摘要
目的比较抗原板法和细胞板法检测群体反应性抗体（PRA）的差异，探讨其结果与临床实际的相符度。方法对12例采用美国One Lanmbda公司和美国GIT公司抗原板检测PRA为阳性（PRA为46．2％～100％）的待移植患者，再以德国Biotest公司细胞板测定PRA，并行淋巴细胞毒交叉配合试验测定冷抗体和温抗体水平。结果12例抗原板测定PRA为阳性者中，仅4例（33．3％）细胞板测定PRA为阳性，PRA分别为84．5％、44．8％、82．8％和100％。通过淋巴细胞毒交叉配合试验，12例中，4例（33．3％）温抗体阳性，此4例即为细胞板测定阳性者；8例冷抗体阳性，4例温抗体阳性者也在其中。结论与抗原板法相比，细胞板法检测PRA能更真实反映移植受者体内的抗体情况。
Objective To compare the difference between antigen plate method and the cellular plate method for panel reaction antigen （PRA） assay to explore the consistence with their laboratory results and clinical results. Methods Twelve pre-transplant recipients whose PRA were positive using One Lanmbda and the American GIT company （antigen plate, ranging from 46. 2 %-100 %）, were retested by the German Biotest company antigen plate （cellular plate） for their PRA levels. Half-micro quality lymphocyte toxic test was performed to determine warm antibody level and cold antibody level. Results Only 4 cases of patients were positive using cellular plate method for PRA among the 12 patients whose PRA were positive by antigen plate method, and the PRA was 84. 5 %, 44. 8%, 82. 8 % and 100% respectively. The results of half-micro quality lymphocyte toxic test demonstrated that 4 cases （33. 3 %） were positive for warm antibody, and these 4 patients were positive for PRA by cellular plate. Eight cases were positive for cold antibody, and 4 of them were positive for warm antibody. Conclusion Compared with the antigen plate method, the cellular plate method for PRA could be better for the measurement of the antibody level in vivo in pre-transplant recipients.
出处
《中华器官移植杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2007年第3期174-176,共3页
Chinese Journal of Organ Transplantation
