Artificial Blood Made In Romania

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Artificial Blood Made In Romania

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 31, 2013 @04:44AM from the high-demand-in-local-market dept.

First time accepted submitter calinduca writes "Artificial blood that could one day be used in humans without side effects has been created by scientists in Romania. The blood contains water and salts along with a protein known as hemerythrin which is extracted from sea worms. Researchers from Babe-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, hope it could help end blood supply shortages and prevent infections through donations." Wikipedia's entry on hemerythrin explains its unusual oxygen binding mechanism.

40 of 232 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Makes sense by Bohnanza · 2013-10-31 04:45 · Score: 5, Funny

Transylvania is in Romania

--
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
1. Re:Makes sense by marcello_dl · 2013-10-31 04:50 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Indeed, quality control issues: solved.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
2. Re:Makes sense by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-10-31 04:51 · Score: 2
  
  Yes but does the blood taste of chicken
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
3. Re:Makes sense by carlosap · 2013-10-31 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  trueblood
4. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 05:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Tablets and computers in the classroom is a Trasnsylvanian conspiracy to reduce the amount of wooden pencils in schools everywhere. Now this.
5. Re:Makes sense by RDW · 2013-10-31 06:47 · Score: 2
  
  Seaworm haem is people!!
6. Re: Makes sense by ehiris · 2013-10-31 06:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Haha, funny. I grew up in Romania and fried chicken blood was one of my favorite treats.
Let the Transylvanian jokes commence! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 04:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

heh. Romania, Dracula, Artificial blood, Halloween ... the late night talk show writers should have a field day with this one if it isn't some sort of elaborate ruse.
Vlad's Synth Blood Bank, how many I help you? by themushroom · 2013-10-31 04:47 · Score: 4, Informative

I just used my last karma point on the pen-testing post, but I was thinking similarly.

--
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
9 out of 10 vampires prefer real blood though by JoeyRox · 2013-10-31 04:48 · Score: 4, Funny

But the fake stuff will do in a pinch.
1. Re:9 out of 10 vampires prefer real blood though by JeanCroix · 2013-10-31 04:53 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yep. You think the anti-GM food hippies are bad, just wait til the anti-artificial blood vampires get their protests going...
2. Re:9 out of 10 vampires prefer real blood though by Frojack123 · 2013-10-31 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  This might actually be a solution for the crazy Jehovah's Witnesses in the US that will watch their injured child die rather than allow a transfusion.
  (Although I hate to see good science enabling bad religion.)
  
  --
  F. Robert Jack
not flaming by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 04:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

Would something like this be accepted by groups like Jehovah's Witness' that do not accept blood transfusions?
1. Re:not flaming by HornWumpus · 2013-10-31 04:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why should we care? Evolution in action.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:not flaming by Jeng · 2013-10-31 05:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Although I understand your sentiment, but many new surgical techniques have been made because of Jehovah witnesses refusal to accept blood transfusions. Many of these techniques end up being better than the one they replaced and therefor all of society gains benefits.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
3. Re:not flaming by quantumghost · 2013-10-31 05:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Would something like this be accepted by groups like Jehovah's Witness' that do not accept blood transfusions?
  That would be a good question. Having worked at a hospital that took over as the regional "bloodless center", I witnessed a wide variety of behaviors from JWs. Some were not very "orthodox" and would take blood, others only after consultation with their elder, others steadfastly refused. Apparently there is a lot of variation amongst individual "churches", but INAJW..
  I'll tell you, a "bloodless" liver transplant is not for the faint of heart. I've been involved with a few transplants that required > 100 units of packed red cells. Doing these with none.....that stressed our skills to the max. And before you think that liver transplants can and therefore should be done bloodless...not all of bloodless ones survived. This would be a nice breakthrough.
  It's interesting that this is still a cellular based concept, having to clone red cells and somehow transferring the hemerythrin. The linked article did not specify much detail.
4. Re:not flaming by mspohr · 2013-10-31 05:16 · Score: 2
  
  This Romanian compound appears to contain only salts and this protein from a sea worm. It should be considered to be no different than an ordinary IV solution from the J Witnesses' viewpoint. The hemerythrin protein would be similar to albumin (another protein).
  However, we are dealing with religious beliefs here where people can make up all kinds of crazy stuff so hard to predict.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
5. Re:not flaming by HornWumpus · 2013-10-31 05:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I respect their choice to die rather then accept modern healthcare.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
6. Re:not flaming by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 05:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No they don't. We respect what we admire. And people with silly beliefs that are harmful are not to be admired, just tolerated. And only as long as they are the only ones harmed.
7. Re:not flaming by Baloroth · 2013-10-31 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Artificial blood almost certainly wouldn't count, though, as it isn't technically blood at all: blood in the religious context of Jehovah's Witnesses refers to the stuff flowing through the veins of animals. Basically, if it was never the "life" of an animal it wouldn't count. Of course, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness nor an expert on their theology, so I couldn't say for sure (but I have read the biblical passage the doctrine comes from, and I would say it absolutely doesn't include fake blood in any way).
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
8. Re:not flaming by Amtrak · 2013-10-31 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not trying to cause a flamewar or anything but can someone explain to me why it would be "OK" to accept a new Liver but not Blood from a donor? I just don't see how getting cell type A from donor 1 is any different than getting cell type B. You are still violating "God's Gift of life" by taking cells from another.
  To be clear IANAJW
9. Re:not flaming by Jeng · 2013-10-31 05:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That's like saying that from all the crack babies born in the 80s, some went ahead and became doctors and programmers, so crack can't be all bad.
  
