4.2 Article

Uric acid variation among regular blood donors is indicative of red blood cell susceptibility to storage lesion markers: A new hypothesis tested

Journal

TRANSFUSION
Volume 55, Issue 11, Pages 2659-2671

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.13211

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NKUA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUNDOxidative stress orchestrates a significant part of the red blood cell (RBC) storage lesion. Considering the tremendous interdonor variability observed in the storability, namely, the capacity of RBCs to sustain the storage lesion, this study aimed at the elucidation of donor-specific factors that affect the redox homeostasis during the storage of RBCs in standard systems. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSThe hematologic profile of regular blood donors (n=78) was evaluated by biochemical analysis of 48 different variables, including in vivo hemolysis and plasma oxidant and antioxidant factors and statistical analysis of the results. The possible effect of the uric acid (UA) variable on RBC storability was investigated in leukoreduced CPD/SAGM RBC units (n=8) collected from donors exhibiting high or low prestorage levels of UA, throughout the storage period. RESULTSAmong the hematologic variables examined in vivo, cluster analysis grouped the donors according to their serum UA levels. Plasma antioxidant capacity, iron indexes, and protein carbonylation represented covariants of UA factor. RBCs prepared by low- or high-UA donors exhibited significant differences between them in spheroechinocytosis, supernatant antioxidant activity, and other RBC storage lesion-associated variables. CONCLUSIONUA exhibits a storability biomarker potential. Intrinsic variability in plasma UA levels might be related to the interdonor variability observed in the storage capacity of RBCs. A model for the antioxidant effect of UA during the RBC storage is currently proposed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available