Evaluation and comparison of three human monoclonal anti-S, two human polyclonal anti-S, and one murine anti-GPB

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Immunohematology

American National Red Cross

Subject: Medical Laboratory Technology

GET ALERTS SUBSCRIBE

ISSN: 0894-203X
eISSN: 1930-3955

DESCRIPTION

0
Reader(s)
0
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Volume 30 (2014)
Volume 29 (2013)
Volume 28 (2012)
Volume 27 (2011)
Volume 26 (2010)
Volume 25 (2009)
Volume 24 (2008)
Volume 23 (2007)
Volume 22 (2006)
Volume 21 (2005)
Volume 20 (2004)
Volume 19 (2003)
Volume 18 (2002)
Volume 17 (2001)
Volume 16 (2000)
Volume 15 (1999)
Volume 14 (1998)
Volume 13 (1997)
Volume 12 (1996)
Volume 11 (1995)
Volume 10 (1994)
Volume 9 (1993)
Volume 8 (1992)
Volume 7 (1991)
Volume 6 (1990)
Volume 5 (1989)
Volume 4 (1988)
Volume 3 (1987)
Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 4 (December 1999) > List of articles

Evaluation and comparison of three human monoclonal anti-S, two human polyclonal anti-S, and one murine anti-GPB

Marion Reid / Gregory R. Halverson / Janet Sutherland / Malcolm Rhodes

Keywords : monoclonal, anti-S, glycophorin-B anti­ bodies, MNS antibodies

Citation Information : Immunohematology. Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 163-166, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/immunohematology-2019-639

License : (Transfer of Copyright)

Published Online: 26-October-2020

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Polyclonal anti-S react with Met29 of red blood cell (RBC)-bound glycophorin B (GPB) but may also require adjacent amino acids. Treatment of RBCs with certain enzymes and sodium hypochlorite­-based bleach (NaClO) affect the interaction of GPB with anti-S. Some, but not all, anti-S react with hybrid glycophorin molecules associat­ed with the TSEN antigen. The purpose of this study was to charac­terize monoclonal anti-S and to compare their reactivity to polyclon­al anti-S in order to determine their potential as blood group reagents and research tools. Furthermore, through inhibition experiments, we attempted to define the epitope recognized by the antibodies.
Three monoclonal (MS-93; MS-94; MS-95) and two polyclonal (A1958; XI960) anti-S and a monoclonal anti-GPB (Mab 148) were tested by standard hemagglutination with RBCs of known common and rare phenotype, with S+ RBCs treated with enzymes, with dif­ferent concentrations of NaCIO, and after incubation with synthetic peptides. The anti-S gave different patterns of reactivity. Reactivity with sialidase-treated RBCs showed that MS-93, MS-95, Mab 148, and X1960 recognize sialic acid independent epitopes, whereas MS-94 and A1958 require sialic acid for optimal reactivity. MS-95 and X1960 were strongly reactive with TSEN+ RBCs and only Mab 148 agglutinated S- Dantu+ and S- St(a+) RBCs. MS-94 and Mab-148 agglutinated S+ RBCs treated with NaCIO. MS-93 was inhibited only by the 14-mer S-specific synthetic peptide whereas MS-95 was inhib­ited by all three synthetic peptides containing S-relevant residues.
This study clearly demonstrates that different anti-S have different characteristics that should be analyzed before selecting monoclonal antibodies for the basis of reagents for use in the clinical laboratory. These anti-S, because of their varied characteristics, wall be useful research tools.

You don't have 'Full Text' access of this article.

Purchase Article Subscribe Journal Share