Article Sidebar

PDF
Date Published: 22/06/2022
Abstract Views: 421
Views PDF: 178
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v515i1.2716
Issue
Vol. 515 No. 1 (2022)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Thanh Bình, N. ., Thị Thúy Hạnh, T., Thị Thoa, T. ., & Đức Minh, L. . (2022). VERIFICATION OF DHR TEST FOR EVALUATING OF NEUTROPHIL OXIDATIVE BURST FUNCTION. Vietnam Medical Journal, 515(1). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v515i1.2716

VERIFICATION OF DHR TEST FOR EVALUATING OF NEUTROPHIL OXIDATIVE BURST FUNCTION

Nguyễn Thanh Bình1,2,, Trần Thị Thúy Hạnh1, Tạ Thị Thoa3, Lê Đức Minh2
1 Hanoi Medical University
2 Vietnam National Children's Hospital
3 Bệnh viện Nhi Trung ương

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: To verify Dihydrorhodamine (DHR) testing process to evaluate neutrophil oxidative bursts function and determind the laboratory reference value of Stimulate Index of this test. Subjects and Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study on peripheral blood samples of 30 healthy children and 02 CGD patients who were diagnosed by whole genome sequencing to detect the gene mutation at the National Children's Hospital from February, 2021 to June, 2021. Result: The optimal chemical concentration for DHR test is PMA: 228 nM; DHR: 1000 ng/mL. The laboratory reference value of Stimualate Index (SI) is = 87.5 – 404.7. Conclusion: The DHR test technical uses an optimal chemical concentration suitable to evaluate neutrophil oxidative bursts function.

Article Details

Keywords

DHR test, Chronic Granulomatous Disease, Neutrophil Oxidative Bursts Function, Vietnam National Children's Hospital

References

1. Nguyễn Ngọc Lanh (2006). Miễn dịch học. Miễn dịch chống nhiễm vi sinh vật. Nhà xuất bản Y học, 154–173.
2. Bortoletto P., Lyman K., Camacho A., et al. (2015). Chronic Granulomatous Disease: A Large, Single-center US Experience. Pediatr Infect Dis J, 34(10), 1110–1114.
3. Cayman chemical (2016). Neutrophil/Monocyte Respiratory Brust Assay Kit. Item No. 601130.
4. Delmonte O.M. and Fleisher T.A. (2019). Flow cytometry: Surface markers and beyond. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 143(2), 528–537.
5. Dimitrova G., Bunkall C., Lim D., et al. (2013). Comparison of two methods for the diagnosis of chronic granulomatous disease - neutrophil oxidative burst measured by the nitroblue tetrazolium slide test versus the dihydrorhodamine 123 flow cytometric assay. N Z J Med Lab Sci, (67), 45–51.
6. Drink Roos, Steven M.Holland, and Taco W.Kuijpes (2013). Chronic granulomatous disease. Primary immunodeficiency diseases: A molecular and genetic approach. 3rd, Oxford University Press, 689.
7. Kuhns D.B., Alvord W.G., Heller T., et al. (2010). Residual NADPH oxidase and survival in chronic granulomatous disease. N Engl J Med, 363(27), 2600–2610.
8. Kutukculer N., Aykut A., Karaca N.E., et al. (2019). Chronic granulamatous disease: Two decades of experience from a paediatric immunology unit in a country with high rate of consangineous marriages. Scand J Immunol, 89(2), e12737.
9. O’Gorman M.R. and Corrochano V. (1995). Rapid whole-blood flow cytometry assay for diagnosis of chronic granulomatous disease. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol, 2(2), 227–232.