ArticleBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2020
RHD and RHCE molecular analysis in weak D blood donors and in patients with Rh antibodies against their own corresponding Rh antigen.
Article in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- From the investigation of RHD-CE hybrid genes to the recognition of RHCE variants and RHD zygosity. Expanding the analysis by QMPSF in Brazilian donors and in patients with sickle cell disease.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2023Article
- Genotype analysis to clarify RhD variants in discrepant samples of Chilean population.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Five-Years Review ofGenes · 2022Review
- Molecular Background of RhD-positive and RhD-negative Phenotypes in a Saudi Population.Saudi journal of medicine & medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Rh system is the largest and most polymorphic blood group system. The existence of a large number of RH alleles results in variant phenotypes that often complicate blood donor phenotyping and the distinction between auto- and allo-antibodies in recipients who have anti-Rh antibodies in the presence of their own corresponding Rh antigen. Knowledge of these variants is necessary in order to make blood transfusion safer. MATERIALS AND
methodsSamples from 48 blood donors with serological weak D and from 29 patients who had anti-Rh antibody in the presence of their own corresponding Rh antigen were evaluated molecularly for RHD and RHCE alleles using a blood-multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification assay and Sanger sequencing.
resultsRh variants were found in 45 of the 48 blood donors: 24/45 (53%) were weak D, 2/45 (4%) partial D and 19/45 (42%) were weak and partial D. The remaining three donors (6%) did not show a mutation in the RHD allele. Among the 29 patients, 13/29 had anti-e, of whom 4/13 had genotypes that predicted a partial e antigen; 11/29 had anti-D, with 6/11 being identified as partial D; 2/29 had anti-c, of whom 1/2 was predicted to express partial c antigen; 4/29 who had anti-E and 4/29 who had anti-C did not show mutations in RHCE*C or RHCE*E. DISCUSSION: It was possible to find individuals with clinically significant Rh phenotypes due to the weak reactivity of the D antigen, detected through serological tests in blood donors. In patients, when found with the anti-Rh antibody in the presence of the same Rh antigen, it is difficult to distinguish an auto-antibody from an allo-antibody by serological tests; in these cases, molecular methods (genotyping) can help us to determine whether there are changes in the RH alleles and to discover the nature of the antibody (allo or auto).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.