Jump to content
PathLabTalk

Phenotying

Jermin

By Jermin,
in Transfusion Services

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jermin Contributor

Jermin

Posted
Posted

Hi,

This is a very silly question, but I think I have confused myself. Why is it that when Rh phenotyping, we do not require incubation step, but when looking for antibodies, we need incubation to detect Rh antibodies? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
exlimey Rising Star

exlimey

Posted
Posted (edited)

The Rh typing reagents are designed to react that way. These days, the reagents are monoclonal, IgM in nature and give direct agglutination in a very short amount of time (similar to anti-A and other ABO reagents). Centrifugation is also usually part of the process.

Antibodies to Rh antigens in patients (or donors) are typically IgG and require incubation and an antiglobulin phase. Most manual tube testing systems these days also use a potentiator to enhance reactivity and/or reduce incubation times.

In the "bad-old-days", Rh typing reagents were human-source, IgG in nature and usually required incubation and an antiglobulin phase.

Edited by exlimey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malcolm Needs Grand Master

Malcolm Needs ★

Posted
Posted

I agree entirely with exlimey, except to say that even today's monoclonal antibodies need a potentiator.  Many of them include a small amount of bovine albumin in the reagent bottle.

I don't, however, agree with you Jermin.

The reason being is that there is no such thing as a silly or daft question.  The only silly or daft question is the one you (anyone) don't ask, because, if that question is not asked. the person who doesn't know the answer will never know the answer.  Sadly, there are numerous examples of silly or daft answers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jermin Contributor

Jermin

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

A further question.

I saw a senior BMS putting a manual tube grouping in the fridge for ABO typing. I know that there will probably have a better reaction in reverse group, but according to the senior BMS, the patient appears to have a weak D, and the BMS wanted to see if the reaction will be enhanced, but in forward grouping. I was confused since the books mentioned Rh bonding being hydrophobic and therefore warm-reacting. 

There was no enhanced reaction, but I was wondering if putting the test in the fridge would indeed cause an enhanced reaction for D, or be it on ABO, on forward grouping? Would it be due to IgM monoclonal antibody being used?

 

Edited by Jermin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malcolm Needs Grand Master

Malcolm Needs ★

Posted
Posted

The reaction with anti-D may well be enhanced - but not for the right reasons!

Thorpe et al1, 2 reported that monoclonal anti-D molecules possess a V4-34 moiety, that is also present in anti-I and  anti-i.  As a result, if papain-treated D- red cells are tested with such antisera, or untreated D- red cells are tested with such antisera that have not been brought to room temperature, they may agglutinate, and you will get a false positive - which is the very last thing you want.

1.  Thorpe SJ, Boult CE, Stevenson FK, Scott ML, Sutherland J, Spellerberg MB, Natvig JB, Thompson KM.  Cold agglutinin activity is common among human monoclonal IgM Rh system antibodies using the V4-34 heavy chain variable gene segment.  Transfusion 1997; 37: 1111-1116.

 
2.  Thorpe SJ, Ball C, Fox B, Thompson KM, Thorpe R, Bristow A.  Anti-D and anti-i activities are inseparable in V4-34-encoded monoclonal  anti-D: the same framework 1 residues are required for both activities.  Transfusion 2008; 48: 930-940.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

