Comparison of gel technology and red cell affinity column technology in antibody detection

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 14 , ISSUE 4 (December 1998) > List of articles

Comparison of gel technology and red cell affinity column technology in antibody detection

Sauvai I. Chanfong / Sherri Hill

Keywords : MTS-Gel, size exclusion, ReACT™, protein G, antibody screen, antibody identification

Citation Information : Immunohematology. Volume 14, Issue 4, Pages 152-154, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/immunohematology-2019-685

License : (Transfer of Copyright)

Published Online: 03-November-2020

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Both column (gel) agglutination technology and red cell affinity column technology (ReACT™) have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for antibody detection and identification. Parallel studies using these two methods were performed on 100 samples to evaluate their sensitivity, advantages, and disadvantages. Sixteen significant antibodies, anti-D(2), -C(1), -E(1), -c(1), -C,D(1), -K(4), -S(1), -Fya(3), -Jka(1), and -Jkb(1), were found during the study. MTS-Gel detected one anti-D due to Rh immune globulin but missed one anti-Jka. ReACT missed one anti-D and one anti-Jkb. MTS-Gel detected one anti-I and one anti-H whereas ReACT detected two antiH but not anti-I. No false positive reactions were found by either method. Sensitivity based on this study for MTS-Gel is 93.3% and ReACT is 86.7%. Advantages for MTS-Gel included the small volume needed for testing, and the reaction was stable for 48 hours; for ReACT, there was less spin time and no special pipette was needed. Disadvantages for MTS-Gel included the need for a special pipette and manual preparation of 0.8% RBC suspensions, and the disadvantages for ReACT included the small column for reaction reading and the reaction was stable for only 24 hours.

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

Purchase Article Subscribe Journal Share