Application of combined NGS and TGS technologies in red blood cell blood group bank construction: a preliminary study
10.13303/j.cjbt.issn.1004-549x.2026.08.017
- VernacularTitle:NGS联合TGS技术在红细胞血型库建设中的应用
- Author:
Mengyuan DING
1
;
Xin GAO
1
;
Yihan WANG
1
;
Shaobo LI
1
;
Longhai TANG
1
;
Nina JIANG
1
Author Information
1. Suzhou Blood Center, Suzhou 215006, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
next-generation sequencing;
third-generation sequencing;
rare blood types;
blood group genotyping;
blood donors
- From:
Chinese Journal of Blood Transfusion
2026;39(8):1110-1116
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: This study employed next-generation sequencing (NGS) for large-scale genotyping of 42 blood group systems in blood donors to evaluate its applicability in multi-system blood group identification and rare blood type repository construction, while exploring the complementary value of third-generation sequencing (TGS) in haplotype phasing and variant capture in regions with insufficient sequencing depth for ABO ambiguous samples. Methods: A total of 562 regular blood donors (median donation frequency 11 times) from a blood center were enrolled. NGS was used for genotyping of 42 blood group systems, with a focused analysis on 12 systems essential for rare blood type repository construction: MNS, Lutheran, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, Diego, Yt, Colton, Gerbich, Ok, H, and I. TGS was employed to resolve haplotype phasing (i. e., determining whether different mutation sites are located on the same chromosome) in 12 ABO samples with discrepancies between forward and reverse typing. Serological and genotyping results were compared for MNS, Duffy, Kidd, Lewis, and ABO systems. Results: NGS-based genotyping revealed that Fy (a-b+) in the Duffy system accounted for 0.87% (4/458), and Di (a+b+) in the Diego system accounted for 10.62% (31/292). The Lutheran, Kell, Yt, Colton, H, Ok, I, and Gerbich systems exhibited near-uniform phenotype distributions. Among the 12 ABO ambiguous samples, NGS yielded multiple possible genotype combinations in 5 cases due to inability to phase alleles, whereas TGS uniquely resolved the genotypes through long-read sequencing. In one case, NGS detected only 2 mutation sites due to insufficient sequencing depth, while TGS identified all 11 sites and assigned the A1 phenotype. Concordance rates between serology and genotyping were: Duffy 96.55% (140/145), ABO 96.43% (513/532), Kidd 94.17% (97/103), MNS 85.07% (57/67), and Lewis 68.18% (75/110). In the MNS system, 7 of 8 samples serologically typed as M+N+ but genotyped as M-N+ carried GYPB variants. Lewis discrepancies predominantly featured genotype Le (a-b+) with serological phenotypes of Le (a+b-), Le (a+b+), or Le (a-b-). The NGS platform completed sequencing of 192 samples within 2 weeks. Conclusion: The tiered genotyping strategy combining NGS, TGS, and serology enables multi-system blood group identification in large-scale blood donor populations. TGS provides complementary value in phasing ambiguous ABO samples and detecting variants in regions with insufficient sequencing depth. This study provides a technical framework and baseline frequency data for the expansion of a local rare blood type repository. However, standardization and cost-effectiveness of this strategy require further validation with expanded sample sizes, and serological confirmation should be retained for secretion status-related systems such as Lewis.
