Flow-cytometric analysis of HNA-2 expression and phenotypes among Thai blood donors

6Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Antibodies specific to human neutrophil antigen (HNA), especially HNA-2, are implicated in various conditions, including neonatal alloimmune neutropenia, febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reactions, and transfusion-related acute lung injury. The distribution of the HNA-2 phenotype frequencies in the Thai population remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate HNA-2 phenotype frequencies in Thai blood donors and to compare the relationships of sex and age with HNA-2 expression. Methods: EDTA blood samples were collected from 220 unrelated healthy Thai blood donors, including 150 males and 70 females, with ages ranging from 20 to 57 years. Poly-morphonuclear cells were isolated and stained with monoclonal antibodies clone MEM-166 and clone 2D1, which are specific to human CD177 (HNA-2) and CD45, respectively. HNA-2 expression according to sex and age was analyzed by flow cytometry. Results: Among the 220 donors, HNA-2-positive and HNA-2-null-phenotype frequencies were 0.995 and 0.005, respectively. Mean antigen expression was significantly higher in women (71.01 ± 15.46%) than in men (64.59 ± 18.85%; P < 0.05). No significant differences in HNA-2 expression were found between different age groups. HNA-2 phenotype frequencies were similar to those in Asian, African, American, and Brazilian populations, but were significantly different from those in eastern Japanese, Korean, and French populations (P < 0.001). Conclusions: This is the first report of HNA-2 phenotype frequencies in a Thai population, and the data will be helpful in predicting the risk of HNA-2 alloimmunization and in recruiting granulocyte panel donors.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nathalang, O., Siriphanthong, K., Petvises, S., & Jeumjanya, N. (2018). Flow-cytometric analysis of HNA-2 expression and phenotypes among Thai blood donors. Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 38(4), 362–366. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2018.38.4.362

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free