Serological comparison of weak D versus weakly reacting D by four different methods.

IF 0.6 Q4 HEMATOLOGY
Asian Journal of Transfusion Science Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-28 DOI:10.4103/ajts.AJTS_34_21
Dibyajyoti Sahoo, Girija Nandini Kanungo, Rachita Behera, Partha Sarathi Jena
{"title":"Serological comparison of weak D versus weakly reacting D by four different methods.","authors":"Dibyajyoti Sahoo, Girija Nandini Kanungo, Rachita Behera, Partha Sarathi Jena","doi":"10.4103/ajts.AJTS_34_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Weak D red cells were defined as having a reduced amount of D antigen (formerly called \"Du\") that required an indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) for detection. Weakly reacting D is those which give <2+ reactions on routine methods. The present study is sharing our experience on weak D and weakly positive anti-D in various methods.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>All the blood sample of patients and blood donor, which were RhD negative, were included in the study. Furthermore, RhD positive sample <2+ was included. We repeated blood grouping of all these samples by gel card (Tulip), tube method (two different antisera), slide method, and Solid Phase Red Cell Adherence (SPRCA) (Immucore, USA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total number of samples were 27,245. RhD negative found out to be 945 (3.46%). Out of all, 929 (98.3%) samples were Rh D negative in gel card and IAT negative, while 16 (1.7%) were weak D positive. Rh D typing with these samples by different antisera at four platforms showed that 14 were weakly positive (<2+) in any of the four platforms. Similarly, out of 26,300 Rh D Positive samples, 21 samples (0.079%) were serologically weak (<2+). Repeat Rh D typing was done with different antisera in all four platforms. Result showed more than 50% were Rh D negative in any of four platforms.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Above observation showed that serological tests at various platforms failed to distinguish weak D from weakly reacting D. Thus, we propose that weakly reacting D should be treated equal as weak D unless they are distinguished by genotyping.</p>","PeriodicalId":42296,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Transfusion Science","volume":"123 1","pages":"277-280"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734792/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Transfusion Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ajts.AJTS_34_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Weak D red cells were defined as having a reduced amount of D antigen (formerly called "Du") that required an indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) for detection. Weakly reacting D is those which give <2+ reactions on routine methods. The present study is sharing our experience on weak D and weakly positive anti-D in various methods.

Materials and methods: All the blood sample of patients and blood donor, which were RhD negative, were included in the study. Furthermore, RhD positive sample <2+ was included. We repeated blood grouping of all these samples by gel card (Tulip), tube method (two different antisera), slide method, and Solid Phase Red Cell Adherence (SPRCA) (Immucore, USA).

Results: A total number of samples were 27,245. RhD negative found out to be 945 (3.46%). Out of all, 929 (98.3%) samples were Rh D negative in gel card and IAT negative, while 16 (1.7%) were weak D positive. Rh D typing with these samples by different antisera at four platforms showed that 14 were weakly positive (<2+) in any of the four platforms. Similarly, out of 26,300 Rh D Positive samples, 21 samples (0.079%) were serologically weak (<2+). Repeat Rh D typing was done with different antisera in all four platforms. Result showed more than 50% were Rh D negative in any of four platforms.

Conclusion: Above observation showed that serological tests at various platforms failed to distinguish weak D from weakly reacting D. Thus, we propose that weakly reacting D should be treated equal as weak D unless they are distinguished by genotyping.

四种不同方法对弱D与弱反应D的血清学比较。
弱D红细胞被定义为D抗原(以前称为“Du”)数量减少,需要间接抗球蛋白试验(IAT)进行检测。材料和方法:所有RhD阴性的患者和献血者的血液样本均纳入研究。结果:共检出样品27,245份。RhD阴性为945例(3.46%)。凝胶卡Rh - D阴性和IAT阴性929例(98.3%),弱D阳性16例(1.7%)。结论:上述观察结果表明,不同平台的血清学检测无法区分弱D和弱反应D。因此,我们建议除非通过基因分型来区分弱反应D,否则应将弱反应D视为弱D。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
44 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信