<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
pmid: 28509678
Fluorescence-based human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody detection methods, including flow cytometric crossmatch and single antigen bead assays revolutionized HLA antibody identification and assessment of immunological risk in transplant candidates and patients. Nevertheless, these assays are not flawless and their interpretation can be complex. This review highlights the limitations of the single antigen bead and flow cytometric crossmatch assays and discusses protocol modifications and interpretive approaches to address these issues.Several limitations of HLA antibody detection methods have been identified in recent years. Protocol variability, denatured epitopes, and interfering factors can all significantly impact the identification of clinically relevant HLA antibodies. A number of solutions to address these challenges have been developed. These include pretreatment of sera, method standardization, and protocol modifications. In addition, HLA epitope-based analysis approaches to improve interpretation of antibody test results have been introduced.In the 50 years, since Patel and Terasaki first developed the crossmatch assay there have been remarkable advances in HLA antibody testing methodology. However, with these advances, new problems emerged and solutions had to be developed. As the technology continues to evolve, our methods and ability to interpret results must keep pace to provide transplant patients with the best possible care.
HLA Antigens, Histocompatibility Testing, Humans, Flow Cytometry, Antibodies
HLA Antigens, Histocompatibility Testing, Humans, Flow Cytometry, Antibodies
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 6 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |