Section 2: Immunochemical, immunohistological and serological analysis of monoclonal antibodies with carbohydrates. Coordinator's report

Anti-A and anti-A,B monoclonal antisera with high titers favor the detection of A weak phenotypes

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the reactivity and the titers of commercial anti-A and anti-A,B antisera in the detection of A weak antigen expression in human red blood cells.

BACKGROUND

Commercial monoclonal antisera for ABO phenotyping are useful reagents allowing the identification of the four main ABO phenotypes (A, B, AB, and O). However, the reactivity of these commercial reagents can not be evident when the A or B antigens are weakly expressed, and these antisera have low titers.

METHODS/MATERIALS

Six samples from blood donors and five samples from patients with ABO forward and reverse discrepant phenotyping were evaluated. The ABO phenotyping was carried out with different commercial monoclonal anti-A and anti-A,B antisera under different temperatures, using test tubes and gel column agglutination.

RESULTS

Monoclonal anti-A antisera with titers less than 256 and anti-A,B with titers less than 128 failed to detect the weak expression of A antigen in 73% and 67% of the A weak phenotypes, respectively. Titres equal to or higher than 2048 (anti-A) and 1024 (anti-A,B) showed better reactivity, independent of the cell clone.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that anti-A and anti-A,B antisera with high titers give better reactivity with red blood cells carrying A weak antigen expression.

Glycomapping the fine specificity of monoclonal and polyclonal Lewis antibodies with type-specific Lewis kodecytes and function-spacer-lipid constructs printed on paper

BACKGROUND

Lewis serologic reagents frequently give inaccurate phenotyping results. Furthermore these serologic reagents are often used in nonserologic assays such as inhibition and immunohistochemistry. In both scenarios knowledge of the fine specificity and cross-reactivity of these reagents will improve the quality of results obtained.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A range of contemporary and historical workshop and developmental Lewis reagents including mouse monoclonal (MoAb) and human and goat polyclonal (PoAb) reagents were evaluated. All were evaluated both against Lewis kodecytes expressing only single Le(a) , Le(b) , ALe(b) , BLe(b) , Le(x) , Le(y) , ALe(y) , or BLe(y) antigens and against the same antigens inkjet printed on a paper-based microplate and analyzed by enzyme immunoassay. Nine clinical samples were also evaluated. A kodecyte antigen dilution sensitivity assay was used to establish the ratio of Le(b) antigen between group A1 /A2 and O RBCs.

RESULTS

A continuum of cross-reactivity from Le(x) through to H was observed with MoAbs. All PoAb and few MoAb anti-Le(a) samples and reagents cross-reacted to some degree with Le(b) antigen. Some PoAb and MoAb anti-Le(b) did not cross-react with Le(a) . All polyclonal goat anti-Le(b) reagents showed substantial activity against ALe(b) and BLe(b) , while no MoAb reagent had this activity. A1 RBCs had less than half the Le(b) antigen of A2 /O RBCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial cross-reactivity of both MoAbs and PoAbs with related antigens highlights the risks of using serologic reagents in nonserologic assays or against synthetic antigens. The lack of ALe(b) activity in anti-Le(b) MoAbs explains their poor performance against blood group A1 Le(a-b+) phenotypes.

Mapping the fine specificity of ABO monoclonal reagents with A and B type-specific function-spacer-lipid constructs in kodecytes and inkjet printed on paper

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal (MoAb) reagents are routinely used and are usually very reliable for the serologic determination of ABO blood types. However, the fine specificity and cross-reactivity of these reagents are often unknown, particularly against synthetic antigens used in some diagnostic assays. If nonserologic assays or very sensitive techniques other than those specifically prescribed by the manufacturer are used, then there is a risk of incorrect interpretation of results.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Forty-seven MoAbs and two polyclonal ABO reagents were tested against red blood cell (RBC) kodecytes prepared with A trisaccharide, A Type 1, A Type 2, A Type 3, A Type 4, B trisaccharide, B Type 1, B Type 2, acquired B trisaccharide, and Le(a) trisaccharide function-spacer-lipid (FSL) constructs. Natural RBCs were tested in parallel. In addition these FSL constructs were printed onto paper with a desktop inkjet printer and used in a novel immunoassay that identifies reactivity through the appearance of alphanumeric characters.

RESULTS

Mapping of MoAbs with kodecytes and printed FSL constructs revealed a series of broad recognition patterns. All ABO MoAbs tested were reactive with the RBC dominant Type 2 ABO antigens. Unexpectedly some anti-A reagents were reactive against the B Type 1 antigen, while others were poorly reactive with trisaccharide antigens.

CONCLUSIONS

All ABO MoAbs detect the RBC dominant Type 2 ABO antigens; however, some reagents may show minor reactivity with inappropriate blood group antigens, which needs to be considered when using these reagents in alternative or highly sensitive analytic systems.

