4.2 Article

Mapping the fine specificity of ABO monoclonal reagents with A and B type-specific function-spacer-lipid constructs in kodecytes and inkjet printed on paper

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 54, 期 10, 页码 2477-2484

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/trf.12661

关键词

-

资金

  1. Molecular and Cell Biology of RAS Presidium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundMonoclonal (MoAb) reagents are routinely used and are usually very reliable for the serologic determination of ABO blood types. However, the fine specificity and cross-reactivity of these reagents are often unknown, particularly against synthetic antigens used in some diagnostic assays. If nonserologic assays or very sensitive techniques other than those specifically prescribed by the manufacturer are used, then there is a risk of incorrect interpretation of results. Study Design and MethodsForty-seven MoAbs and two polyclonal ABO reagents were tested against red blood cell (RBC) kodecytes prepared with A trisaccharide, A Type1, A Type2, A Type3, A Type4, B trisaccharide, B Type1, B Type2, acquired B trisaccharide, and Le(a) trisaccharide function-spacer-lipid (FSL) constructs. Natural RBCs were tested in parallel. In addition these FSL constructs were printed onto paper with a desktop inkjet printer and used in a novel immunoassay that identifies reactivity through the appearance of alphanumeric characters. ResultsMapping of MoAbs with kodecytes and printed FSL constructs revealed a series of broad recognition patterns. All ABO MoAbs tested were reactive with the RBC dominant Type2 ABO antigens. Unexpectedly some anti-A reagents were reactive against the B Type1 antigen, while others were poorly reactive with trisaccharide antigens. ConclusionsAll ABO MoAbs detect the RBC dominant Type2 ABO antigens; however, some reagents may show minor reactivity with inappropriate blood group antigens, which needs to be considered when using these reagents in alternative or highly sensitive analytic systems.

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