Asian Journal of Transfusion Science
Home About Journal Editorial Board Search Current Issue Ahead of print Back Issues Instructions Subscribe Login  Users: 447 Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Ahead of Print

Serological comparison of weak D versus weakly reacting D by four different methods

1 Department of Transfusion Medicine, JIPMER Blood Centre, JIPMER, Puducherry, India
2 Department of Transfusion Medicine, Institute of Medical Sciences and SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

Correspondence Address:
Dibyajyoti Sahoo,
Department of Transfusion Medicine, JIPMER Blood Centre, JIPMER, Pondicherry - 605 006
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ajts.AJTS_34_21

INTRODUCTION: Weak D red cells were defined as having a reduced amount of D antigen (formerly called “Du”) that required an indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) for detection. Weakly reacting D is those which give <2+ reactions on routine methods. The present study is sharing our experience on weak D and weakly positive anti-D in various methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All the blood sample of patients and blood donor, which were RhD negative, were included in the study. Furthermore, RhD positive sample <2+ was included. We repeated blood grouping of all these samples by gel card (Tulip), tube method (two different antisera), slide method, and Solid Phase Red Cell Adherence (SPRCA) (Immucore, USA). RESULTS: A total number of samples were 27,245. RhD negative found out to be 945 (3.46%). Out of all, 929 (98.3%) samples were Rh D negative in gel card and IAT negative, while 16 (1.7%) were weak D positive. Rh D typing with these samples by different antisera at four platforms showed that 14 were weakly positive (<2+) in any of the four platforms. Similarly, out of 26,300 Rh D Positive samples, 21 samples (0.079%) were serologically weak (<2+). Repeat Rh D typing was done with different antisera in all four platforms. Result showed more than 50% were Rh D negative in any of four platforms. CONCLUSION: Above observation showed that serological tests at various platforms failed to distinguish weak D from weakly reacting D. Thus, we propose that weakly reacting D should be treated equal as weak D unless they are distinguished by genotyping.

Print this article
  Search Pubmed for
    -  Sahoo D
    -  Kanungo GN
    -  Behera R
    -  Jena PS
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded46    

Recommend this journal

Association Contact us | Sitemap | Advertise | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer | Privacy Notice

2006 - Asian Journal of Transfusion Science | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 10th November, 2006