To study the antibody response to human platelet transfusions, nine thrombocytopenia patients with bone marrow failure were given 6 U (3X10(11)) of random platelet concentrates twice a week. Before transfusion, none of the patients had preexisting antibodies detectable with lymphocytotoxicity, platelet aggregation, or capillary leukoagglutination techniques. After receiving 18-78 U of platelets, they became refractory to further transfusions of random platelets and alloantibodies were detectable. Two patterns of antibody response could be identified. In three patients, the sera were not lymphocytotoxic with a panel of standard cells in which all the known HLA antigens in the first and second series were represented at least once. Yet, they caused platelet aggregation with 30, 24, and 60%, respectively, of a donor population studied. The aggregating activities were inhibited by antihuman IgG but not by antihuman IgA or antihuman IgM antiserum. The aggregating antibodies could be absorbed out with donor platelets but not lymphocytes or granulocytes. Antibodies from two of these patients aggregated platelets of their respective siblings matched for both HLA haplotypes. Transfusion of platelets from these two siblings did not increase the platelet count while platelets obtained from aggregation-negative donors did. The sera from the remaining six patients were lymphocytotoxic with 15-100% of the panel of standard cells. They also had aggregating antibodies, which could be absorbed out by both platelets and lymphocytes, suggesting that they were HLA antibodies. These data suggest that the development of platelet-specific antibodies may play an important role in the immunological rejection of isologous platelets, and should be considered in the selection of donors for patients who are refractory to platelets from random donors.
K K Wu, J S Thompson, J A Koepke, J C Hoak, R Flink
Usage data is cumulative from May 2024 through May 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 103 | 1 |
41 | 13 | |
Scanned page | 247 | 2 |
Citation downloads | 55 | 0 |
Totals | 446 | 16 |
Total Views | 462 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.