Sebastian Waldherr, Miriam Hils, Martin Köberle, Knut Brockow, Ulf Darsow, Simon Blank, Tilo Biedermann, Bernadette Eberlein
{"title":"昆虫毒液过敏中的嗜碱性粒细胞活化:使用液体试剂的成熟检测方法与使用五色管和干燥抗体试剂的检测方法的比较","authors":"Sebastian Waldherr, Miriam Hils, Martin Köberle, Knut Brockow, Ulf Darsow, Simon Blank, Tilo Biedermann, Bernadette Eberlein","doi":"10.1186/s12865-024-00616-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Flow cytometry-based basophil activation tests (BAT) have been performed with various modifications, differing in the use of distinct identification and activation markers. Established tests use liquid reagents while a new development involves the use of tubes with dried antibody reagents. The aim of this pilot study was to compare these two techniques in patients with insect venom allergy. Seventeen patients with an insect venom allergy were included in the study. The established “BAT 1” utilizes conventional antibody solutions of anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation, whereas “BAT 2” uses dried anti-CD45, anti-CD3, anti-CRTH2, anti-203c and anti-CD63 for identification and activation measurement of basophils. Negative and positive controls as well as incubations with honey bee venom and yellow jacket venom at three concentrations were performed. Seven patients had to be excluded due to low basophil counts, high values in negative controls or negative positive controls. For the remaining 10 patients the overall mean (± SD) difference in activated basophils between the two tests was 0.2 (± 12.2) %P. In a Bland-Altman plot, the limit of agreement (LoA) ranged from 24.0 to -23.7. In the qualitative evaluation (value below/above cut-off) Cohen’s kappa was 0.77 indicating substantial agreement. BAT 2 took longer to perform than BAT 1 and was more expensive. The BAT 2 technique represents an interesting innovation, however, it was found to be less suitable compared to an established BAT for the routine diagnosis of insect venom allergies.","PeriodicalId":9040,"journal":{"name":"BMC Immunology","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Basophil activation in insect venom allergy: comparison of an established test using liquid reagents with a test using 5-color tubes with dried antibody reagents\",\"authors\":\"Sebastian Waldherr, Miriam Hils, Martin Köberle, Knut Brockow, Ulf Darsow, Simon Blank, Tilo Biedermann, Bernadette Eberlein\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12865-024-00616-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Flow cytometry-based basophil activation tests (BAT) have been performed with various modifications, differing in the use of distinct identification and activation markers. Established tests use liquid reagents while a new development involves the use of tubes with dried antibody reagents. The aim of this pilot study was to compare these two techniques in patients with insect venom allergy. Seventeen patients with an insect venom allergy were included in the study. The established “BAT 1” utilizes conventional antibody solutions of anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation, whereas “BAT 2” uses dried anti-CD45, anti-CD3, anti-CRTH2, anti-203c and anti-CD63 for identification and activation measurement of basophils. Negative and positive controls as well as incubations with honey bee venom and yellow jacket venom at three concentrations were performed. Seven patients had to be excluded due to low basophil counts, high values in negative controls or negative positive controls. For the remaining 10 patients the overall mean (± SD) difference in activated basophils between the two tests was 0.2 (± 12.2) %P. In a Bland-Altman plot, the limit of agreement (LoA) ranged from 24.0 to -23.7. In the qualitative evaluation (value below/above cut-off) Cohen’s kappa was 0.77 indicating substantial agreement. BAT 2 took longer to perform than BAT 1 and was more expensive. The BAT 2 technique represents an interesting innovation, however, it was found to be less suitable compared to an established BAT for the routine diagnosis of insect venom allergies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9040,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Immunology\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12865-024-00616-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12865-024-00616-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Basophil activation in insect venom allergy: comparison of an established test using liquid reagents with a test using 5-color tubes with dried antibody reagents
Flow cytometry-based basophil activation tests (BAT) have been performed with various modifications, differing in the use of distinct identification and activation markers. Established tests use liquid reagents while a new development involves the use of tubes with dried antibody reagents. The aim of this pilot study was to compare these two techniques in patients with insect venom allergy. Seventeen patients with an insect venom allergy were included in the study. The established “BAT 1” utilizes conventional antibody solutions of anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation, whereas “BAT 2” uses dried anti-CD45, anti-CD3, anti-CRTH2, anti-203c and anti-CD63 for identification and activation measurement of basophils. Negative and positive controls as well as incubations with honey bee venom and yellow jacket venom at three concentrations were performed. Seven patients had to be excluded due to low basophil counts, high values in negative controls or negative positive controls. For the remaining 10 patients the overall mean (± SD) difference in activated basophils between the two tests was 0.2 (± 12.2) %P. In a Bland-Altman plot, the limit of agreement (LoA) ranged from 24.0 to -23.7. In the qualitative evaluation (value below/above cut-off) Cohen’s kappa was 0.77 indicating substantial agreement. BAT 2 took longer to perform than BAT 1 and was more expensive. The BAT 2 technique represents an interesting innovation, however, it was found to be less suitable compared to an established BAT for the routine diagnosis of insect venom allergies.
期刊介绍:
BMC Immunology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in molecular, cellular, tissue-level, organismal, functional, and developmental aspects of the immune system as well as clinical studies and animal models of human diseases.