4.2 Article

Prophylactic anti-D preparations display variable decreases in Fc-fucosylation of anti-D

Journal

TRANSFUSION
Volume 55, Issue 3, Pages 553-562

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.12880

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundRhIG is obtained from hyperimmunized healthy anti-D donors (HIDs) boosted with D+ red blood cells (RBCs). One hypothesis for its mechanism of action is fast clearance of opsonized D+ RBCs through Fc receptor (FcR)III. Levels of immunoglobulin (Ig)G Fc-fucosylation influence interactions with FcRIII, with less Fc-fucosylation strengthening the interaction. Study Design and MethodsAnti-D IgG1 Fc-glycosylation patterns in 93 plasma samples from 28 male and 28 female Dutch HIDs and RhIG were analyzed with mass spectrometry. The Fc-glycosylation profiles of HIDs were evaluated with regard to their immunization history. ResultsHID sera demonstrated clearly lowered anti-D Fc-fucosylation compared to normal IgG fucosylation (93%); this was more pronounced for female than for male HIDs (47% vs. 65%, p=0.001). RhIG preparations from seven manufacturers varied greatly in the level of Fc-fucosylation (56%-91%). The level of fucosylation slightly increased upon repeated immunization, although it remained fairly constant over time. The RhIG from the different manufacturers all demonstrated increased Fc-galactosylation (64%-82%) compared to total IgG (38%-51%). ConclusionRhIG preparations vary in Fc-fucosylation and all demonstrate increased galactosylation. Despite not knowing the exact working mechanism, immunoprophylaxis could perhaps be optimized by selection of donors whose anti-D have low amounts of Fc-fucose, to increase the clearance activity of anti-D preparations, as well as high amounts of galactosylation, for anti-inflammatory effects. Implementing a biologic assay in the standardization of RhIG preparations might be considered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available