Volume 98, Issue 2 pp. 356-364
Full Access

Specificity and sensitivity of RHD genotyping methods by PCR-based DNA amplification

Jean-Thierry Aubin

Jean-Thierry Aubin

Centre d'Hémobiologie Périnale, Paris,

Search for more papers by this author
Caroline Le Van Kim

Caroline Le Van Kim

INSERM U76, GIP-Institut National de la Transfusion Sanguine, Paris, France

Search for more papers by this author
Isabelle Mouro

Isabelle Mouro

INSERM U76, GIP-Institut National de la Transfusion Sanguine, Paris, France

Search for more papers by this author
Yves Colin

Yves Colin

INSERM U76, GIP-Institut National de la Transfusion Sanguine, Paris, France

Search for more papers by this author
Christiane Bignozzi

Christiane Bignozzi

Centre d'Hémobiologie Périnale, Paris,

Search for more papers by this author
Yvon Brossard

Yvon Brossard

Centre d'Hémobiologie Périnale, Paris,

Search for more papers by this author
Jean-Pierre Cartron

Jean-Pierre Cartron

INSERM U76, GIP-Institut National de la Transfusion Sanguine, Paris, France

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 29 October 2003
Citations: 65
Dr Jean-Pierre Cartron Unité INSERM U76, GIP-Institut National de la Transfusion Sanguine, 6 rue Alexandre Cabanel, 75015 Paris, France.

Abstract

We have compared the sensitivity and specificity of four PCR methods of RHD gene detection using different sets of primers located in the regions of highest divergence between the RHD and RHCE genes, notably exon 10 (method I), exon 7 (method II), exon 4 (method III) and intron 4 (method IV). Methods I–III were the most sensitive and gave a detectable signal with D-pos/D-neg mixtures containing only 0.001% D-positive cells. Moreover, method II could detect the equivalent DNA amount present in only three nucleated cells in the assay without hybridization of PCR products, whereas the sensitivity of the other methods was 10–50 times less. Investigation of D variants indicated that false-negative results were obtained with method II (DIVb variant), method III (DVI and DFR variants) and method IV (DVI variants), but not method I. Weak D (Du) was correctly detected as D-positive by all methods, but most cases of Rhnull appeared as false-positives, as they carry normal RH genes that are not phenotypically expressed. Some false-positive results were obtained with method I in a few Caucasian DNA samples serotyped as RhD-neg but carrying a C- or E-allele, whereas a high incidence of false-positives was found among non-Caucasian Rh-negative samples by all methods. In the Caucasian population, however, we found a full correlation between the predicted genotype and observed phenotype at birth of 92 infants. Although we routinely use the four methods for RHD genotyping, a PCR strategy based on at least two methods is recommended.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.