BACKGROUND: Small animal models have been previously used in transfusion medicine studies to evaluate the safety of blood transfusion products. Although there are multiple studies on the effects of blood banking practices on human red blood cells (RBCs), little is known about the effect of blood component manufacturing on the quality of rat RBCs. METHODS: Blood from Sprague-Dawley rats and human volunteers (n = 6) was collected in CPD anticoagulant, resuspended in SAGM or AS3, and leukoreduced. In vitro quality was analyzed, including deformability, aggregation, microvesiculation, phosphatidylserine (PS) expression, percent hemolysis, ATP, 2,3-DPG, osmotic fragility, and potassium concentrations. RESULTS: Compared to human RBCs, rat RBCs had decreased deformability, membrane rigidity, aggregability, and microvesiculation after component manufacturing process. Rat RBCs in SAGM showed higher hemolysis compared to human RBCs in SAGM (rat 4.70 ± 0.83% vs. human 0.34 ± 0.07%; p = 0.002). Rat RBCs in AS3 had greater deformability and rigidity than in SAGM. The number of microparticles/µl and the percentage PS expression were lower in rat RBCs in AS3 than in rat RBCs in SAGM. Hemolysis was also significantly lower in AS3 compared to SAGM (2.21 ± 0.68% vs. 0.87 ± 0.39%; p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Rat RBCs significantly differ from human RBCs in metabolic and membrane-related aspects. SAGM, which is commonly used for human RBC banking, causes high hemolysis and is not compatible with rat RBCs.
BACKGROUND: Small animal models have been previously used in transfusion medicine studies to evaluate the safety of blood transfusion products. Although there are multiple studies on the effects of blood banking practices on human red blood cells (RBCs), little is known about the effect of blood component manufacturing on the quality of rat RBCs. METHODS: Blood from Sprague-Dawley rats and human volunteers (n = 6) was collected in CPD anticoagulant, resuspended in SAGM or AS3, and leukoreduced. In vitro quality was analyzed, including deformability, aggregation, microvesiculation, phosphatidylserine (PS) expression, percent hemolysis, ATP, 2,3-DPG, osmotic fragility, and potassium concentrations. RESULTS: Compared to human RBCs, rat RBCs had decreased deformability, membrane rigidity, aggregability, and microvesiculation after component manufacturing process. Rat RBCs in SAGM showed higher hemolysis compared to human RBCs in SAGM (rat 4.70 ± 0.83% vs. human 0.34 ± 0.07%; p = 0.002). Rat RBCs in AS3 had greater deformability and rigidity than in SAGM. The number of microparticles/µl and the percentage PS expression were lower in rat RBCs in AS3 than in rat RBCs in SAGM. Hemolysis was also significantly lower in AS3 compared to SAGM (2.21 ± 0.68% vs. 0.87 ± 0.39%; p = 0.028). CONCLUSION:Rat RBCs significantly differ from human RBCs in metabolic and membrane-related aspects. SAGM, which is commonly used for human RBC banking, causes high hemolysis and is not compatible with rat RBCs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Additive solutions; Blood banking; Blood manufacturing; Red blood cells
Authors: Jacques Lacroix; Paul Hébert; Dean Fergusson; Alan Tinmouth; Morris A Blajchman; Jeannie Callum; Deborah Cook; John C Marshall; Lauralyn McIntyre; Alexis F Turgeon Journal: Transfus Med Rev Date: 2011-05-06
Authors: Patrick Burger; Herbert Korsten; Arthur J Verhoeven; Dirk de Korte; Robin van Bruggen Journal: Transfusion Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Dean A Fergusson; Paul Hébert; Debora L Hogan; Louise LeBel; Nicole Rouvinez-Bouali; John A Smyth; Koravangattu Sankaran; Alan Tinmouth; Morris A Blajchman; Lajos Kovacs; Christian Lachance; Shoo Lee; C Robin Walker; Brian Hutton; Robin Ducharme; Katelyn Balchin; Tim Ramsay; Jason C Ford; Ashok Kakadekar; Kuppuchipalayam Ramesh; Stan Shapiro Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Olga Mykhailova; Carly Olafson; Tracey R Turner; Angelo DʼAlessandro; Jason P Acker Journal: Transfusion Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Huagang Hou; Jin H Baek; Hao Zhang; Francine Wood; Yamei Gao; Ann B Flood; Harold M Swartz; Paul W Buehler Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Heather Jennings; Kristin N Carlson; Chris Little; Joshua C Verhagen; Jeevan Nagendran; Yongjun Liu; Bret Verhoven; Weifeng Zeng; Stacey McMorrow; Peter Chlebeck; David P Al-Adra Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 8.786
Authors: Vivek P Jani; Ozlem Yalcin; Alexander T Williams; Mark A Popovsky; Pedro Cabrales Journal: Clin Hemorheol Microcirc Date: 2017 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Mathijs R Wirtz; Jordy Jurgens; Coert J Zuurbier; Joris J T H Roelofs; Philip C Spinella; Jennifer A Muszynski; J Carel Goslings; Nicole P Juffermans Journal: Transfusion Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 3.157