Histo-blood group antigens act as attachment factors of rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus infection in a virus strain-dependent manner

Rabbit Hemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV), a calicivirus of the Lagovirus genus, and responsible for rabbit hemorrhagic disease (RHD), kills rabbits between 48 to 72 hours post infection with mortality rates as high as 50–90%. Caliciviruses, including noroviruses and RHDV, have been shown to bind histo-blood group antigens (HBGA) and human non-secretor individuals lacking ABH antigens in epithelia have been found to be resistant to norovirus infection. RHDV virus-like particles have previously been shown to bind the H type 2 and A antigens. In this study we present a comprehensive assessment of the strain-specific binding patterns of different RHDV isolates to HBGAs. We characterized the HBGA expression in the duodenum of wild and domestic rabbits by mass spectrometry and relative quantification of A, B and H type 2 expression. A detailed binding analysis of a range of RHDV strains, to synthetic sugars and human red blood cells, as well as to rabbit duodenum, a likely gastrointestinal site for viral entrance was performed. Enzymatic cleavage of HBGA epitopes confirmed binding specificity. Binding was observed to blood group B, A and H type 2 epitopes in a strain-dependent manner with slight differences in specificity for A, B or H epitopes allowing RHDV strains to preferentially recognize different subgroups of animals. Strains related to the earliest described RHDV outbreak were not able to bind A, whereas all other genotypes have acquired A binding. In an experimental infection study, rabbits lacking the correct HBGA ligands were resistant to lethal RHDV infection at low challenge doses. Similarly, survivors of outbreaks in wild populations showed increased frequency of weak binding phenotypes, indicating selection for host resistance depending on the strain circulating in the population. HBGAs thus act as attachment factors facilitating infection, while their polymorphism of expression could contribute to generate genetic resistance to RHDV at the population level.

Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV), detected as late as 1984, has spread to large parts of the world, threatening rabbit populations and other species dependent on rabbits in many European countries. Mortality has been shown to be as high as 90% and rabbits are killed 48 to 72 hours after infection. Related viruses called noroviruses, infect humans in a manner dependent on the expression of histo-blood group antigens (HBGAs), which are not only expressed on red blood cells, but also on epithelial cells, in saliva and on mucins of the intestinal tract. RHDV also binds to HBGA and in this report we characterize binding of strains of all genetic groups of RHDV to different HBGAs. We also demonstrate HBGAs to function as attachment factors in a challenge experiment. As polymorphisms of genes involved in HBGA synthesis divide the rabbit population into different subgroups, we find selection of low-binding subgroups of wild rabbits in populations recovering from devastating outbreaks of RHDV. This is the first demonstration of differential HBGA specificities of RHDV strains, description of function in infection and demonstration of host selection due to RHDV infection based on HBGA phenotype.

The structural basis of blood group A-related glycolipids in an A3 red cell phenotype and a potential explanation to a serological phenomenon

Glycolipids from the red cells of a rare blood group A subgroup individual, expressing the blood group A(3) phenotype with the classical mixed-field agglutination phenomenon, A(2(539G>A))/O(1) genotype, and an unusual blood group A glycolipid profile, were submitted to a comprehensive biochemical and structural analysis. To determine the nature of blood group A glycolipids in this A(3) phenotype, structural determination was carried out with complementary techniques including proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1D and 2D), mass spectrometry (MS) (nano-electrospray ionization/quadrupole time-of-flight and tandem mass spectrometry) and thin layer chromatography with immunostaining detection. As expected, total blood group A structures were of low abundance, but contrary to expectations extended-A type 2 and A type 3 glycolipids were more dominant than A hexaglycosylceramides based on type 2 chain (A-6-2 glycolipids), which normally is the major A glycolipid. Several para-Forssman (GalNAcβ3GbO(4)) structures, including extended forms, were identified but surmised not to contribute to the classic mixed-field agglutination of the A(3) phenotype. It is proposed that the low level of A antigen combined with an absence of extended branched glycolipids may be the factor determining the mixed-field agglutination phenomenon in this individual.

Blood group A(1) and A(2) revisited: an immunochemical analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The basis of blood group A(1) and A(2) phenotypes has been debated for many decades, and still the chemical basis is unresolved. The literature generally identifies the glycolipid chemical differences between blood group A(1) and A(2) phenotypes as being poor or no expression of A type 3 and A type 4 structures on A(2) red cells, although this assertion is not unanimous.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using purified glycolipids and specific monoclonal antibodies, we revisited the glycolipid basis of the A(1) and A(2) phenotypes. Purified glycolipids were extracted from four individual A(1) and four individual A(2) blood units. One blood unit from an A weak subgroup was also included. Monoclonal anti-A reagents including those originally used to define the basis of A(1) and A(2) phenotypes were used in a thin layer chromatography - enzyme immunoassay to identify the presence of specific glycolipids.

RESULTS

A type 3 glycolipid structures were found to be present in large amounts in all phenotypes. In contrast, the A type 4 glycolipid structure was virtually undetectable in the A(2) phenotype, but was present in the A(1) and A subgroup samples.

CONCLUSION

The major glycolipid difference between the A(1) and A(2) phenotypes is the dominance of A type 4 glycolipids in the A(1) phenotype.

Novel glycolipid variations revealed by monoclonal antibody immunochemical analysis of weak ABO subgroups of A

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The chemical basis of the subgroups of A is largely unknown. We used thin-layer chromatography immunochemical staining techniques together with a range of characterized monoclonal reagents to analyse glycolipids isolated from a variety of weak subgroups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Glycolipids isolated from red cells collected from nine genetically defined individuals of the rare subgroups of A, including a novel A(3) allele (A(2) 539G>A) not described previously, were subjected to a highly sensitive thin-layer chromatographic immunochemical analysis.

RESULTS

Semicharacterized monoclonal antibodies revealed that, in addition to the expected quantitative differences between common phenotypes and the weak subgroups, qualitative glycolipid differences (or at least an apparent qualitative basis), caused by major changes in the ratios of different structures exist. Specifically it was found that the weakest A-expressing samples (A(el) phenotype) appeared to express an unusual A structure in the 8-12 sugar region. Variable expression of several structures in one of the A weak samples were suggestive of novel blood group A structures.

CONCLUSIONS

Although no structural characterization could be undertaken, the results are clearly indicative that the variant glycosyltransferases of the rare ABO subgroups are not only inefficient, but they may potentially synthesize novel ABO structures.