Slashdot Mirror


All Blood Converted to Type O?

UnanimousCoward writes "The BBC is reporting that scientists claim to have discovered a technique to convert all blood into Type O with the discovery of an enzyme that can strip the A and B antigens. This has implications to transform the stored blood supply into transfusable blood for all. It does not address the RH negative issue, however."

58 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Damn. by Stanistani · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can't sell my rare blood at a premium. It was my only worthwhile body fluid since they shut down the saliva banks.

    1. Re:Damn. by beckerist · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least I can still sell my mighty swimmers!

    2. Re:Damn. by tdelaney · · Score: 2, Informative

      That would be O- not O+. Negative RH can donate to positive RH, but not the other way around.

  2. Uh oh... by Spudtrooper · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:Uh oh... by Pope · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good grief!

      All the more reason to round up the superstitious idiots in the world and turn them into an organ bank.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    2. Re:Uh oh... by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

      I foresee a problem, sometimes when you get an organ transplant, you start thinking and acting like the person you got the organ from.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  3. No RH, no problem... for me. by el+americano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It does not address the RH negative issue, however

    OK, so not everyone would be a universal recipient, but most people would be. 85% of the US population (apologies to the international community.

    --
    Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
  4. O negative, eh? by arthurh3535 · · Score: 4, Informative

    While I won't mind the ability of people to donate to me, the benefit is actually pretty amazing. O Negative is the preferred donor type, as (IIRC) anyone can accept it, but no other blood type works for us poor O Neg's.

    So this technology could literally save my life!

    --
    No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
    1. Re:O negative, eh? by kenrick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      O Negative is the preferred donor type, as (IIRC) anyone can accept it, but no other blood type works for us poor O Neg's. O Rhesus +ve will work for O negs once. You're born with ABO antibodies but for all other antigens (including Rhesus antigen), you need an initial exposure to trigger antibody development. Therefore, anyone who's Rhesus negative can receive _one_ transfusion of Rhesus positive blood (providing its ABO crossmatched) without major risk of reaction. It's exceedingly bad practice to do this, but can be lifesaving in an emergency (i.e. no other Rhesus negative blood around).
      --
      Not a member of the General Public
    2. Re:O negative, eh? by trianglman · · Score: 2, Informative

      The time saved in testing injured patients alone to make sure that the right type of blood is given will save thousands of lives (I know it only takes a few seconds to do the test, but you've got to collect blood and take it to the lab and that takes a few minutes which some people may not have).

      This is true, but, except in the most extreme of shortages, this isn't an issue. Most hospitals, in an emergency will simply transfuse a person with O+ blood (O- for women of child bearing age). While giving an O- patient O+ blood can have side effects, they are usually minor when it is only one pint, especially compared to imminent death. This most often only introduces new antigens that have to be dealt with on future transfusions and won't kill the patient. In general its important to avoid this, as there can be serious allergic reactions, but if its death or transfusion, a doctor will sign off on an emergency O transfusion. It can have serious repercussions on an unborn fetus, which is why women of a certain age are only given O- in these circumstances.

      Credentials: Worked in a hospital blood bank for 3 years and another blood bank later for about the same.

      --
      Clones are people two.
    3. Re:O negative, eh? by senrable · · Score: 2, Informative

      CMV is Cytomegalovirus and is present in 50-85% of adults by the age of 40. In non immunocompromised adults, the virus is latent, but in infants or immunocompromised individuals (organ transplant recipients, chemotherapy patients, pregnant mothers, etc.) it presents a serious risk.

      Please donate, you would be surprised at how many infants need blood transfusions (as well as many transplant recipients).

  5. Re:individuality by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Informative

    I take it that you didn't RTFA. The article says nothing about converting the blood in your body to O. The article was all about converted donated, stored blood to type O, the universal donor blood. This breakthrough (if found to be safe and effective) means that type specific donations could be converted and thus increases the supply of available blood. In a shortage now, some patients don't get the blood they need because the only available types are not compatible. This will help mitigate that problem. Of course there will always be a need for type-specific blood but for emergency transfusions, this could save lives.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  6. Re:That's great until... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Until we find that new disease that only destroys type O blood.

