Cargando…

Facilitating EMA binding test performance using fluorescent beads combined with next‐generation sequencing

The eosin‐5′‐maleimide (EMA) binding test is widely used as diagnostic test for hereditary spherocytosis (HS), one of the most common haemolytic disorders in Caucasian populations. We recently described the advantages of replacing the use of healthy control blood samples with fluorescent beads in a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Glenthøj, Andreas, Brieghel, Christian, Nardo‐Marino, Amina, van Wijk, Richard, Birgens, Henrik, Petersen, Jesper
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9176113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35845192
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jha2.277
_version_ 1784722593685700608
author Glenthøj, Andreas
Brieghel, Christian
Nardo‐Marino, Amina
van Wijk, Richard
Birgens, Henrik
Petersen, Jesper
author_facet Glenthøj, Andreas
Brieghel, Christian
Nardo‐Marino, Amina
van Wijk, Richard
Birgens, Henrik
Petersen, Jesper
author_sort Glenthøj, Andreas
collection PubMed
description The eosin‐5′‐maleimide (EMA) binding test is widely used as diagnostic test for hereditary spherocytosis (HS), one of the most common haemolytic disorders in Caucasian populations. We recently described the advantages of replacing the use of healthy control blood samples with fluorescent beads in a modified EMA binding assay. In this study we further explore this novel approach. We performed targeted next‐generation sequencing, modified EMA binding test and osmotic gradient ektacytometry on consecutive individuals referred to our laboratory on the suspicion of HS. In total, 33 of 95 carried a (likely) pathogenic variant, and 24 had variants of uncertain significance (VUS). We identified a total 79 different (likely) pathogenic variants and VUS, including 43 novel mutations. Discarding VUS and recessive mutations in STPA1, we used the occurrence of (likely) pathogenic variants to generate a diagnostic threshold for our modified EMA binding test. Twenty‐one of 23 individuals with non‐SPTA1 (likely) pathogenic variants had EMA ≥ 43.6 AU, which was the optimal threshold in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Accuracy was excellent at 93.4% and close to that of osmotic gradient ektacytometry (98.7%). In conclusion, we were able to simplify the EMA‐binding test by using rainbow beads as reference and (likely) pathogenic variants to define an accurate cut‐off value.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9176113
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91761132022-07-14 Facilitating EMA binding test performance using fluorescent beads combined with next‐generation sequencing Glenthøj, Andreas Brieghel, Christian Nardo‐Marino, Amina van Wijk, Richard Birgens, Henrik Petersen, Jesper EJHaem Sickle Cell, Thrombosis, and Benign Haematology The eosin‐5′‐maleimide (EMA) binding test is widely used as diagnostic test for hereditary spherocytosis (HS), one of the most common haemolytic disorders in Caucasian populations. We recently described the advantages of replacing the use of healthy control blood samples with fluorescent beads in a modified EMA binding assay. In this study we further explore this novel approach. We performed targeted next‐generation sequencing, modified EMA binding test and osmotic gradient ektacytometry on consecutive individuals referred to our laboratory on the suspicion of HS. In total, 33 of 95 carried a (likely) pathogenic variant, and 24 had variants of uncertain significance (VUS). We identified a total 79 different (likely) pathogenic variants and VUS, including 43 novel mutations. Discarding VUS and recessive mutations in STPA1, we used the occurrence of (likely) pathogenic variants to generate a diagnostic threshold for our modified EMA binding test. Twenty‐one of 23 individuals with non‐SPTA1 (likely) pathogenic variants had EMA ≥ 43.6 AU, which was the optimal threshold in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Accuracy was excellent at 93.4% and close to that of osmotic gradient ektacytometry (98.7%). In conclusion, we were able to simplify the EMA‐binding test by using rainbow beads as reference and (likely) pathogenic variants to define an accurate cut‐off value. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9176113/ /pubmed/35845192 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jha2.277 Text en © 2021 The Authors. eJHaem published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Sickle Cell, Thrombosis, and Benign Haematology
Glenthøj, Andreas
Brieghel, Christian
Nardo‐Marino, Amina
van Wijk, Richard
Birgens, Henrik
Petersen, Jesper
Facilitating EMA binding test performance using fluorescent beads combined with next‐generation sequencing
title Facilitating EMA binding test performance using fluorescent beads combined with next‐generation sequencing
title_full Facilitating EMA binding test performance using fluorescent beads combined with next‐generation sequencing
title_fullStr Facilitating EMA binding test performance using fluorescent beads combined with next‐generation sequencing
title_full_unstemmed Facilitating EMA binding test performance using fluorescent beads combined with next‐generation sequencing
title_short Facilitating EMA binding test performance using fluorescent beads combined with next‐generation sequencing
title_sort facilitating ema binding test performance using fluorescent beads combined with next‐generation sequencing
topic Sickle Cell, Thrombosis, and Benign Haematology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9176113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35845192
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jha2.277
work_keys_str_mv AT glenthøjandreas facilitatingemabindingtestperformanceusingfluorescentbeadscombinedwithnextgenerationsequencing
AT brieghelchristian facilitatingemabindingtestperformanceusingfluorescentbeadscombinedwithnextgenerationsequencing
AT nardomarinoamina facilitatingemabindingtestperformanceusingfluorescentbeadscombinedwithnextgenerationsequencing
AT vanwijkrichard facilitatingemabindingtestperformanceusingfluorescentbeadscombinedwithnextgenerationsequencing
AT birgenshenrik facilitatingemabindingtestperformanceusingfluorescentbeadscombinedwithnextgenerationsequencing
AT petersenjesper facilitatingemabindingtestperformanceusingfluorescentbeadscombinedwithnextgenerationsequencing