4.1 Review

Clinically relevant interpretation of solid phase assays for HLA antibody

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 453-458

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MOT.0000000000000326

关键词

antibody-mediated rejection; HLA epitopes; HLA-specific antibodies; solid phase immunoassays

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review Accurate and timely detection and characterization of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies are critical for pre-transplant and post-transplant immunological risk assessment. Solid phase immunoassays have provided increased sensitivity and specificity, but test interpretation is not always straightforward. This review will discuss the result interpretation considering technical limitations; assessment of relative antibody strength; and the integration of data for risk stratification from complementary testing and the patient's immunological history. Recent findings Laboratory and clinical studies have provided insight into causes of test failures - false positive reactions because of antibodies to denatured HLA antigens and false negative reactions resulting from test interference and/or loss of native epitopes. Test modifications permit detection of complement-binding antibodies and determination of the IgG subclasses. The high degree of specificity of single antigen solid phase immunoassays has revealed the complexity and clinical relevance of antibodies to HLA-C, HLA-DQ, and HLA-DP antigens. Determination of antibody specificity for HLA epitopes enables identification of incompatible antigens not included in test kits. Summary Detection and characterization of HLA antibodies with solid phase immunoassays has led to increased understanding of the role of those antibodies in graft rejection, improved treatment of antibody-mediated rejection, and increased opportunities for transplantation. However, realization of these benefits requires careful and accurate interpretation of test results.

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

4.1
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