    I wouldn't worry about it. This is only for Type-O transfusions. Since a transfusion doesn't change your blood type (it just supplements your existing plasma until your body can manufacture sufficient replacement quantities), you won't have to worry about those "new diseases". Unless you're normally O-negative, that is...
  7. Synthetic Blood by gears6556 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm actually surprised that we haven't developed synthetic blood before now. We've known about blood types for 100 years and I keep expecting to see a machine producing blood cells in the news any day now.

    Provided with the proper nutrients couldn't we keep a cell alive and dividing to have an unlimited supply?

    Something I didn't know before that I learned from the article: Anyone can receive type O blood without risk.

    Great post!

    1. Re:Synthetic Blood by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not entirely, there is such a thing as graft Vs host, whereby if the recipient receives too much blood the donor blood can attack the person's body. Yes you can strip the white cells, but this is slow and costly, the former prohibits doing it at time of need, the latter from doing it "just in case". Not normally an issue except when massive bleeding due to extreme trauma or bleeding disorder are present as below.

      As the father of a type O son with hemophilia this is awesome news. Opens up a much wider source of blood should the worst happen, especially since my wife and I are neither type O, and my father in law, while type O is also hemophilic.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:Synthetic Blood by jimstapleton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      blood is a horribly complex substance.

      In labs, there are several growth mediums made from cow blood (remove the red blood cells as well as several other factors). They can't be properly synthesized because of how complex it is, and that's even after the most complex stuff is removed.

      It's not suprising at all that we can't synthesize it, but it's nice that we can "produce" type O from other types.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    3. Re:Synthetic Blood by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Something I didn't know before that I learned from the article: Anyone can receive type O blood without risk

      I got that from junior high biology. Actual issues are more complicated when you get in deep, of course. One oddball is that you can usually survive 1 non-matching transfusion, even if it's incompatible. After that your immune system is 'primed', much like for a vaccination, and will attack a second transfusion with extreme prejudice, likely resulting in your death.

      And we are testing at least one blood substitute. The last one I read about(sorry, dead tree article), was intended for use in ambulances, which can't normally carry blood. Unfortuantly, it actually performed worse than saline IV's when it came to patient survival.

      As for simply cloning a blood supply, it's difficult because you'd have to clone marrow, as blood cells no longer have a nucleous. Not insurmountable at this point, but currently unable to compete with donated blood.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:Synthetic Blood by WhyDoYouWantToKnow · · Score: 4, Informative
      There have been attempts to synthesize RBC's (red blood cells). The linked article discuses a current synthetic blood product. While there are many advantages, there are still a number of issues to overcome before this becomes a viable alternative to RBC transfusions.

      http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BI108/BI108_2005_G roups/10/webpages/HBOClink.htm

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them."
      Marvin the Martian
    5. Re:Synthetic Blood by jimstapleton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, only red blood cells lack a nucleus, the rest of the blood cells have them. Also there are three locations of blood cell development - marrow, liver, and I think spleen or pancreas (may be wrong on both counts in the last one). But I don't remember which cells have which parts of the development where. It's been a while since I've studied that.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    6. Re:Synthetic Blood by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There was that stuff they had back in the 70s, can't remember the name any more. It was a form of liquid Teflon, I remember they showed a rat with a weight tied to one leg being dropped in a beaker full of the stuff (after it had been oxygenated) and apparently it stayed in there for several minutes and suffered no ill effects afterwards.

      One problem with the synthetic blood is that it wasn't as efficient at oxygen transfer as real blood, and ISTR there were some issues with the body's ability to excrete it (either it didn't do it well, so the stuff stayed in your bloodstream until it was removed, or the body found it extremely easy to filter out, so it didn't stay around long).

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    7. Re:Synthetic Blood by milamber3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      First off, it's the red blood cells that are important in the majority of transfusions so that is why the lack of a nucleus is pointed out by the gp post. Secondly, blood cells are created in the marrow so I'm not sure what your point is about development. Some blood cells do mature in other places (e.g. thymus and spleen) but you're not going to be getting any blood if you try to grow new cells out of a tissue besides the marrow.

    8. Re:Synthetic Blood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You are such a pessimist. Is your blood type B-negative?

    9. Re:Synthetic Blood by norton_I · · Score: 3, Informative

      Clinical trials recently finished for Polyheme by Northfield Labs, which takes expired blood and polymerizes the hemoglobin to make a long lasting, oxygen carying substitute for saline, which is currently used in amulences to maintain blood pressure but does not carry oxygen. It also showed the potential for a superiority to blood in massive trauma situations since it avoids the immune response.

