RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The discrimination between weak D types and partial D can be of clinical importance because carriers of partial D antigen may develop anti-D when transfused with D-positive red blood cell units. The aim of this study was to determine by molecular analysis the type of D variants among Brazilian patients requiring transfusions with serologic weak D phenotypes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Samples from 87 patients (53 with sickle cell disease, 10 with thalassemia and 24 with myelodysplastic syndrome), serologic typed as weak D by manual tube indirect antiglobulin test or gel test were first RHD genotyped by using the RHD BeadChip Kit (BioArray, Immucor). Sanger sequencing was performed when necessary. RESULTS: RHD molecular analysis revealed 32 (36.8 %) variant RHD alleles encoding weak D phenotypes and 55 (63.2 %) alleles encoding partial D antigens. RHD variant alleles were present in the homozygous state or as a single RHD allele, one variant RHD allele associated with the RHDΨ allele, or two different variant RHD alleles in compound heterozygosity with each other in 70 patients, 4 patients and 13 patients, respectively. Alloanti-D was found in 9 (16.4 %) cases with RHD alleles predicting a partial D. DISCUSSION: The frequency of partial D was higher than weak D types in Brazilian patients serologically typed as weak D, showing the importance to differentiate weak D types and partial D in transfused patients to establish a transfusion policy recommendation.
Assuntos
Transfusão de Sangue/métodos , Sistema do Grupo Sanguíneo Rh-Hr/metabolismo , Imunoglobulina rho(D)/metabolismo , Brasil , Genótipo , HumanosRESUMO
ABSTRACT Background: We evaluated different technological approaches and anti-D clones to propose the most appropriate serologic strategy in detecting the largest numbers of D variants in blood donors. Methods: We selected 101 samples from Brazilian blood donors with different expressions of D in our donor routine. The tests were performed in immediate spin (IS) with eleven commercially available anti-D reagents in a tube and microplate. The D confirmatory tests for the presence of weak D included the indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) in a tube, gel and solid-phase red blood cell adherence (SPRCA). All DNA samples were extracted from peripheral blood and the D variants were classified using different molecular assays. Results: The RHD variants identified by molecular analysis included weak D types (1, 2, 3, 11 and 38) and partial Ds (DAR1.2, DAR1, DAR3.1, DAU0, DAU2, DAU4, DAU5, DAU6, DMH and DVII). The monoclonal-monoclonal blend RUM-1/MS26 was the best anti-D reagent used in detecting the D antigen in the IS phase in a tube, reacting with 83.2% of the D variants, while the anti-D blend D175 + 415 was the best monoclonal antibody (MoAb) used in a microplate to minimize the need for an IAT, reacting with 83.2% of the D variants. The D confirmatory tests using SPRCA showed a reactivity (3 - 4+) with 100% of the D variant samples tested. Conclusion: Our results show that, even using sensitive methods and MoAbs to ensure the accurate assignment of the D antigen, at least 17% of our donor samples need a confirmatory D test in order to avoid alloimmunization in D-negative patients.
Assuntos
Humanos , Sistema do Grupo Sanguíneo Rh-Hr/análise , Doadores de Sangue , Sorotipagem , Alelos , HemaglutinaçãoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: We evaluated different technological approaches and anti-D clones to propose the most appropriate serologic strategy in detecting the largest numbers of D variants in blood donors. METHODS: We selected 101 samples from Brazilian blood donors with different expressions of D in our donor routine. The tests were performed in immediate spin (IS) with eleven commercially available anti-D reagents in a tube and microplate. The D confirmatory tests for the presence of weak D included the indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) in a tube, gel and solid-phase red blood cell adherence (SPRCA). All DNA samples were extracted from peripheral blood and the D variants were classified using different molecular assays. RESULTS: The RHD variants identified by molecular analysis included weak D types (1, 2, 3, 11 and 38) and partial Ds (DAR1.2, DAR1, DAR3.1, DAU0, DAU2, DAU4, DAU5, DAU6, DMH and DVII). The monoclonal-monoclonal blend RUM-1/MS26 was the best anti-D reagent used in detecting the D antigen in the IS phase in a tube, reacting with 83.2% of the D variants, while the anti-D blend D175â¯+â¯415 was the best monoclonal antibody (MoAb) used in a microplate to minimize the need for an IAT, reacting with 83.2% of the D variants. The D confirmatory tests using SPRCA showed a reactivity (3 - 4+) with 100% of the D variant samples tested. CONCLUSION: Our results show that, even using sensitive methods and MoAbs to ensure the accurate assignment of the D antigen, at least 17% of our donor samples need a confirmatory D test in order to avoid alloimmunization in D-negative patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A considerable number of RHD alleles responsible for weak and partial D phenotypes have been identified. Serologic determination of these phenotypes is often doubtful and makes genetic analysis of RHD gene highly desirable in transfusion recipients and pregnant women. We analyzed the RHD gene in a cohort of pregnant women with doubtful D phenotypes. METHODS: RHD genotyping was performed on 104 cases with D typing discrepancies or with history of serologic weak D phenotype. Laboratory-developed DNA tests, RHD BeadChip (Bioarray Solutions, Immucor), and sequencing were used to identify the RHD alleles. RESULTS: Molecular analyses showed 23 of 104 (22%) pregnant women were RHD*weak D types 1, 2, or 3 and not at risk for anti-D. Fifty-one (49%) were RHD*weak partial 4.0, 6 RHD*weak D type 38 (6%), 1 RHD*weak D type 45 (1%), 1 RHD*weak D type 67 (1%), and potentially at risk for being alloimmunized and making anti-D. Partial D was identified in 22 of 104 (21%) patients and definitively at risk for anti-D. DISCUSSION: Appropriate classification of RhD phenotypes is recommended for correct indication of RhIG in pregnant women. However, the serologic distinction between RhD-negative and RhD-positive phenotypes is a difficult task in the case of D variants due to the variations in serologic testing. Our results show a great variability in RHD variant alleles in pregnant women from this population of high admixture. According to these results, 78% of these obstetric patients are at risk for anti-D and candidates for RhIG.