Suppr超能文献

FlowPRA微珠的难题。

Conundrums with FlowPRA beads.

作者信息

Gebel Howard M, Harris Shealynn B, Zibari G, Bray Robert A

机构信息

Department of Pathology, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.

出版信息

Clin Transplant. 2002;16 Suppl 7:24-9. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0012.16.s7.3.x.

Abstract

In 1969, a study by Patel and Terasaki persuaded the renal transplant community that a pre-transplant cross-match should always be performed between donor and recipient to detect HLA antibodies and prevent hyperacute allograft rejection. Although the role of the cross-match among nonsensitized patients is controversial, its importance among sensitized recipients is undeniable. Over the past 30 years, more sensitive techniques, such as the flow cytometric cross-match (FCXM), were developed to identify low levels of antibodies undetectable by other approaches. The clinical relevance of a positive FCXM, however, has been hotly disputed, with some investigators maintaining that the FCXM is 'too sensitive' and rules out acceptable donor-recipient combinations. An alternative explanation is that the FCXM is non-specific, and, at least in certain situations, identifies non-HLA antibodies that are clinically irrelevant. Recently, a solid phase immunoassay utilizing purified HLA Class I or Class II molecules bound to microparticles (FlowPRA) was developed. Ideally, use of the FlowPRA for the identification of HLA antibodies in recipient sera would help ascertain whether a positive FCXM with donor cells was truly the result of an HLA-specific antibody. As shown here, this may not always be true. In this study, two unexpected serum patterns were observed. Pattern 1: FlowPRA beads were positive (with an associated HLA Class I specificity) and the FCXM with cells expressing the HLA antigen(s) to which the antibody was directed, was negative. Sequence analysis of the HLA antigens reactive with this unexpected antibody suggests that the epitope recognized resides on the floor of the groove, a site generally not expected to generate antibody activity. Pattern 2: FlowPRA beads were negative yet the FCXM was T and B cell positive. Further analysis of the FlowPRA negative/FCXM positive sera using a flow cytometric cell-based panel reactive antibody (PRA) approach revealed those sera to have specific anti-HLA Class I activity. We suspect that both types of antibodies described above have clinical relevance. Thus, a negative or positive FCXM (when the FlowPRA against donor antigens is positive or negative, respectively) is not always a straightforward interpretation.

摘要

1969年,帕特尔和寺崎开展的一项研究使肾移植界相信,移植前应始终在供体和受体之间进行交叉配型,以检测HLA抗体并防止超急性移植排斥反应。尽管交叉配型在未致敏患者中的作用存在争议,但其在致敏受者中的重要性是不可否认的。在过去30年里,人们开发了更灵敏的技术,如流式细胞术交叉配型(FCXM),以识别其他方法无法检测到的低水平抗体。然而,FCXM阳性的临床相关性一直备受争议,一些研究人员认为FCXM “过于灵敏”,排除了可接受的供体-受体组合。另一种解释是,FCXM是非特异性的,至少在某些情况下,它识别的是非HLA抗体,而这些抗体在临床上并无关联。最近,一种利用与微粒结合的纯化HLA I类或II类分子的固相免疫测定法(FlowPRA)被开发出来。理想情况下,使用FlowPRA鉴定受者血清中的HLA抗体将有助于确定与供体细胞的FCXM阳性是否真的是HLA特异性抗体的结果。如下所示,情况可能并非总是如此。在本研究中,观察到两种意外的血清模式。模式1:FlowPRA微珠呈阳性(伴有相关的HLA I类特异性),而与表达该抗体所针对的HLA抗原的细胞进行的FCXM呈阴性。与这种意外抗体反应的HLA抗原的序列分析表明,所识别的表位位于凹槽底部,这是一个通常不会产生抗体活性的位点。模式2:FlowPRA微珠呈阴性,但FCXM的T细胞和B细胞呈阳性。使用基于流式细胞术的细胞反应性抗体(PRA)方法对FlowPRA阴性/FCXM阳性血清进行进一步分析,发现这些血清具有特异性抗HLA I类活性。我们怀疑上述两种类型的抗体都具有临床相关性。因此,FCXM阴性或阳性(当针对供体抗原的FlowPRA分别为阳性或阴性时)并不总是能直接解读。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验