      Unfortunately, the initial reports from the trials failed to show even non-inferiority over saline, though there were multiple issues of coding errors by the 3rd party data analysis company, and they are in the process of reviewing the database to see if their conclusions were correct.

      The work is very hard since you have to get FDA approval to do non-consent trials of an experimental procedure.

      There are other procedures under development that use non-human blood as the hemoglobin source, but they are not to testing phases yet, and there are some additional problems that need to be solved to avoid rejection in those cases.

    10. Re:Synthetic Blood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    11. Re:Synthetic Blood by tpjunkie · · Score: 2, Informative

      That was a liquid chlorocarbon, which polymerized can be used to create teflon and other useful plastics. It has been well known for some time that these solutions can hold enough oxygen to be viable breathing solutions for applications like deep sea diving. However, that is in no way similar to a blood substitute. The problems with synthetic blood substitutes are myriad, including but not limited to the difficulties of creating a substance that can function as oxygen donor and CO2 recipient in the same manner as hemoglobin (which achieves this via an affinity curve that varies with pH) while tending to not be immediately filtered out by the kidneys or induce clotting.

    12. Re:Synthetic Blood by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There was that stuff they had back in the 70s, can't remember the name any more. It was a form of liquid Teflon, I remember they showed a rat with a weight tied to one leg being dropped in a beaker full of the stuff (after it had been oxygenated) and apparently it stayed in there for several minutes and suffered no ill effects afterwards.

      Oxygenated perfluorocarbons. For those interested in seeing it in action, watch The Abyss. The scene with the rat being submerged in the stuff was not a special effect.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    13. Re:Synthetic Blood by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

      As milamber3 said, it's the red blood cells they need, followed by platelets. If they could remove everything else, leaving a saline/glucose solution with rbc and platelets, they'd likely do it. Heck, there's situations where they'd want to remove the platelets as well.

      In an emergency situation you wouldn't be worried about the nutritional substances. There it's about keeping oxygen flow up until they get to the hospital. Heck, with a working artificial blood substitute if that means they gotta run 5 gallons through you, they can do it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:Synthetic Blood by empaler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've always held that being blood type AB is probably one of the biggest fortunes of my life. Of course, like all other privileges, it should be shared, and even though I can get tap water in my veins and my body won't reject it, I donate (note: not sell) willingly and regularly to help others. In the end, if they start running low, it won't affect me if I get run down in that time, but that'd just mean I'd be taking blood that could help others.

    15. Re:Synthetic Blood by chooks · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually graft vs. host is due to lymphocytes of the donor attacking the cells of the recipient and does not directly have to do with blood volume (although obviously, the more blood you get, the more foreign lymphocytes you will get). In most people this is not a big deal b/c the immune system of the recipient can handle the foreign lymphocytes appropriately. However in immunodeficient individuals (or young people with underdeveloped immune systems) this is not good, since they do not have the ability to protect themselves against the donor immune cells.

      --
      -- The Genesis project? What's that?
    16. Re:Synthetic Blood by Heymdall · · Score: 2

      I fail to see what's so important about it... I mean about 30-40% of people according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type have 0 blood type anyway so if a given national (or whatever) blood collecting system works, getting O blood type shouldn't really be all that hard... At least for O+, O- being a completly different story.

    17. Re:Synthetic Blood by Explodicle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good thinking! Let us know when you're done.

    18. Re:Synthetic Blood by Thwaites · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just an FYI ...

      You're correct about the marrow and liver creating RBC's. The other organ is the spleen (as you mentioned); however, the spleen only creates RBC's (haematopoeisis) up until around the 5th or 6th month of gestation. After that, the spleen behaves like an recycling plant, returning the components of RBCs undergoing apoptosis (controlled cell death) to the body.

      The more you know!

  8. Blood made suitable for all by sas-dot · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here more info from Nature

    Scientists have discovered enzymes that can efficiently convert blood groups A, B and AB into the 'universal' O group -- which can be given to anyone but is always in short supply.

    The two novel glycosidase enzymes were identified in bacteria by an international team led by Henrik Clausen of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. The researchers hope that the enzymes will both improve the erratic supplies of blood around the world, and also the safety of transfusions. Clinical trials to test the safety and effectiveness of their converted blood are being planned.

