4.6 Article

Low anti-RhD IgG-Fc-fucosylation in pregnancy: a new variable predicting severity in haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 166, 期 6, 页码 936-945

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.12965

关键词

haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn; anti-RhD or anti-D alloantibodies; IgG-glycosylation; IgG-fucosylation

资金

  1. Sanquin [PPOC-09-025]
  2. Landsteiner Foundation for Blood Transfusion [1229]
  3. European Union [278535]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) may occur when maternal IgG antibodies against red blood cells (RBCs), often anti-RhD (anti-D) antibodies, cross the placenta and mediate the destruction of RBCs via phagocytic IgG-Fc-receptors (Fc gamma R). Clinical severity is not strictly related to titre and is more accurately predicted by the diagnostically-applied monocyte-based antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), a sensitive test with relatively low specificity. This suggests that other factors are involved in the pathogenesis of HDFN. Binding of IgG to Fc gamma R requires the N-linked glycan at position 297 in the IgG-Fc-region, consisting of several different glycoforms. We therefore systematically analysed IgG-derived glycopeptides by mass spectrometry from 70 anti-D IgG1 antibodies purified from the plasma of alloimmunized pregnant women. This revealed a variable decrease in Fc-fucosylation in the majority of anti-D IgG1 (even down to 12%), whereas the total IgG of these patients remained highly fucosylated, like in healthy individuals (>90%). The degree of anti-D fucosylation correlated significantly with CD16 (Fc gamma RIIIa)-mediated ADCC, in agreement with increased affinity of defucosylated IgG to human Fc gamma RIIIa. Additionally, low anti-D fucosylation correlated significantly with low fetal-neonatal haemoglobin levels, thus with increased haemolysis, suggesting IgG-fucosylation to be an important pathological feature in HDFN with diagnostic potential.

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