2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.humimm.2004.08.182
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection and specification of noncomplement binding anti-HLA alloantibodies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
24
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
24
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, we consider this complementary strategy, which includes useage of both CDC and ELISA techniques, simultaneously or alternatively, as appropriate and useful for HLA antibody screening in all pretransplant patients, since it provides the advantages of both of techniques, in conjunction. Our data are in agreement with other reports [18,[23][24][25], that also confirmed the higher sensitivity and greater ability to detect antibodies by ELISA technique in comparison to CDC. This discrepancy of positive test results obtained only by ELISA 121 (19.96%), in comparisom to the positive results obtained only by CDC test 64 (10.56%), could be explained by either a greater sensitivity of the ELISA or to the presence of noncytotoxic antibodies which CDC method could not detect.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Therefore, we consider this complementary strategy, which includes useage of both CDC and ELISA techniques, simultaneously or alternatively, as appropriate and useful for HLA antibody screening in all pretransplant patients, since it provides the advantages of both of techniques, in conjunction. Our data are in agreement with other reports [18,[23][24][25], that also confirmed the higher sensitivity and greater ability to detect antibodies by ELISA technique in comparison to CDC. This discrepancy of positive test results obtained only by ELISA 121 (19.96%), in comparisom to the positive results obtained only by CDC test 64 (10.56%), could be explained by either a greater sensitivity of the ELISA or to the presence of noncytotoxic antibodies which CDC method could not detect.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…12,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28] The initial appearance of strong complementfixing IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies may expand to weak or noncomplement-binding IgG2 and IgG4 antibodies; therefore, various profiles of IgG subclasses are seen in transplant recipients. 29 Previous studies have failed to firmly identify a predictive subclass pattern due to the heterogeneous IgG subclass response and to several technical [30][31][32] and methodological limitations, mainly related to the small number of recipients included 26,33,34 or the lack of precise clinical and histologic phenotyping of the ABMR injury. 23,24 The integration of different properties of circulating anti-HLA DSA, including HLA class specificity, strength, complementbinding capacity and IgG subclasses, allowed us to identify three distinct clinical and histologic patterns of antibody-mediated injury, as recognized by the latest Banff classification: aABMR, sABMR, and ABMR-free.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most anti-HLA antibodies are IgG, while IgM are frequently autoantibodies whose clinical role is still debated. To solve this issue, serum pretreatment with dithiothreitol (DDT) is used for elimination of these antibodies [16]. Moreover, CDC has several technical problems including the need for a large panel of live cells expressing the most common HLA antigens, the presence of autoantibodies, and the difficulty in distinguishing between class I and II anti-HLA antibodies.…”
Section: Complement-dependent Cytotoxicitymentioning
confidence: 99%