BACKGROUND: The knowledge of D variants in patients and donors is important because anti-D alloimmunization can occur in some but not all individuals who express a variant RHD allele. Serologic distinction of RhD discrepancies is not always straightforward, which makes molecular analysis highly desirable. METHODS: A group of 223 subjects, 129 patients, and 94 blood donors was identified and analyzed on the basis of a D typing discrepancy. The D antigen expression was evaluated by tube and gel hemagglutination with four anti-D reagents. PCR-single specific primer (SSP), multiplex PCR, RHD BeadChip (Immucor), or sequencing were used for molecular analysis. RESULTS: In total, 168/223 (75%) weak D and 55/223 (25%) partial D variants were identified. Hemagglutination results varied in methods and anti-D reagents used in this process. There was no standard serologic reactivity identified, which could predict what type of D variant would be identified. Among weak D samples, types 1-3 were the most common, while DAR and DVI were most prevalent among partial D samples. CONCLUSION: Our results show that discrepancies found in the serologic typing should be investigated by molecular methods in order to determine the D variant involved and also to distinguish between weak D and partial D. The knowledge of the distribution of weak D types and partial D among populations is important for D- patients and pregnant women management.
BACKGROUND: The knowledge of D variants in patients and donors is important because anti-D alloimmunization can occur in some but not all individuals who express a variant RHD allele. Serologic distinction of RhD discrepancies is not always straightforward, which makes molecular analysis highly desirable. METHODS: A group of 223 subjects, 129 patients, and 94 blood donors was identified and analyzed on the basis of a D typing discrepancy. The D antigen expression was evaluated by tube and gel hemagglutination with four anti-D reagents. PCR-single specific primer (SSP), multiplex PCR, RHD BeadChip (Immucor), or sequencing were used for molecular analysis. RESULTS: In total, 168/223 (75%) weak D and 55/223 (25%) partial D variants were identified. Hemagglutination results varied in methods and anti-D reagents used in this process. There was no standard serologic reactivity identified, which could predict what type of D variant would be identified. Among weak D samples, types 1-3 were the most common, while DAR and DVI were most prevalent among partial D samples. CONCLUSION: Our results show that discrepancies found in the serologic typing should be investigated by molecular methods in order to determine the D variant involved and also to distinguish between weak D and partial D. The knowledge of the distribution of weak D types and partial D among populations is important for D- patients and pregnant women management.
Authors: F F Wagner; A Frohmajer; B Ladewig; N I Eicher; C B Lonicer; T H Müller; M H Siegel; W A Flegel Journal: Blood Date: 2000-04-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: T H Müller; F F Wagner; A Trockenbacher; N I Eicher; W A Flegel; D Schönitzer; F Schunter; C Gassner Journal: Transfusion Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: P A Maaskant-van Wijk; B H Faas; J A de Ruijter; M A Overbeeke; A E von dem Borne; D J van Rhenen; C E van der Schoot Journal: Transfusion Date: 1998 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Thamy C Souza Silva; Bruno R Cruz; Sidneia S Costa; Akemi K Chiba; Melca M O Barros; Dante M Langhi; José O Bordin Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 3.443