reads, you would give cross-match compatible if the antibody reacts at 37oC, but would give antigen negative if it did not react at 37oC. Have I read it incorrectly?????????? :confused::confused:

I would also add that Imelda would be an excellent contact; a lady for whom I have enormous respect. She has years of experience and is both very willing and able to help and to educate; a lovely lady. :D:D:D:D

It goes to prove the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Yes, you are understanding the rules, as they stand at present (although, I'm not entirely sure that we understand our own rules)! Also, from what I understand, we are planning to go over to your 96 hour rule for the viability of the sample, as opposed to the viability of the cross-match (in other words, if you cross-match on the three-day-old sample, you have to transfuse the blood the same day), but, as I say, this has not yet been fully agreed.

Yes, the lack of reagents in certain hospitals worries me too, but there are so many financial constraints these days that I can understand why they would not want to buy a reagent they might only use once or twice (or, in some instances, not at all) before its expiry. That having been said, paying for our Reference Services is not cheap either.

It could well not cause a positive eluate, as it would not necessarily be tightly bound to the membrane. It could, therefore, be washed off during the initial washing process involved to get rid of the plasma, prior to making the elution. It could also be that non-specific complement uptake has partly caused the reaction, and that, of course, would not show up in the eluate, hence the patchy results. :confused::confused:

If only, if only!

No, we really did. It was when I was working for Carolyn Giles at the BGRL, when it was in London in the early 1970's. Now that shows my age! :ohmygod:

Again, I agree (twice in 5 minutes - I must be ill)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D:D

It was quite fun; a bit like (very) amateur glass blowing (but with some very frightening shapes being made)!

I could not agree more (although we used to pull our own in the early days).