Back

Anti-Platelet Factor 4 Antibody Clonal Heterogeneity and MGUS Status in HIT

Kanack, A.; Mauch, E.; Kohlhagen, M.; Coker, J.; Murray, D.; Padmanabhan, A.

2026-06-15 hematology
10.64898/2026.06.12.26355475 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Monoclonal gammopathy of thrombotic significance (MGTS) is a recently described chronic prothrombotic condition characterized by monoclonal anti-PF4 antibodies that are detected above the polyclonal antibody background in patient sera (i.e. present as monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, MGUS). Due to conflicting data in the published literature on antibody clonality in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), we evaluated clonality and abundance of anti-PF4 antibodies in HIT, including investigating whether an MGUS, if present in HIT, represents the causative anti-PF4 antibody. Methods Blood samples from 15 patients with HIT were subject to Platelet Factor 4-dependent antigen-based and functional tests. The unmanipulated serum antibody repertoire and isolated anti-PF4 antibodies were subjected to mass spectrometric evaluation. Results Two of the 15 HIT patients had an IgG MGUS. Notably, anti-PF4 antibodies were not synonymous with the MGUS antibody in either of the two patients. Eight of the 15 patients demonstrated monoclonal anti-PF4 antibodies, however, none of the anti-PF4 antibodies were detectable as an MGUS upon evaluation of the entire serum antibody repertoire, reflecting their low abundance. In the seven patients with multiple anti-PF4 antibodies, non-monoclonality was confirmed by analysis of deglycosylated antibody heavy chains. Conclusions Anti-PF4 HIT antibodies are monoclonal in approximately 50% of HIT patients, however, antibody abundance is low such that they are not detectable over the polyclonal IgG background (i.e. are MGUS-negative), differentiating HIT from MGTS. This observation helps explain the transient nature of HIT relative to the persistent prothrombotic state seen in MGTS.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.