Comparison of the conventional tube and erythrocyte-magnetized technology in titration of red blood cell alloantibodies

Table 1 Specific distribution of irregular antibodies in 18 blood donors

Antibody specificity	Number of cases	Percentage of irregular antibodies (%)	IgG classification	Potency
Anti-D	7	38.91	IgG	2-64
Anti-E	2	11.11	IgG	16-32
Anti-cE	1	5.56	IgG	8
Anti-C	1	5.56	IgG	16
Anti-PI	4	22.22	IgM or IgG + IgM	8-16
Anti-M	1	5.56	IgG	4-32
Anti-N	1	5.56	IgG	8.32
Anti-Lea	1	5.56	IgG	4-16

Anti-D: Anti-D antibody; Anti-E: Anti-E antibody; Anti-cE: Anti-cE compound antigens antibody; Anti-C: Anti-C antibody; Anti-PI: Anti phosphatidylinositol antibody; Anti-M: Anti M antibody; Anti-N: Anti N antibody; Anti-Lea: Anti-Lea antibody; IgG: Immunoglobulin G; IgM: Immunoglobulin M.

Table 2 Results of irregular antibody titers detected in parallel by three detection methods

Test method	Specificity of irregular antibodies
		D	E	C	c	e	S	Fyb	Jka	M	N	P1
Tube polybrene test	Potency	512	256	128	64	32	16	32	64	64	64	32
	Score	57	53	46	40	33	30	34	40	38	37	35
Tube AGT method	Potency	256	64	64	32	16	16	8	32	16	16	32
	Score	52	59	40	32	28	29	20	30	28	28	32
EMT screening irregular antibody method	Potency	512	256	128	64	16	16	32	64	64	64	32
	Score	56	54	64	41	31	29	33	40	38	36	34

D, E, C, c, e, S, Fy^b, Jk^a, M, N, P₁ is all IgG antibodies; Fy^b and Jk^a represent IgG type anti Fyb antibodies and IgG type anti Jk^a antibodies. EMT: Erythrocyte-magnetized technology; AGT: Antiglobulin test.

Table 3 Cost comparison of different methods

Methods	Cost (CNY/Donor)
EMT screening irregular antibody method	< 0.5
Tube polybrene test	> 5
Tube AGT method	> 5.5

EMT: Erythrocyte-magnetized technology; AGT: Antiglobulin test.