Enzyme pathway in human gut microbiome that converts A to universal O type blood(naturemicrobiologycommunity.nature.com)
naturemicrobiologycommunity.nature.com
Enzyme pathway in human gut microbiome that converts A to universal O type blood
https://naturemicrobiologycommunity.nature.com/users/261113-peter-rahfeld/posts/49635-an-enzymatic-pathway-in-the-human-gut-microbiome-that-converts-a-to-universal-o-type-blood
18 comments
Red Cross has an amazingly informative site on blood type:
https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/blood-types.html
https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/blood-types.html
Microbiology is wild. I don't think I'd have the patience to work in the field but it's like an endless number of sequels to Fantastic Voyage.
> "Blood types are differentiated by the kinds of sugar found on the surface of red blood cells. Type O has no sugars. Scientists had realized that some (gut) enzymes can remove the sugars from A, B and AB blood cells, turning them into Type O"
A superbly concise overview taken from another news article.
A superbly concise overview taken from another news article.
I'm not very strong on biology, but does this mean, potentially, all blood can be converted to universal donor blood? That would be truly revolutionary.
The discovery only touches the ABO group system. While the ABO group system is the most important one, there are over 36 blood group systems. The Rh blood group system is important, too: If a Rh(D) negative person gets Rh(D) positive blood for the first time, it works but they can develop antibodies for it and if they get such blood a second time, they can get major issues.
In fact, there are more people (and thus potential donors) with type O blood than there are people with Rh negative blood.
Conversion of type A and B to type O blood is a key step, but it alone doesn't enable creation of fully universal donor blood (yet).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_blood_group_systems
In fact, there are more people (and thus potential donors) with type O blood than there are people with Rh negative blood.
Conversion of type A and B to type O blood is a key step, but it alone doesn't enable creation of fully universal donor blood (yet).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_blood_group_systems
It would still massively increase emergency storage, though.
Just that would be a major management improvement!
Just that would be a major management improvement!
How much more valuable is O- blood donation than your typical donation?
Curious because some writers suggest it's probably better to work and donate the proceeds than take the time to donate blood but they didn't go specifically into my blood type(O-).
Curious because some writers suggest it's probably better to work and donate the proceeds than take the time to donate blood but they didn't go specifically into my blood type(O-).
O- blood is the universal donor type. Used when blood type is unknown or lack time to determine like trauma injury. About 7% of the population has this blood type. If the donor is CMV negative their is even more critical for immune deficient patients. O- donors can only accept O- blood so it is important they keep donating to give to other O- patients.
O+ is second best assuming recipient is RH+. O+ is the most common in the population.
O+ is second best assuming recipient is RH+. O+ is the most common in the population.
>O- donors can only accept O- blood so it is important they keep donating to give to other O- patients.
Actually, this isn't quite true, according to what I've read. When an O- person needs blood, they usually give him O+ blood, not O-, because they want to preserve it (and because they may not know the patient's blood type). The first time this happens, it's no big deal, but then the Rh- recipient develops antibodies to the Rh factor. So the next time the O- person gets a transfusion, they probably die.
I'm an O- person, so I wasn't too thrilled to read this. Luckily I haven't received any transfusions yet, so I have one free "life"; after that, it's game-over.
I hope this new research works out.
Actually, this isn't quite true, according to what I've read. When an O- person needs blood, they usually give him O+ blood, not O-, because they want to preserve it (and because they may not know the patient's blood type). The first time this happens, it's no big deal, but then the Rh- recipient develops antibodies to the Rh factor. So the next time the O- person gets a transfusion, they probably die.
I'm an O- person, so I wasn't too thrilled to read this. Luckily I haven't received any transfusions yet, so I have one free "life"; after that, it's game-over.
I hope this new research works out.
If they don't know the patients blood type would they check for the Rh antibodies before using O+ blood?
Some other interesting stuff. I'm on a kidney transplant list. When I was evaluated, they had me repeat the blood sample draw for blood type twice by two different people. They want to make sure there is no errors in classifications. Another thing is those of us with O blood type have to wait much longer for kidney transplants because we are universal donors for organs also.
Some other interesting stuff. I'm on a kidney transplant list. When I was evaluated, they had me repeat the blood sample draw for blood type twice by two different people. They want to make sure there is no errors in classifications. Another thing is those of us with O blood type have to wait much longer for kidney transplants because we are universal donors for organs also.
>Another thing is those of us with O blood type have to wait much longer for kidney transplants because we are universal donors for organs also.
It's two things: we're universal donors, but non-universal receivers. We can give blood to anyone (Rh factor is an extra complication here), but we can only receive O blood, not any other type, so we're really screwed when we need something. Us O- people are even worse.
>If they don't know the patients blood type would they check for the Rh antibodies before using O+ blood?
In a trauma case, they probably don't have time to type your blood at all, so they just give you O+. There's lots of O+ available, but not much O-. Rh- people could have a real problem if they've already had an Rh+ transfusion, but oh well...
It's two things: we're universal donors, but non-universal receivers. We can give blood to anyone (Rh factor is an extra complication here), but we can only receive O blood, not any other type, so we're really screwed when we need something. Us O- people are even worse.
>If they don't know the patients blood type would they check for the Rh antibodies before using O+ blood?
In a trauma case, they probably don't have time to type your blood at all, so they just give you O+. There's lots of O+ available, but not much O-. Rh- people could have a real problem if they've already had an Rh+ transfusion, but oh well...
Can be true if local shortage. Usually not true, as we'll do everything we can to respect the major antigens.
Great timing of this article given that tomorrow (Jun 14) is World Blood Donor Day.
The transferase that puts the A (GalNAc) or B (Galactose) sugar on switches specificity at the slightest hint of a sequence variation.
Look at the two enzymes found in this paper - one was classified as a CBM (i.e. only that it bound sugars) and the other in a family that primarily removes galactose.
As an aside, you have to appreciate this genomic arrangement where the bacteria are helpful enough to put all the genes needed to do one job (in this case break down blood antigen) in one place. That way, if you know what one thing does, you can jump to conclusions about what the others do (e.g. see a recent paper by Crouch et al).
Final point - if you are wondering where the hell we pick up antibodies to the different blood type antigens so early, if I remember correctly, it's because we develop antibodies to bacteria that ALSO have the blood type antigens.
Glycobiology is insanely cool.