THE VALUE OF DIFFERENTIATION OF WEAK FORMS OF D ANTIGEN OF THE ERYTHROCYTE SYSTEM RHESUS IN CLINICAL TRANSFUSIOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
Summary. The characteristics of variants of antigen D are important because their immunogenicity and, consequently, clinical value depend on them.
Objective. To identify weak forms of D antigen of the Rhesus erythrocyte system using available methods, to investigate their frequency and to determine a strategy for interpreting the rhesus status of the individual.
Materials and methods. Rhesus affiliation of 3501 blood donors was determined, RhD affiliation of 44 people was specified. The studies were performed in hemagglutination reactions on a plane, test tubes, indirect Coombs’ test, micromethod in gel with MCA anti-D IgM, anti-D IgG, anti-D/DVI IgM/IgG, standard universal reagent antirhesus and standard serum antirhesus.
Results and discussion. Dweak was defined 1 % among donors, which is no different from its frequency among Europeans. 40 of the 44 subjects had Dweak and were classified as RhD +, 2 – DVI + — as RhD–, taking into account the world practice of referring an individual with serologically weak D depending on the category of the subject.
Conclusions. Due to significant differences in the immune response of individuals with Dweak and Dpartial to D + antigenic stimulus, in-depth examination of their RhD status is appropriate to determine transfusion and obstetric tactics.
2. Wagner FF, Frohmajer A, Ladewig B, Eicher NI, Lonicer CB, Müller TH, et al. Weak D alleles express distinct phenotypes. Blood. 2000 Apr;95(8):2699-708.
3. Sandler SG, Flegel WA, Westhoff CM, Denomme GA, Delaney M, Keller MA, et al. It’s time to phase-in RHD genotyping for patients with a serological weak D phenotype. Transfusion. 2015 Mar;55(3):680-9.
4. Müller TH, Wagner FF, Trockenbacher A, Eicher NI, Flegel WA, Schönitzer D, et al. PCR screening for common weak D types shows different distributions in three Central European populations. Transfusion. 2001 Jan;41(1):45–52.
5. Esteban R, Montero R, Flegel WA, Wagner FF, Subirana L, Parra R, et al. The D category VI type 4 allele is prevalent in the Spanish population. Transfusion. 2006 Apr;46(4):616-23.
6. Pavlyuk RP, Tymoshenco UV. Rhesus belonging identificftion at case of week or partial forms of D antigen and their frequency among population of Central-Ukrainian genogeografical district. Hematology&Blood Transfusion. 2010 Dec;35:223-30.
7. Reid ME, Lomas-Francis C, Olsson M. The Blood Group Antigen Facts Book. 3 rd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2012. 758 p.
8. Wagner FF, Gassner C, Müller TH, Schönitzer D, Schunter F, Flegel WA. Molecular basis of weak D phenotypes. Blood 1999 Jan; 93(1): 385-93.
9. Scrinda I. Blood service of Latvia. Basic principles of immuno-hematological research of donors and recipients in Latvia. Hematology & blood transfusion: interdepartamental collection. 2019; 40: 251-60. [In Russian].
10. Prasad MR, Krugh D, Rossi KQ, O’Shaughnessy RW. Anti-D in Rh positive pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Oct; 195(4): 1158-62.
11. Yazer MH, Triulzi DJ. Detection of anti-D in D– recipients transfused with D+ red blood cells. Transfusion. 2007 Dec; 47(12): 2197-201.
12. Sandler SG, Roseff SD, Domen RE, Shaz B, Gottschall JL. Policies and procedures related to testing for weak D phenotypes and administration of Rh immune globulin: results and recommendations related to supplemental questions in the comprehensive transfusion medicine survey of the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014 May;138(5):620-5.
13. Gu J, Sun A, Wang X, Shao C, Li Z, Huang L, et al. Analysis of density and apitopes of D antigen on the surface of erythrocytes from DEL phenotypic individuals carrying the RHD1227A allele. Blood Transfus. 2014 Apr;12(2):244-9.