    The ABO blood-type system is based on the presence or absence of the sugar-based antigens 'A' and 'B' on red blood cells. Type O blood cells have neither A nor B antigens, so may be safely transfused into anyone. But types A, B and AB blood do, and cause life-threatening immune reactions if they are given to patients with a different blood group. The bacterial glycosidase enzymes strip these antigens away from A, B and AB blood.

    The idea of such antigen-stripping goes back to the early 1980s, with the discovery of an enzyme in coffee beans that removes B antigens from red blood cells1. Early-stage clinical trials showed that the converted blood could be safely transfused into individuals of different blood groups; no traces of enzyme or antigen remained to cause reactions2. But the enzyme reaction was far too inefficient to make large-scale conversion practical.

    Clausen's team screened 2,500 extracts from different bacteria and fungi for their ability to cleave off A and B antigens. The newly discovered bacterial 'B' enzyme is nearly 1,000 times more efficient then the coffee-bean B enzyme -- the additional discovery of an enzyme to remove A antigens means that all blood types can now be converted. The work is reported in Nature Biotechnology3.
    (snip)

    1. Re:Blood made suitable for all by sokoban · · Score: 2, Informative

      I doubt this is any sort of April Fools joke though.

      Using a bacterial enzyme to cleave the terminal sugars from the A and B type antigen totally makes sense. You're just cleaving an alpha 1-3 bond between either N-acetylgalactosamine or galactose and galactose. Bacteria commonly have enzymes to digest alpha bonds, so it would only be a matter of trial and error to find the right enzyme.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
  9. Re:dem Jap's is kuh-RAZY! by Spudtrooper · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder what blood type Chuck Norris has?

    Diesel.
  10. Duh by Scott+Lockwood · · Score: 4, Informative

    It does not address the RH negative issue, however.

    Duh. Rh factor is a combination of several different genes. Blood type isn't controlled by those.

    Also, it should be noted that, unlike what several of the replies thus far seem to think, this won't change your blood type - it will only alter blood that has already been removed from the body for future transfusion. Your body will still produce blood of whatever type you normally produce. Also, it basically has the added implication of making more than just O neg the universal donor. After all, if I can 'strip' A, and B off of cells, then A neg, B neg, and AB neg also become universal donors.
    --
    But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
  11. I am O- by jlowery · · Score: 4, Funny

    All bow before me, The Universal Donor!

    --
    If you post it, they will read.
    1. Re:I am O- by kusanagi374 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lucky us that can say that. I don't think the AB+ guys would happily say "All bow before me, the Universal Receiver!"

    2. Re:I am O- by Luyseyal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Donor? Receiver? Oh no, I think I know a certain goat-related website that fits this thread...

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  12. More than ABO and RhD blood groups by kenrick · · Score: 5, Informative

    Although ABO and RhD grouping systems are the most well-known and the most important, there are a myriad of other blood groups (about 29 last time I checked) that are of relevance when it comes to crossmatching blood for a patient.

    Whilst this potentially is a great step forward, as always with biomedical headlines, it's not the be-all and end-all.

    --
    Not a member of the General Public
  13. Bad News for Vamps by travdaddy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bad news for Vampires, Type A is the tastiest. So much for just going to the blood bank for meals!

    --
    Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
  14. In the Meantime by necro81 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Naturally, before this sees widespread clinical use, it'll have to go through a very stringent set of studies, tests, trials, and approvals. So, it may well be 5-10 years before this sees even pilot-program use. Even once in place, this process won't lessen the demand for blood of all types, merely make the blood supply more available.

    So, in the meantime, everyone who is able should at least consider donating blood. It is fast, easy, and (nearly) painless. Many may object to the exclusion criteria used by the Red Cross and other organizations, but the overwhelming majority of eligible donors simply do not give. Chances are good that, at some point in your life, you too will need a blood transfusion.

    Find a blood drive near you.

    1. Re:In the Meantime by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Acatully, I stopped giving blood regularly about 10 years ago. I used to give every two months until I had some blood work done for a physical that revealed I was suffering from low ferritin levels (stored iron, as I understood it). The doctor recommended several tests, but after hearing that I gave blood regularly sugessted that I stop for 6-8 months and get re-tested. My ferritin levels came back to normal. I've given very sproadically since then.

