4.6 Article

Detection of anti-HLA antibodies with flow cytometry in needle core biopsies of renal transplants recipients with chronic allograft nephropathy

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 79, 期 10, 页码 1459-1461

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000156164.54216.DE

关键词

anti-HLA antibodies; ELISA; flow cytometry; kidney transplantation; chronic allograft nephropathy; needle core biopsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of detecting anti-HLA antibodies in eluates from needle core biopsies of renal transplants with chronic allograft nephropathy. Two methods of screening, the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and flow cytometry (FlowPRA) were compared. Twenty renal transplants with CAN were removed after irreversible graft failure. To assess the feasibility of detecting anti-HLA antibodies in small samples, needle core biopsies were sampled at the same place as surgical samples and at a second cortical area. Antibodies were eluted with an acid elution kit and anti-class I and class Il IgG HLA antibodies detected using ELISA and flow cytometry. Flow cytometry was found to be more sensitive than ELISA for detecting anti-HLA antibodies in eluates from renal transplants with CAN (95% vs. 75% of positive cases). Detection of anti-HLA antibodies showed good agreement between surgical samples and needle core biopsies performed at the same place for anti-class 1 (80% vs. 65%, r=0.724 P < 0.01) and anti-class H HLA antibodies (70% vs. 55%, r=0.827 P < 0.01). In addition, differences in the detection of anti-class I HLA antibodies in needle core biopsies sampled at different sites suggests that immunization to class I donor antigen could be underestimated in needle core biopsy samples. These data indicate that anti-HLA antibodies can be detected in needle core biopsies from renal transplants. Provided further evaluation is done, elution might be a complementary method to detect anti-FILA antibodies when they are bound to the transplant.

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

4.6
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