昆虫毒液过敏中的嗜碱性粒细胞活化:使用液体试剂的成熟检测方法与使用五色管和干燥抗体试剂的检测方法的比较

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q3 IMMUNOLOGY
Sebastian Waldherr, Miriam Hils, Martin Köberle, Knut Brockow, Ulf Darsow, Simon Blank, Tilo Biedermann, Bernadette Eberlein
{"title":"昆虫毒液过敏中的嗜碱性粒细胞活化:使用液体试剂的成熟检测方法与使用五色管和干燥抗体试剂的检测方法的比较","authors":"Sebastian Waldherr, Miriam Hils, Martin Köberle, Knut Brockow, Ulf Darsow, Simon Blank, Tilo Biedermann, Bernadette Eberlein","doi":"10.1186/s12865-024-00616-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Flow cytometry-based basophil activation tests (BAT) have been performed with various modifications, differing in the use of distinct identification and activation markers. Established tests use liquid reagents while a new development involves the use of tubes with dried antibody reagents. The aim of this pilot study was to compare these two techniques in patients with insect venom allergy. Seventeen patients with an insect venom allergy were included in the study. The established “BAT 1” utilizes conventional antibody solutions of anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation, whereas “BAT 2” uses dried anti-CD45, anti-CD3, anti-CRTH2, anti-203c and anti-CD63 for identification and activation measurement of basophils. Negative and positive controls as well as incubations with honey bee venom and yellow jacket venom at three concentrations were performed. Seven patients had to be excluded due to low basophil counts, high values in negative controls or negative positive controls. For the remaining 10 patients the overall mean (± SD) difference in activated basophils between the two tests was 0.2 (± 12.2) %P. In a Bland-Altman plot, the limit of agreement (LoA) ranged from 24.0 to -23.7. In the qualitative evaluation (value below/above cut-off) Cohen’s kappa was 0.77 indicating substantial agreement. BAT 2 took longer to perform than BAT 1 and was more expensive. The BAT 2 technique represents an interesting innovation, however, it was found to be less suitable compared to an established BAT for the routine diagnosis of insect venom allergies.","PeriodicalId":9040,"journal":{"name":"BMC Immunology","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Basophil activation in insect venom allergy: comparison of an established test using liquid reagents with a test using 5-color tubes with dried antibody reagents\",\"authors\":\"Sebastian Waldherr, Miriam Hils, Martin Köberle, Knut Brockow, Ulf Darsow, Simon Blank, Tilo Biedermann, Bernadette Eberlein\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12865-024-00616-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Flow cytometry-based basophil activation tests (BAT) have been performed with various modifications, differing in the use of distinct identification and activation markers. Established tests use liquid reagents while a new development involves the use of tubes with dried antibody reagents. The aim of this pilot study was to compare these two techniques in patients with insect venom allergy. Seventeen patients with an insect venom allergy were included in the study. The established “BAT 1” utilizes conventional antibody solutions of anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation, whereas “BAT 2” uses dried anti-CD45, anti-CD3, anti-CRTH2, anti-203c and anti-CD63 for identification and activation measurement of basophils. Negative and positive controls as well as incubations with honey bee venom and yellow jacket venom at three concentrations were performed. Seven patients had to be excluded due to low basophil counts, high values in negative controls or negative positive controls. For the remaining 10 patients the overall mean (± SD) difference in activated basophils between the two tests was 0.2 (± 12.2) %P. In a Bland-Altman plot, the limit of agreement (LoA) ranged from 24.0 to -23.7. In the qualitative evaluation (value below/above cut-off) Cohen’s kappa was 0.77 indicating substantial agreement. BAT 2 took longer to perform than BAT 1 and was more expensive. The BAT 2 technique represents an interesting innovation, however, it was found to be less suitable compared to an established BAT for the routine diagnosis of insect venom allergies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9040,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Immunology\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12865-024-00616-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12865-024-00616-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于流式细胞仪的嗜碱性粒细胞活化检测(BAT)在使用不同的识别和活化标记物方面有各种不同的改进。成熟的测试使用液体试剂,而新开发的测试则使用带有干燥抗体试剂的试管。这项试验性研究的目的是在昆虫毒液过敏患者中比较这两种技术。17 名昆虫毒液过敏患者参与了这项研究。已建立的 "BAT 1 "使用传统的抗-CCR3 抗体溶液来鉴定嗜碱性粒细胞,并使用抗-CD63 来评估嗜碱性粒细胞的活化情况;而 "BAT 2 "则使用干燥的抗-CD45、抗-CD3、抗-CRTH2、抗-203c 和抗-CD63 来鉴定和测量嗜碱性粒细胞的活化情况。此外,还进行了阴性和阳性对照以及三种浓度的蜜蜂毒液和黄夹克毒液培养。由于嗜碱性粒细胞计数偏低、阴性对照组数值偏高或阳性对照组为阴性,有七名患者被排除在外。其余 10 名患者的嗜碱性粒细胞活化率在两次试验中的总平均值(± SD)差异为 0.2 (± 12.2) %P。在 Bland-Altman 图中,一致性极限(LoA)在 24.0 到 -23.7 之间。在定性评估(低于/高于临界值)中,科恩卡帕值为 0.77,表明两者的一致性很高。BAT 2 比 BAT 1 耗时更长,成本更高。BAT 2 技术是一项有趣的创新,但与成熟的 BAT 相比,它不太适合用于昆虫毒液过敏的常规诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Basophil activation in insect venom allergy: comparison of an established test using liquid reagents with a test using 5-color tubes with dried antibody reagents
Flow cytometry-based basophil activation tests (BAT) have been performed with various modifications, differing in the use of distinct identification and activation markers. Established tests use liquid reagents while a new development involves the use of tubes with dried antibody reagents. The aim of this pilot study was to compare these two techniques in patients with insect venom allergy. Seventeen patients with an insect venom allergy were included in the study. The established “BAT 1” utilizes conventional antibody solutions of anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation, whereas “BAT 2” uses dried anti-CD45, anti-CD3, anti-CRTH2, anti-203c and anti-CD63 for identification and activation measurement of basophils. Negative and positive controls as well as incubations with honey bee venom and yellow jacket venom at three concentrations were performed. Seven patients had to be excluded due to low basophil counts, high values in negative controls or negative positive controls. For the remaining 10 patients the overall mean (± SD) difference in activated basophils between the two tests was 0.2 (± 12.2) %P. In a Bland-Altman plot, the limit of agreement (LoA) ranged from 24.0 to -23.7. In the qualitative evaluation (value below/above cut-off) Cohen’s kappa was 0.77 indicating substantial agreement. BAT 2 took longer to perform than BAT 1 and was more expensive. The BAT 2 technique represents an interesting innovation, however, it was found to be less suitable compared to an established BAT for the routine diagnosis of insect venom allergies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Immunology
BMC Immunology 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Immunology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in molecular, cellular, tissue-level, organismal, functional, and developmental aspects of the immune system as well as clinical studies and animal models of human diseases.
×
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