Is flow cytometry crossmatch analysis using sera with different dilutions important for pretransplant analysis? A case report

Prozone phenomenon in pretransplant testing: An interesting conundrum involving solid-phase and cell-based assays

BACKGROUND

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) is a major determinant in deciding upon solid organ histocompatibility. Donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (Donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSAs)) are always a contraindication for solid organ transplantation, and identification of DSA becomes very crucial before transplantation to provide long-term graft survival. For identification of DSA, usually, either cell-based or HLA bead-based assay is being used in laboratories. However, both cell-based and bead-based assays have certain limitations. One such common limitation is "prozone effect," which can give false-negative results. Here, we would like to present a small pilot study to analyze the effect of the prozone phenomenon in the cell-based and HLA bead-based assays and its utility in histocompatibility testing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a series of four experiments, cell-based assay, flow cytometric cross-match (FCXM), and HLA bead-based flow cytometric panel reactive antibodies (PRAs) were performed. Single-antigen bead (SAB) testing was conducted as a first experiment on four known positives samples for anti-HLA antibody-antibodies. In the second experiment, these four samples were pooled together (called pooled sera in the text) and tested for FCXM and PRA. In the third experiment, known commercially available positive control sera were mixed with pooled positive sera (positive control sera + pooled sera) to prepare, what we have called "positive concoction" in the text. In the fourth experiment, the positive concoction was diluted serially (1:2, 1:4, 1:8, and 1:16) and FCXM and PRA were performed again to analyze and compare the prozone effect.

RESULTS

Pooled sera did not have the expected median fluorescence intensity (MFI) values in FCXM assay, whereas the PRA was showing >90% positivity. In positive concoction, the MFI of FCXM assay was observed to be declining; however, PRA values remained almost constant. Dilutions of the pooled sera showed that MFI values of FCXM assays were increased suddenly after dilution. The highest MFI values were observed in 1:4 dilution of the sera, and then, it declined gradually, but the PRA values remained almost constant even after serial dilutions.

CONCLUSION

In our experimental findings, it was clear that cell-based assay (FCXM) was more severely affected by the prozone, whereas solid-phase (flow PRA) assay remained resistant to prozone.

It's About Everything: Validation and Optimization of 96-Well Tray Flow Cytometry Crossmatch

Flow cytometric crossmatch (FCXM) is widely used in many centers as part of pretransplant risk assessment to detect donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies. The limited number of crossmatches that can be performed during on-call work-up for deceased donors within reasonable time remains the main obstacle to accommodating the majority of highly sensitized listed patients to be tested by the standard tube FCXM method. This limitation often directs the organs to nonsensitized patients and deprives highly sensitized patients who could be compatible if their sera were included in the crossmatch test. The goal of this study is to optimize a 96-well tray FCXM protocol that allows more sera to be crossmatched without prolonging the overall procedural time while maintaining quality and sensitivity of the assay. The new method was validated against use of the standard tube method and included total of 63 crossmatches performed simultaneously by both methods using 20 donors' cells with patients' sera, pooled positive controls tested on different dilutions, and commercial negative control. In the new protocol we modify various assay parameters including tube platform, incubation time, amount of reagent antibody cocktail, and cell volumes. An overall concordance of 98% was achieved with the protocols with slight improvement in sensitivity (2 negative B-cell reactions converted to positive in presence of weak donor-specific antibodies and mild T-cell reactivity could be picked up at 1:80 diluted positive control by the tray method only). The median channel fluorescence values of the 2 methods were essentially equivalent for both T and B crossmatches (r² of 0.98 and 0.97, respectively). In conclusion, 96-well tray assay has the potential to increase the probability of highly sensitized patients receiving transplants by allowing increased number of crossmatches to be performed with significant reduction in turnaround time and assay cost. Furthermore, the enhanced sensitivity of the assay will provide more accurate information about sensitization status and strength of donor-specific antibodies to treating physicians, allowing them to choose the best therapeutic option and to provide better patient care.

Quantitative Evaluation of the Impact of Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid Pretreatment on Single-Antigen Bead Assay

Background

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) pretreatment has been shown to overcome complement interference in the single-antigen bead (SAB) assay. However, a quantitative evaluation of its impact on the assay for preemptive application to diverse clinical samples is still lacking.

Methods

Serum samples from 95 renal transplant candidates were tested with and without EDTA-pretreatment in parallel. Changes in mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) values were analyzed to determine the impact of EDTA-pretreatment and the characteristics of complement interference.

Results

MFI values from EDTA-treated and untreated sera showed good correlations (r = 0.99) and were linear after excluding outliers (slopes, 1; intercepts, −63.7 and −24.2 for class I and II, respectively). Using an assay cutoff of 2000 MFI, positive/negative assignments were concordant for 99% of the 9215 class I beads and 9025 class II beads tested. As defined by an MFI increment above 4000 after EDTA pretreatment, complement interference affected 172 class I beads in 12 samples (12.6%) and 60 class II beads in 7 samples (7.4%), and the findings were supported in 83% and 86% of these samples by dilution studies. In a case study, EDTA pretreatment prevented falsely low MFI values and facilitated the interpretation of titration curves. Finally, EDTA pretreatment reduced the coefficient of variance (CV) by 2.1% and 2.4% for class I and II beads respectively (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

It is safe to preemptively treat all clinical samples with EDTA before SAB assay to prevent false negative results or falsely low MFI values. EDTA pretreatment has the added benefit of improved assay precision.