The clinical importance of variation within the HLA-Bw4 complex.

BACKGROUND: Antibody screening of a patient with a failed renal transplant showed positive reactions with most, but not all HLA-Bw4-associated B-locus antigens. However, the patient's serological HLA class I type suggested the presence of HLA-Bw4. METHODS: Standard molecular techniques were used to re-type the patient and donor. ELISA antibody screening helped determine the patient's antibody specificity. RESULTS: The patient's type was HLA-B*1402,4703;Bw6 and the donor HLA-B*4703,51011;Bw4,6. Analysis of ELISA results identified three amino acids (positions 77,80,81) as the most likely epitope recognised by the patient's serum. These corresponded to HLA-B*51011 amino acid mismatches, explaining the lymphocytotoxic reactivity pattern. This epitope is located on a subgroup of the HLA-Bw4 antigen suggesting anti-Bw4 was not a sufficient description of this antibody. CONCLUSIONS: This report identifies an antibody to a sub-group of the Bw4 public specificity and also confirms the need for sequence-level analysis in the tissue-typing laboratory to determine future unacceptable mismatches.

Detection of HLA class I- and class II-specific antibodies by flow cytometry and PRA-STAT screening in renal transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Screening for HLA-specific antibodies has been performed by complement-dependent lymphocytotoxicity for many years. In recent years, methods involving the use of flow cytometry or ELISA have been developed. METHODS: This study has compared a flow cytometric screening technique for the detection of HLA class I- and class II-specific antibodies with a commercially available ELISA technique, PRA-STAT. RESULTS: A significant correlation was found between the two methods for the detection of antibodies in patients after transplantation (P<0.001). Specificity analysis confirmed that the PRA-STAT technique detected both HLA class I- and class II-specific antibodies. Screening of serum samples from patients who experienced graft loss by cytotoxic, flow cytometric, and PRA-STAT techniques showed that there was a significant correlation between all three methods for the detection of antibody, but that the best correlation for the panel-reactive antibody level was that between the flow cytometric and PRA-STAT techniques (r=0.86). This was principally due to the detection of both HLA class I- and class II-specific antibodies by these methods, whereas cytotoxic screening detected only class I-specific antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that PRA-STAT is a useful technique for the detection of both HLA class I- and class II-specific antibodies, rather than only class I-specific antibodies as previously described.