The gel test: use in the identification of unexpected antibodies to blood group antigens

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

3
Reader(s)
3
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 14 , ISSUE 2 (June 1998) > List of articles

The gel test: use in the identification of unexpected antibodies to blood group antigens

W. John Judd / E.Ann Steiner / Pamela C. Knaf / Colleen Masters

Keywords : gel test, antibody identification, method validation, LISS, PEG, time-in-motion studies, productivity

Citation Information : Immunohematology. Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 59-62, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/immunohematology-2019-661

License : (Transfer of Copyright)

Published Online: 03-November-2020

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

The IgG GEL test was compared with the LISS tube test (Löw and Messeter’s low-ionic-strength saline) for antibody identification. The suitability of red blood cells (RBCs) pretreated with ficin, dithiothreitol (DTT), or chloroquine diphosphate (CDP) also was assessed for use in the GEL test. In addition, time-in-motion studies were performed comparing GEL (12 panels per batch) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) tube tests (3 panels per batch). In 57 antibody identification studies, there were 63 GEL+ LISS+, 2 GEL+ LISS–, and 6 GEL–LISS+ antibodies. Among the GEL+ LISS+ antibodies were 19 that yielded stronger reactions in GEL than in LISS; by virtue of their specificity, 14 of these are considered potentially significant: D, 5 E, 2 e, 2 Jka, 2 S, K, and Fya. There were 38 antibodies that yielded equivalent results by both methods, including 31 that are considered potentially significant. Of six antibodies with significantly greater reactivity in LISS, there were three anti-Rh and three that are considered harmless with respect to transfusion management. The two GEL+ LISS– antibodies (anti-Jkb) were potentially significant. GEL– LISS+ reactions involved only harmless antibodies. Of the 50 antibodies of potential significance, GEL yielded equivalent or superior results in 47 (94%) instances. Additionally, GEL failed to detect 6 of 21 harmless antibodies. Expected results were obtained with normal serum or plasma and antibodies of known specificity in tests with RBCs treated with ficin, DTT, or CDP. Hands-on-time required for each GEL panel was 2 to 21/2 minutes compared with 12 minutes for PEG. These data document the suitability of GEL for use in antibody identification studies.

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

Purchase Article Subscribe Journal Share