Differential response of human basophil activation markers: a multi-parameter flow cytometry approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Basophils are circulating cells involved in hypersensitivity reactions and allergy but many aspects of their activation, including the sensitivity to external triggering factors and the molecular aspects of cell responses, are still to be focused. In this context, polychromatic flow cytometry (PFC) is a proper tool to investigate basophil function, as it allows to distinguish the expression of several membrane markers upon activation in multiple experimental conditions. </p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cell suspensions were prepared from leukocyte buffy coat of K2-EDTA anticoagulated blood specimens; about 1500-2500 cellular events for each tested sample, gated in the lymphocyte CD45dim area and then electronically purified as HLADRnon expressing/CD123bright, were identified as basophilic cells. Basophil activation with fMLP, anti-IgE and calcium ionophore A23187 was evaluated by studying up-regulation of the indicated membrane markers with a two-laser six-color PFC protocol.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Following stimulation, CD63, CD13, CD45 and the ectoenzyme CD203c up-regulated their membrane expression, while CD69 did not; CD63 expression occurred immediately (within 60 sec) but only in a minority of basophils, even at optimal agonist doses (in 33% and 14% of basophils, following fMLP and anti-IgE stimulation respectively). CD203c up-regulation occurred in the whole basophil population, even in CD63non expressing cells. Dose-dependence curves revealed CD203c as a more sensitive marker than CD63, in response to fMLP but not in response to anti-IgE and to calcium ionophore.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Use of polychromatic flow cytometry allowed efficient basophil electronic purification and identification of different behaviors of the major activation markers. The simultaneous use of two markers of activation and careful choice of activator are essential steps for reliable assessment of human basophil functions.</p

Allergic reactions to penicillins and cephalosporins: diagnosis, assessment of cross-reactivity and management

16 p.-3 fig.-4 tab.Introduction: Beta-lactams (BL) are the main cause of allergic drug reactions mediated by specific immunological mechanisms. Reactions can be IgE or effector T-cell mediated. The new antigenic determinants are recognized by the immunological system in the context of the common betalactam structure or the specific differences in the side chains of the antibiotics of this family plus the protein carrier.Areas covered: We have reviewed the recent clinical literature concerning new clinical entities, the progress in diagnosis including the difficulties for in in vivo and or in vitro testing as well as the new algorithms proposed for delabelling subjects classified as allergic to beta-lactams, and recommendations for desensitization procedures.Expert opinion: The knowledge gained over the last years on beta-lactam hypersensitivity has enabled a better understanding and management of cases with allergic reactions to beta-lactams.This work was supported by ISCIII Grants, the Network RIRAAF and ARADyAL [RD16/0006/0021, RD16/0006/0024 and RD16/0006/0032],SAF2015-68590-R and FEDER Funds.Peer reviewe

Diagnostic workup including CD203c‐based basophil activation test in immediate hypersensitivity due to metronidazole and ornidazole and evaluation of cross‐reactivity in between

Background Little is known about the diagnostic approaches for immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) due to 5-nitroimidazole antibiotics. The aim was to evaluate the usefulness of in vivo tests and basophil activation test (BAT) for the diagnosis of IHRs due to metronidazole and ornidazole and to determine possible cross-reactivity in between. Methods Forty-nine patients with a clear history of IHRs due to these drugs and 20 healthy subjects who were known to tolerate these drugs were included. Skin tests (STs) and single-blind placebo-controlled drug provocation tests (SBPCDPTs) were performed with both drugs whereas BAT was applied only with the culprit drug. Results The most and least common reaction types were urticaria/angioedema (34.7%) and anaphylaxis (14.3%), respectively. SBPCDPTs were positive in 15 out of 47 patients, and only 7 had positive STs. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of STs for metronidazole/ornidazole were 33.3%/16.6%, 94.2%/97.3%, 60%/50%, and 84.6%/88.1%, respectively. BAT was positive in 12 out of 15 patients and negative in 10 control subjects, giving a sensitivity rate of 71.4% (CI, 29.0%-96.3%) for metronidazole and 83.3% (CI, 35.8%-99.5%) for ornidazole. The optimal concentration of both drugs for BAT was determined as 5 mg/mL. No cross-reactivity among two drugs was observed according to in vivo tests. Conclusions Our study showed that SBPCDPT and BAT are both useful diagnostic tools for IHRs due to 5-nitroimidazole antibiotics and can be used as supplementary to each other. No cross-reactivity between metronidazole and ornidazole in IHRs exists