Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Anti-D quantification by flow cytometry:a comparison of five methods.

E B Austin1, Y McIntosh

  • 1Manchester Blood Centre, Manchester, UK. eric.austin@nbs.nhs.uk

Transfusion
|January 25, 2000
PubMed
Summary

Flow cytometry for anti-D quantification shows variability based on method and serum antibody characteristics. Further validation is needed before routine clinical use of these flow cytometric methods.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Donor selection and release criteria of cellular therapy products.

Vox sanguinis·2012
Same author

The role of blood services and regulatory bodies in stem cell transplantation.

Vox sanguinis·2008
Same author

Evidence for the homeostatic regulation of induced beta cell mass expansion.

Diabetologia·2006
Same author

An anti-idiotopic antibody-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the quantification of the monoclonal anti-D BRAD-5.

Vox sanguinis·2001
Same author

Murine monoclonal antibodies reactive with a human monoclonal anti-RhD antibody (BRAD-5).

Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England)·2000
Same author

Comparison of flow cytometric assays with isotopic assays of (51)chromium-labeled cells for estimation of red cell clearance or survival in vivo.

Transfusion·2000

Area of Science:

  • Immunology
  • Hematology
  • Clinical Chemistry

Background:

  • Three flow cytometric methods for anti-D quantification exist.
  • These methods use different conditions, potentially causing result variations.
  • A direct comparison is necessary to assess reliability.

Purpose of the Study:

  • Compare existing and novel flow cytometric methods for anti-D quantification.
  • Evaluate the variability and reliability of different anti-D quantification techniques.

Main Methods:

  • Compared five flow cytometric methods (three published, two in-house).
  • Tested ten serum samples with anti-D levels ranging from 11.6 to 915 IU/mL.
  • Detected anti-D using fluorescence-labeled anti-human IgG reagents.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Four out of five methods showed intra-assay coefficients of variation (CV) consistently below 10 percent.
  • Interassay CV was below 25 percent in 72 percent of sample-method combinations.
  • Significant variability was observed when comparing flow cytometry results to an automated technique (AutoAnalyzer).

Conclusions:

  • Anti-D quantification by flow cytometry is influenced by serum antibody characteristics and the specific method employed.
  • Discrepancies between flow cytometry and AutoAnalyzer methods highlight the need for further validation.
  • Current flow cytometric methods require additional validation before widespread clinical adoption.