      BTW - does anyone know if there is a publically availble (and layman-readable) list of medications which would cause your blood to be rejected? I usually try to schedule when I've not been taking anything for at least 2 weeks, but as one grows older the periods of time when I'm (a) available and (b) haven't taken a single medication for 2 weeks or more prior are starting to occur with lower frequency.

      It's not that I mind going, but if I'm going to spend an hour and a half of my time, I'd rather not have some techician decide later that my bag goes in the trash 'cause I had heartburn last week.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:In the Meantime by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, the clinics have lists of medications and vaccinations that have a waiting period. It's a reasonably exhaustive list.

      Don't worry about what's going to happen to the blood after you're done with it. After all, you're done with it. If it's suitable for use as blood, it will go to someone who might otherwise have bled to death. If it's not suitable in its current form, it may have the plasma removed and used, or it might go to some other technician to run some tests. (Like whether or not this enzyme can be used to strip the antigens out and convert the donation to Type O.)

      Once, my wife had trouble giving blood and only gave a small (1/2) donation. They said - and this is the part you'll remember - "That's okay, dear. It's enough for a child."

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    3. Re:In the Meantime by Seedy2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, lines of people who are probably not eligible.
      Do you thing having a cash incentive to lie is likely to make more people tell the truth about whether they are eligible or not?
      If you need a transfusion, do you want the unit that came from the junkie who lied on the form so they could get something to eat that day?
      The safety of the blood supply goes way down when you start paying people, that's why it's not allowed in the US.
      Anyone who "donates" and gets paid, the plasma isn't going to people, it goes to make cosmetics and stuff.

      --
      Nothing to say here... move along
  15. Re:Half solution by tripa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Half solution is not a solution!
    It's a full solution to the half problem.
    Is half a problem not a problem?
  16. DRM'd blood by wedgiesaurus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Isn't stripping this DRM off of blood going to be illegal under the DMCA? I mean, you've got it DRM'd so that only certain people can use it, and if you're breaking that....

    Look out for the RIAA!!

  17. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You don't "make a quick buck" by giving blood to the Red Cross.

    That's why it's called a blood donation.

  18. What about allergy to the enzyme? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    you can usually survive 1 non-matching transfusion, even if it's incompatible. After that your immune system is 'primed', much like for a vaccination, and will attack a second transfusion with extreme prejudice, likely resulting in your death.

    Which brings up the issue of whether the body would develop an immunity to the enzyme, potentially producing a fatal anaphylactic reaction upon a future transfusion.

    On the other hand, if the enzyme remains in the serum rather than attaching to the red cells the reaction would not produce the fatal clumping. Meanwhile the allergy to the enzyme, even if severe, could be handled by other drugs...

    Which would also suppress the immune system somewhat - in a hospital "superbug" environment. So artificial type-O will likely remain an emergency measure, and type-O donors will remain in demand.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:What about allergy to the enzyme? by Telephone+Sanitizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In fact, enzymes are just protein chains and allergies are frequently reactions to foreign proteins so it is a very legitimate concern.

  19. ...And if the enzymes get into an A/B/AB person? by Aelcyx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What will happen? Will it rip the markers off their cells too? That sounds like it could have some bad consequences. If it indeed does, then some sort of filtration process or chemical reaction that kills the enzyme only will have to take place, making it even more costly. These are enzymes, so they will not be used up in the chemical reactions.

  20. Breakthrough? by dj_tla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I may be naive, this sounds like one of the most significant pieces of medical news I've heard in my lifetime. I'm curious about how much impact this news could have if it turns out to be safe and effective. Type O is in short supply compared to other types, for obvious reasons, but does anyone have any statistics (that aren't made up) concerning deaths as a result of not having the proper type of blood? If the current and future blood supplies were converted to type O (theoretically, I would assume this would be done as needed), how many lives could it save?

  21. Blood type C by ThreeDayMonk · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I lived in Japan, I grew so annoyed by the concept of blood-type-based character predestination that I decided to have some fun with the idea. When Japanese people asked me my blood type, I replied 'C', and went on to explain (plausibly enough) that the reason they hadn't heard of it was that it occurred only in European populations. It worked most of the time, although I usually folded and admitted that there was no such thing after stringing them along a bit.

