Transfusion · 2007
Correlation between serology and genetics of weak D types in Denmark.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Christiansen Mette, Samuelsen Betina, Christiansen Lene, Morbjerg Trine, Bredahl Conny, Grunnet Niels
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To date more than 100 variant D types have been reported and the frequencies vary among populations. Blood donor typing should reveal all donors expressing D antigens, while patient typing should prevent the development of anti-D in patients with a D- or variant D blood type. Serotyping is the standard method to assign transfusion strategies, whereas molecular classification offers a more specific grouping of weak and partial D.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Blood donor and patient samples with discrepant results of D phenotyping were collected to investigate the frequency of weak D subtypes in Denmark and to evaluate currently used serologic methods.
RESULTS: Nine different weak D types were identified among the 101 samples. Weak D Types 1, 2, and 3 constituted 80 percent of the analyzed samples and 10 percent of the samples identified as weak D from serology were actually partial D.
CONCLUSION: The distribution of weak D types in Denmark was found to resemble the distribution in Northern Germany in respect to the three most prevalent weak D types. Correctly defining all samples that show weak reactions in D typing as weak D or partial D is not possible with serotyping alone; genotyping offers the only exact categorization. Serology is superior for routine blood typing, however.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Blood donor and patient samples with discrepant results of D phenotyping were collected to investigate the frequency of weak D subtypes in Denmark and to evaluate currently used serologic methods.
RESULTS: Nine different weak D types were identified among the 101 samples. Weak D Types 1, 2, and 3 constituted 80 percent of the analyzed samples and 10 percent of the samples identified as weak D from serology were actually partial D.
CONCLUSION: The distribution of weak D types in Denmark was found to resemble the distribution in Northern Germany in respect to the three most prevalent weak D types. Correctly defining all samples that show weak reactions in D typing as weak D or partial D is not possible with serotyping alone; genotyping offers the only exact categorization. Serology is superior for routine blood typing, however.