Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 141, Issue 1, pp 57–61 | Cite as

Lymphocyte antibody-dependent cytotoxicity test for evaluation of clinical role of monoclonal anti-D-antibodies for prevention of rhesus sensitization

  • N. I. Olovnikova
  • E. V. Belkina
  • T. L. Nikolaeva
  • G. Yu. Miterev
  • I. L. Chertkov
Article
Received:

Abstract

Monoclonal antibodies to D antigen were studied in the reaction of antibody-dependent cytotoxicity for evaluation of the possibility of using these antibodies for preventing rhesus sensitization. High hemolytic activity of four anti-D-monoclonal antibodies in the antibody-dependent cytotoxicity test, mediated by their interaction with FcγRI, and the capacity to accelerate elimination of D+ erythrocytes from circulation did not provide the immunosuppressive effect. It was hypothesized that monoclonal antibodies for prevention of rhesus sensitization should interact with FcγRIII on lymphocytes. These monoclonal antibodies are extremely rare: only 4 of 125 studied antibodies mediated hemolysis in the antibody-dependent cytotoxicity test with lymphocytes, while all polyclonal anti-D-preparations exhibited this activity.

Key Words

D antigen monoclonal antibodies Ig antibody-dependent cytotoxicity test immunosuppression 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. I. Deryugina, N. I. Olovnikova, L. N. Lemeneva, et al., Gematol. Transfuziol., No. 8, 11–16 (1991).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. I. Olovnikova, E. V. Belkina, N. I. Drize, et al., Byull. Eksp. Biol. Med., 129, No. 1, 77–81 (2000).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. S. Armstrong-Fisher, M. C. McCann Carter, I. Downing, et al., Transfusion, 39, No. 9, 1005–1012 (1999).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. F. Ashman, D. Peckham, and L. L. Stunz, J. Immunol., 157, 5–11 (1996).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. M. Bowman, Trans. Med. Rev., 2, No. 3, 129–150 (1988).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Ducrot, R. Beliard, A. Glacet, et al., Vox Sang., 71, No. 1, 30–36 (1996).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. P. Engelfriet, M. A. M. Overbeeke, M. C. Dooren, et al., Transfusion, 34, No. 7, 617–626 (1994).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. M. Kumpel, Immunol. Lett., 82, 67–73 (2002).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. M. Kumpel, R. Beliard, Y. Brossard, et al., Transfus. Clin. Biol., 9, No. 1, 45–53 (2002).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. M. Kumpel, M. J. Goodrick, D. H. Pamphilon, et al., Blood, 86, No. 5, 1701–1709 (1995).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. M. Kumpel, K. A. Leader, A. H. Merry, et al., Eur. J. Immunol., 19, 2283–2288 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Miescher, M. O. Spycher, H. Amstutz, et al., Blood, 103, No. 11, 4028–4035 (2004).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Miescher, M. Zahn-Zabal, M. De Jesus, et al., Br. J. Haematol., 111, 157–166 (2000).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. G. Presta, R. L. Shields, A. K. Namenuk, et al., Biochem. Soc. Trans., 30, No. 4, 487–490 (2002).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. H. Walker, Ed., Technical Manual, Bethesda (1993), 11th ed., pp. 662–663.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. I. Olovnikova
    • 1
  • E. V. Belkina
    • 1
  • T. L. Nikolaeva
    • 1
  • G. Yu. Miterev
    • 1
  • I. L. Chertkov
    • 1
  1. 1.Hematology Research CenterRussian Academy of Medical SciencesMoscow

Personalised recommendations