4.2 Article

Alloimmunization to transfused HOD red blood cells is not increased in mice with sickle cell disease

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 231-240

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03255.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [HL092959]
  2. American Society of Hematology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Increased rates of red blood cell (RBC) alloimmunization in patients with sickle cell disease may be due to transfusion frequency, genetic predisposition, or immune dysregulation. To test the hypothesis that sickle cell pathophysiology influences RBC alloimmunization, we utilized two transgenic mouse models of sickle cell disease. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Transgenic sickle mice, which express human a and bS globin, were transfused with fresh or 14-day-stored RBCs containing the HOD (hen egg lysozyme, ovalbumin, and human Duffyb) antigen; some recipients were inflamed with poly(I : C) before transfusion. Anti-HOD alloantibody responses were subsequently measured by enzymelinked immunosorbent assay and flow crossmatch; a cohort of recipients had posttransfusion serum cytokines measured by bead array. RESULTS: Both Berkeley and Townes homozygous (SS) and heterozygous (AS) mice had similar rates and magnitude of anti-HOD RBC alloimmunization after fresh HOD RBC transfusion compared with control animals; under no tested condition did homozygous SS recipients make higher levels of alloantibodies than control animals. Unexpectedly, homozygous SS recipients had blunted cytokine responses and lower levels of anti-HOD alloantibodies after transfusion of 14-day stored RBCs, compared with control animals. CONCLUSIONS: In sum, homozygous bS expression and the ensuing disease state are not alone sufficient to enhance RBC alloimmunization to transfused HOD RBCs in two distinct humanized murine models of sickle cell disease under the conditions examined. These data suggest that other factors may contribute to the high rates of RBC alloimmunization observed in humans with sickle cell disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据