Trueba-Gómez R, Estrada-Juárez H

Language: Spanish
References: 8
Page: s134-s138
PDF size: 730.85 Kb.

Text Extraction

No abstract.

REFERENCES

1. Sandler SG, Queenan JT. A guide to terminology for rhimmunoprophylaxis. Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 130 (3): 633-635.

2. Sandler SG, Flegel WA, Westhoff CM, Denomme GA, DelaneyM, Keller MA et al. It’s time to phase in RHD genotyping forpatients with a serologic weak D phenotype. College of AmericanPathologists Transfusion Medicine Resource Committee WorkGroup. Transfusion. 2015; 55 (3): 680-689.

3. Theiler C, Lomas-Francis C, Vege S, Chevrier MC, Leiva-TorresGA, Keller MA et al. Weak and partial D phenotyping: acomparison study between molecular and serologic results.Immunohematology. 2024; 40 (4): 159-165.

4. Flegel WA, Denomme GA, Queenan JT, Johnson ST, Keller MA,Westhoff CM et al. It’s time to phase out “serologic weak Dphenotype” and resolve D types with RHD genotyping includingweak D type 4. Transfusion. 2020; 60 (4): 855-859.

5. Trueba-Gómez R, Rosenfeld-Mann F, Estrada-Juárez H.Prediction of the antigenic regions in eight RhD variantsidentified by computational biology. Vox Sang. 2024; 119 (6):590-597.

6. Trueba-Gómez R, Estrada-Juarez H. Response to comments byFloch et al. on our papers on the use of computational biologyto study RhCE and RhD structures. Vox Sang. 2025; 120 (10):1047-1048.

7. Luo X, Keller MA, James I, Grant M, Liu S, Massey KS et al. Strategiesto identify candidates for D variant genotyping. Blood Transfus.2018; 16 (3): 293-301.

8. Virk M, Sandler SG. Rh Immunoprophylaxis for women with aserologic weak D phenotype. Lab Med. 2015; 46 (3): 190-194.