Assessment of the soluble proteins HMGB1, CD40L and CD62P during various platelet preparation processes and the storage of platelet concentrates: The BEST collaborative study
Fabrice Cognasse,Hind Hamzeh Cognasse,Marie Ange Eyraud,Amélie Prier,Charles Antoine Arthaud,Pierre Tiberghien,Stephane Begue,Dirk de Korte,Eric Gouwerok,Andreas Greinacher,Konstanze Aurich,Femke Noorman,Larry Dumont,Kathleen Kelly,Marc Cloutier,Renée Bazin,Rebecca Cardigan,Sian Huish,Peter Smethurst,Dana Devine,Peter Schubert,Lacey Johnson,Denese C Marks,Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) Collaborative
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.17200
Transfusion
Abstract:Background: Structural and biochemical changes in stored platelets are influenced by collection and processing methods. This international study investigates the effects of platelet (PLT) processing and storage conditions on HMGB1, sCD40L, and sCD62P protein levels in platelet concentrate supernatants (PCs). Study design/methods: PC supernatants (n = 3748) were collected by each international centre using identical centrifugation methods (n = 9) and tested centrally using the ELISA/Luminex platform. Apheresis versus the buffy coat (BC-PC) method, plasma storage versus PAS and RT storage versus cold (4°C) were investigated. We focused on PC preparation collecting samples during early (RT: day 1-3; cold: day 1-5) and late (RT: day 4-7; cold: day 7-10) storage time points. Results: HMGB1, sCD40L, and sCD62P concentrations were similar during early storage periods, regardless of storage solution (BC-PC plasma and BC-PC PAS-E) or temperature. During storage and without PAS, sCD40L and CD62P in BC-PC supernatants increased significantly (+33% and +41%, respectively) depending on storage temperature (22 vs. 4°C). However, without PAS-E, levels decreased significantly (-31% and -20%, respectively), depending on storage temperature (22 vs. 4°C). Contrastingly, the processing method appeared to have greater impact on HMGB1 release versus storage duration. These data highlight increases in these parameters during storage and differences between preparation methods and storage temperatures. Conclusions: The HMGB1 release mechanism/intracellular pathways appear to differ from sCD62P and sCD40L. The extent to which these differences affect patient outcomes, particularly post-transfusion platelet increment and adverse events, warrants further investigation in clinical trials with various therapeutic indications.