    --
    If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
  22. The author of the article is confused about RH - by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 3, Informative

    The author of the article doesn't seem to understand that 'X negative' is synonymous with 'Type X, RH negative' where X can be A, B, AB or O. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type The positive or negative in a blood type refers to the blood being either positive or negative for the Rhesus (RH) Factor. So there is no such thing as being AB-positive but negative for the RH factor. The preceeding is an oxymoron. Since the author of the article evidently does not understand this, the whole article is unclear and not to be trusted. Either the treated blood is ok for everyone ( both the A, B and also the RH antigens are removed by the enzyme ) or the enzymes remove A and B antigens but not RH antigens. In that case, the blood is not universally safe. Given the author's confusion, I would not hazard to guess which the actual case is.

    --
    ...
  23. Hey, let's all donate! by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I haven't heard anybody say it yet, so ... HEY SLASHDOT! Get out there and donate blood!

    Donating blood is very easy and doesn't take a whole lot of your time. Typically you're not going to be light-headed or anything after you do it. It's recommended that you eat hearty before and after you donate, but how hard is that?

    On the plus side, if you donate blood you are helping save somebody's life. LET ME REPEAT THAT. The blood you donate will be used to try to save somebody's life. There is absolutely no reason to give somebody a blood transfusion unless they've sustained a life-threatening injury. When's the last time you've had a blood transfusion? I've never had one, and I've messed myself up pretty bad. I hate to think about the kind of messed-up I'd need to be to require a pint of blood.

    What's more, blood banks are regularly short of supply. Hospitals need blood. I know that in my area, they're always begging for extra Type O. I'm O positive. It's a pretty common blood type -- but that doesn't just mean that there's a lot of available supply. It means there's a lot of demand, too.

    Consider this, too. Blood banks have all kinds of rules. Some of them you may agree with and some of them you may not. But the rules are in place. Among those rules: If you're a man who has ever had sex with another man since the 1980s, even just once, they don't want your blood. That's right -- gay dudes aren't supposed to donate. Same goes for people who have injected drugs -- even just once. Same goes if you've had a tattoo or piercing in the last 12 months. Same goes if you've spent more than a few months living in England in the last couple decades (it's the BSE thing). Same goes if you've, like, ever had sex with anybody who's a native of Africa. I'm serious, go offer to donate and look at the questionnaire ... the rules are harsh.

    The point? Well, let's see. Gay dudes, people with tattoos, people who've gotten laid a lot, and people who have done serious drugs are not allowed to donate. I live in San Francisco. So, holy fuck, just who is donating blood in my town??! Not a joke ... I'm actually being serious. It seems to me that there's a pretty strong need for eligible and willing blood donors in my area.

    So I donate. I believe you're allowed to do it every 8 weeks, in the U.S.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  24. A couple of answers... by teidou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My day job is to run a blood bank.

    The enzymes discussed in the article are the next step in 25+ years working toward the goal of making blood universally compatible. The enzymes are years and years away from routine use, if they ever do make it to market. Offhand, major questions that need to be addressed include: Does it *really* work? Is the process cost-effective at manufacturing scales? Is it safe? Does the enzyme affect other proteins so people make antibodies?

    Conversion of non-O RBCs to group O RBCs will make them more widely compatible, and may alleviate the shortage of group O RBCs, but does not affect Rh compatibility or the compatibility of platelets or of FFP. We would still have shortages of these products even when the process is up and running, and, so, we still need people to donate.

    There are a number of guesses, comments, and half-truths posted above. I'll do my best to answer specific (on-topic!) questions posted as replies to this comment.

    Teidou.

    1. Re:A couple of answers... by teidou · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're not far off!

      In the US, the FDA establishes minimal eligibility criterea. Most health adults who are in reasonably good health (e.g. within 20% of their ideal body weight) are eligible to donate. Deferrals exist for viral hepatits, HIV, behaviour which places one at risk for HIV (e.g. exchanging money or drugs for sex), and some travel (e.g. an extended trip to rural South America gets a one year delay for possible risk of malaria).

      Only a few medications defer one from donating; unfortunately, any active infection or medication for infection is a reason to delay donation as there is a chance that the infection could be transmitted by blood transfusion.

      Your local blood center should be willing to help you with specific eligibility questions.

      I hope that was clear, if not, do let me know!

      Teidou

  25. Re:Bacterial names by bcattwoo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why can't they be more like astronomers who call things as they see them, like how spots on the sun are called "sunspots"? Because naming thousands of species of bacteria microscopius blobbium wouldn't be very useful?