ArticleImmunohematology2008
Rapid, single-subject genotyping to predict red blood cell antigen expression.
Article in Immunohematology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Genotyping is useful to predict the expression of those RBC antigens for which antisera are difficult to obtain and to determine the probable phenotype of highly transfused patients, and it can be used to test stored DNA when a blood sample is not available. This study assessed a sequence-specific primer (SSP)-based genotyping system for blood group alleles suitable for the rapid testing of a small number of samples and assessed the use of stored whole blood. Genomic DNA was isolated from fresh and 1- and 2-week-old stored blood from 20 donors with known ABO and Rh phenotypes and was used for ABO, RHD, and RHCE genotyping using SSPs. The amplicons were analyzed using gel electrophoresis and a novel microfluidic on-chip electrophoresis system. Analysis of DNA from fresh and 1- and 2-week-old blood by SSP and gel electrophoresis yielded the correct ABO, RHD, and RHCE type in all samples, but with DNA from 2-week-old stored blood the amplicons were more difficult to visualize. Analysis of the same samples with the SSP on-chip electrophoresis assay correctly typed all samples except for one RHCE typing discrepancy of a fresh sample and one RHCE typing discrepancy of a 2-week-old sample. Analysis of amplicons by on-chip electrophoresis required one tenth the DNA that gel electrophoresis did and could be completed within 30 minutes compared with 2 hours with gel electrophoresis. Amplicons were also more readily visualized with on-chip electrophoresis. Fresh and 1- and 2-week-old samples could be ABO and RH genotyped with SSP. Analysis using on-chip electrophoresis was easier and more rapid than that using gel electrophoresis, but test reliability was slightly more variable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19856718PMC2770877W91634253What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.