4.5 Article

Genotyping Applications for Transplantation and Transfusion Management The Emory Experience

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE
Volume 141, Issue 3, Pages 329-340

Publisher

COLL AMER PATHOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0277-SA

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Current genotyping methodologies for transplantation and transfusion management employ multiplex systems that allow for simultaneous detection of multiple HLA antigens, human platelet antigens, and red blood cell (RBC) antigens. The development of high-resolution, molecular HLA typing has led to improved outcomes in unrelated hematopoietic stem cell transplants by better identifying compatible alleles of the HLA-A, B, C, DRB1, and DQB1 antigens. In solid organ transplantation, the combination of high-resolution HLA typing with solid-phase antibody identification has proven of value for highly sensitized patients and has significantly reduced incompatible crossmatches at the time of organ allocation. This databasedriven, combined HLA antigen/antibody testing has enabled routine implementation of virtual crossmatching'' and may even obviate the need for physical crossmatching. In addition, DNA-based testing for RBC antigens provides an alternative typing method that mitigates many of the limitations of hemagglutination-based phenotyping. Although RBC genotyping has utility in various transfusion settings, it has arguably been most useful for minimizing alloimmunization in the management of transfusiondependent patients with sickle cell disease or thalassemia. The availability of high-throughput RBC genotyping for both individuals and large populations of donors, along with coordinated informatics systems to compare patients' antigen profiles with available antigen-negative and/or rare blood-typed donors, holds promise for improving the efficiency, reliability, and extent of RBC matching for this population.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available