    • Neil Blumberg
      Universal leukoreduction and ABO identical transfusions reduce HLA alloimmunization by transfusion to near zero
      By Neil Blumberg
      Research letter in NEJM describes our findings.  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2034764?fbclid=IwAR1BQRvpaHBAMDaHxCPY07xBjPQHlIHoJCOmpjoT_pBNvQsV7pzzDVdLYaY
      Table 1. HLA-Matched Platelets as a Percentage of All Platelet Transfusions, According to the Initiation of Other Protocols.*
      Protocol and Timing of Initiation No. of Years HLA-Matched Platelets Difference from Previous Period (95% CI)     median % (IQR) percentage points No leukoreduction and no ABO matching (1985–1990) 6 12.5 (4.2–13.7) NA Leukoreduction and ABO matching for patients with leukemia and MDS (1991–1999)† 5 2.9 (2.0–3.6) 9.6 (9.4–9.8) Universal leukoreduction (2001–2004) 4 1.4 (1.1–2.0) 1.5 (1.4–1.6) Universal ABO matching (2005–2015) 11 0.4 (0.2–0.8) 1.0 (1.0–1.1) Pathogen reduction of platelets (2016–2019)‡ 4 1.7 (0.8–1.8) ND  
      The practical fact is that this can only be implemented by medical technologists, not physicians, and this is a daunting prospect.  But the reality is that ABO mismatched platelet transfusions probably exacerbate rather than prevent bleeding, so waiting for ABO identical is likely better than just transfusing whatever is available.  This is going to require a major change of approach because the (incorrect) dogma, based upon no data, is that ABO doesn't matter for platelets.
      I understand why many people's instant reaction is this is not feasible. But it is once technical experts in your transfusion service figure out how to implement it gradually. In our randomized trial back in 1993 (see ref below), the ABO identical group only required <50% the number of platelet transfusions (every other day instead of every day on average) compared with the usual first in, first out regardless of ABO type group. ABO mismatched transfusions create a hostile environment with gigantic immune complexes that compromise subsequent transfusion that may be ABO identical. Avoiding this is key.
      Our suggestion is to start gradually. Pick new previously untransfused patients with aplastic anemia and good prognosis AML (young, favorable or normal cytogenetics), groups O or A, and start with them. Eminently doable since your platelet supply is 45% O and 40% A, just like your patients, on average. Get the hang of doing this and prioritizing ABO for at least some patients. Once you get this in place, extending it to other patients and eventually all patients can happen. We use washed O or A platelets and red cells for group B and AB recipients when we don't have group B or AB platelets. No increase in bleeding and fewer transfusion reactions, lung injury and congestive heart failure (what we call TRALI and TACO).
      In the end, you have more surviving patients and fewer headaches and transfuse many fewer platelets per patient and essentially no HLA if you can get your referring hospitals to stop our current standard harmful practices. Godspeed. Heal JM, Rowe JM, McMican A, Masel D, Finke C, Blumberg N. The role of ABO matching in platelet transfusion. Eur J Haematol. 1993 Feb;50(2):110-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0609.1993.tb00150.x. PMID: 8440356.
       
      Happy to have discussions or visitors so our technical experts can show you how it is feasible.
    • Lucas Souza
      Statistical analysis of titration methods
      By Lucas Souza
      Hi, guys 
      How are you?
      So, i'm doing a experiment where i'm testing two titration methods, the tube test and the column agglutination technique.
      Now i have to analyze to know if they have statistical difference and what is the correlacion of the two methods, but I found it difficult to decide which statistical test to use.
      Do you have any thoughts on which statistical test I should use? T teste? Pearson?
      Below is the table with the samples and their endpoints, for example:
      PLASMA TUBE A GEL A  TUBE B GEL B 1 128 256 32 64 2 32 32 64 64 3 64 64 32 16 4 64 32 32 16 5 64 32 64 32 6 32 32 32 16 7 64 32 64 32 8 32 32 32 32 9 32 32 32 16 10 64 32 32 32 11 64 32 64 16 12 128 64 128 64 13 64 32 64 32 14 32 16 32 16 15 64 32 128 64 16 128 64 32 16 17 128 64 64 32 18 64 64 16 8 19 64 64 64 32 20 32 16 32 16  
      Thank you guys.
    • WMMTSBB
      anti-A1 or rouleaux?
      By WMMTSBB
      I had a patient that had an ABO discrepancy. Testing is as follows:
      anti-A: 4+, anti-B: 4+, A1 cell: 1+s, B cell: 4+, Screen cells I.S.: all negative, LISS 37: all negative, poly AHG: all negative. Group O donors I.S.: negative, Group A donors: 1+ to 2+. Saline replacement for A1 and group A donors: negative. Microscopically, the A1 and A donors do not really appear as rouleaux. So the question is why do we see apparent rouleaux only with the A cells and not the screening cells?
    • aafrin
      Help with ABO Group
      By aafrin
      We had a 46 year old male health check patient who has never been transfused before come for blood grouping. He knows his blood group previously as O Rh Positive. Our results were as follows:
       
       
      Tube Test
      BioRad Gel
      -A
      1-2+ mf
      0
      -B
      0
      0
      -AB
      2+mf
      ND
      -D (igG+IgM)
      4+
      ND
      -D (IgM)
      4+
      4+
      A1 Lectin
      0
      ND
      H Lectin
      4+
      ND
      A1 Cells
      1-2+ at RT, >2+ at 37 C
      w-1+ at RT & 37C
      B Cells
      4+
      4+
      O Cells
      0
      ND
      Autocontrol
      0
      ND
      A2 Cells
      0
      ND
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      We repeated the blood group with two other manufacturer’s anti-sera. One anti-sera gave the same result as our tube test result, but with the other anti-sera the result with anti-A was negative.
      What should we report the blood group as? O or subgroup of A? Kindly help.
    • Jermin
      Antibody Titer After First Affected Pregnancy
      By Jermin
      Hi All,
      I was wondering if antibody titre is performed on a pregnant mother who previously had HDFN. According to the books, it mentions 'After the first affected pregnancy, the antibody titer is no longer useful'. Therefore does it mean that it doesn't matter what the antibody titre level is, and should be referred to fetal medicine specialist regardless? Or if there is more to this, I would be grateful for some enlightenment 

  • Advertisement

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

  I accept