BACKGROUND: The basophil activation test (BAT) is a widely validated and reliable tool especially for the diagnosis of hymenoptera venom allergy. Nevertheless, several pitfalls have to be considered and outcomes may differ because of diverse in-house protocols and commercially available kits. We aimed to identify the factors that may influence results of the CD63-based BAT. METHODS: Basophil responses to monoclonal anti-IgE (clone E124.2.8) and bee and wasp venom were determined by BAT based on CD63. The effect of stimulating factors such as, IL-3, cytochalasin B and prewarming of the samples was investigated. Furthermore, we compared two different flow cytometer systems and evaluated the influence of storage time, different staining protocols and anti-allergic drugs on the test results. RESULTS: Interleukin-3 enhanced the reactivity of basophils at 300 pM, but not at 75 and 150 pM. Prewarming of samples and reagents did not affect basophil reactivity. CD63 expression assayed after storage time of up to 48 h showed that basophil reactivity already started to decline after 4 h. Basophils stained with HLA-DR-PC5 and CD123-PE antibodies gated as HLA-DR(neg)/CD123(pos) cells showed the highest reactivity. No effect on test outcomes was observed at therapeutic doses of dimetindene and desloratadine. Finally, slight differences in the percentage of activated basophils, depending on the cytometer system used, were found. CONCLUSION: Basophil activation test should be performed as early as possible after taking the blood sample, preferably within 4 h. In contrast to the skin test, BAT can be performed in patients undergoing treatment with antihistamines. For reasons of multiple influencing factors, BAT should be performed only at validated laboratories.
BACKGROUND: The basophil activation test (BAT) is a widely validated and reliable tool especially for the diagnosis of hymenoptera venom allergy. Nevertheless, several pitfalls have to be considered and outcomes may differ because of diverse in-house protocols and commercially available kits. We aimed to identify the factors that may influence results of the CD63-based BAT. METHODS: Basophil responses to monoclonal anti-IgE (clone E124.2.8) and bee and wasp venom were determined by BAT based on CD63. The effect of stimulating factors such as, IL-3, cytochalasin B and prewarming of the samples was investigated. Furthermore, we compared two different flow cytometer systems and evaluated the influence of storage time, different staining protocols and anti-allergic drugs on the test results. RESULTS:Interleukin-3 enhanced the reactivity of basophils at 300 pM, but not at 75 and 150 pM. Prewarming of samples and reagents did not affect basophil reactivity. CD63 expression assayed after storage time of up to 48 h showed that basophil reactivity already started to decline after 4 h. Basophils stained with HLA-DR-PC5 and CD123-PE antibodies gated as HLA-DR(neg)/CD123(pos) cells showed the highest reactivity. No effect on test outcomes was observed at therapeutic doses of dimetindene and desloratadine. Finally, slight differences in the percentage of activated basophils, depending on the cytometer system used, were found. CONCLUSION: Basophil activation test should be performed as early as possible after taking the blood sample, preferably within 4 h. In contrast to the skin test, BAT can be performed in patients undergoing treatment with antihistamines. For reasons of multiple influencing factors, BAT should be performed only at validated laboratories.
Authors: Ignacio J Ansotegui; Giovanni Melioli; Giorgio Walter Canonica; Luis Caraballo; Elisa Villa; Motohiro Ebisawa; Giovanni Passalacqua; Eleonora Savi; Didier Ebo; R Maximiliano Gómez; Olga Luengo Sánchez; John J Oppenheimer; Erika Jensen-Jarolim; David A Fischer; Tari Haahtela; Martti Antila; Jean J Bousquet; Victoria Cardona; Wen Chin Chiang; Pascal M Demoly; Lawrence M DuBuske; Marta Ferrer Puga; Roy Gerth van Wijk; Sandra Nora González Díaz; Alexei Gonzalez-Estrada; Edgardo Jares; Ayse Füsun Kalpaklioğlu; Luciana Kase Tanno; Marek L Kowalski; Dennis K Ledford; Olga Patricia Monge Ortega; Mário Morais Almeida; Oliver Pfaar; Lars K Poulsen; Ruby Pawankar; Harald E Renz; Antonino G Romano; Nelson A Rosário Filho; Lanny Rosenwasser; Mario A Sánchez Borges; Enrico Scala; Gian-Enrico Senna; Juan Carlos Sisul; Mimi L K Tang; Bernard Yu-Hor Thong; Rudolf Valenta; Robert A Wood; Torsten Zuberbier Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 4.084
Authors: Gunter J Sturm; Chunsheng Jin; Bettina Kranzelbinder; Wolfgang Hemmer; Eva M Sturm; Antonia Griesbacher; Akos Heinemann; Jutta Vollmann; Friedrich Altmann; Karl Crailsheim; Margarete Focke; Werner Aberer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Theodore Kim; Jing Yu; Henry Li; Mark Scarupa; Richard L Wasserman; Athena Economides; Martha White; Carla Ward; Atul Shah; Douglas Jones; Melinda Rathkopf; Kelly Frye; Ahmet Aybar; Shahrooz Shayegan; Benjamin Enav; Laura Ispas; Denise Loizou; David Fitzhugh; James Tracy; James Friedlander; Zachary Jacobs; Jonathan Matz; David Golden; Donald McNeil; William McCann; Christopher Copenhaver; Jeffrey Factor; Raavi Gupta; Oral Alpan; Matthew Plassmeyer; Søren Ulrik Sønder Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.248
Authors: Kaori Mukai; Nicolas Gaudenzio; Sheena Gupta; Nora Vivanco; Sean C Bendall; Holden T Maecker; Rebecca S Chinthrajah; Mindy Tsai; Kari C Nadeau; Stephen J Galli Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 10.793