  Actually it would be more along the lines of "War is hell, but at least we make healthcare advances because of it."
  
  If you are wasting public resources to do these type of interventions, then only luck could turn them into something else than waste.
  
  No, people who have trained their whole lives to save people don't come up with new lifesaving techniques due to "luck". And do you know if they are using public resources do do those type of interventions, or are you just making wild speculations in an attempt to bolster your case that there are no positives outcomes of bloodless surgery?
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
10. Re:not flaming by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 06:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  This is a flamebaity question, but: do you respect that they make that choice for their children?
11. Re:not flaming by CODiNE · 2013-10-31 06:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Accepting blood transfusions may not be selecting for the group you think it is.
  If you dig around the references here Bloodless Surgery you'll see a small portion of the studies which have shown the benefits of avoiding blood transfusions.
  A scientifically minded person would applaud advances in synthetic blood and bloodless surgery, not get hung up on one sub-group of the people it benefits.
  
  --
  Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
12. Re:not flaming by eulernet · 2013-10-31 06:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Citation needed !
  To my knowledge, the new surgical techniques were invented to reduce operation's side-effects (less invasive surgery, less anesthetics, less hospital recovery).
  It also reduces the cost of an operation.
  I found no relation with Jehovah witnesses, so I'm curious to listen where you heard about this ?
13. Re:not flaming by HornWumpus · 2013-10-31 06:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  WTF? Let me restate it for you: You don't need to respect morons, only tolerate them.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
14. Re:not flaming by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-10-31 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  Citation needed !
  To my knowledge, the new surgical techniques were invented to reduce operation's side-effects (less invasive surgery, less anesthetics, less hospital recovery).
  It also reduces the cost of an operation.
  I found no relation with Jehovah witnesses, so I'm curious to listen where you heard about this ?
  I read about it in Awake!
15. Re:not flaming by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 07:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In the Hebrew Scriptures (the "old testament"), God's requirement was to, out of respect for taking the life of an animal and out of respect for the request of the animal's creator, the blood be poured out rather than put to use.
  In the Greek Scriptures (the "new testament"), the holy spirit guided the apostles to continue the prohibition on blood. They put it on the same level as fornication and idolatry, which makes it quite a serious matter.
  Biologically, it doesn't matter whether it's tissue-A or tissue-B, but since blood is especially singled out by these biblical commandments, we treat it differently. We don't eat it, we don't ingest it, we don't inject it. We "pour it out" so to speak; we do not use it. It's not about what's good for us, or what's useful, or what's handy to have. It's about following the instructions we're given. Personally, I have a bit of a rebellious streak in me. I challenge authority often. I try not to let it get me into too much trouble. But with Jehovah, I recognize his authority as absolute, and I do not challenge it. When he says "abstain from blood", I do so willingly. That's not to say it's blind acceptance, I still like to know why, but I don't challenge that instruction.
  And, yes, IAAJW.
16. Re:not flaming by Frojack123 · 2013-10-31 07:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They are of course free to do whatever they want on their bodies, with their own money.
  Unfortunately, is most often the Children that are refused transfusions, and allowed to die for an otherwise
  survivable injury.
  
  --
  F. Robert Jack
17. Re:not flaming by ttucker · 2013-10-31 07:59 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  He's a Jehovah Witness. He stuck his head in a box and it came to him.
  I think you've confused them with Mormons, you soulless bastard.
  No, the Mormon guy had magical glasses, dickhead.
18. Re:not flaming by geekoid · 2013-10-31 09:40 · Score: 2
  
  As has been shown, the chemical release post birth gives the mother more confidence. So unless they have been trained with critical thinking skills, that boost in confidences makes then think every wild ass idea is right, and that they somehow have special knowledge.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
TruBlood by SirLoper · 2013-10-31 04:50 · Score: 2

I can't help myself but to notice the similarities between this and the fictional "TruBlood" as I'm sure everyone else will, too. Maybe this is just the precursor to the vamps integrating with our society! (not like the current versions we have in the US serving in Congress)
salt and worms by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

It looks like all the vampire jokes are covered already, so on to the actual subject.
From the summary and the wiki-link, this is a mixture of saltwater and an oxygen carrier molecule from certain worms. As long as it doesn't trigger any sort of allergy, this should work well for short duration needs (like surgery) and the simplicity of the chemicals suggests that it can bypass the protein marker issues with human blood supplies.
Problem solved (wipes hands) ... by fahrbot-bot · 2013-10-31 05:08 · Score: 4, Informative

And thus begins the plot of Daybreakers.

The film takes place in a futuristic world overrun by vampires. A vampiric corporation sets out to capture and farm the remaining humans while researching a blood substitute. Lead vampire hematologist Edward Dalton's (Ethan Hawke) work is interrupted by human survivors led by former vampire "Elvis" (Willem Dafoe), who has a cure that can save the human species.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
PolyHeme by pete-classic · 2013-10-31 05:08 · Score: 4, Informative

Have we forgotten about PolyHeme? It isn't truly artificial (it is made from human hemoglobin), but it is not infectious and is not type specific. And it can be stored for a year at room temperature.
This HAS to be a Halloween joke, right? by TWiTfan · 2013-10-31 06:19 · Score: 2

Isn't it bad enough that we get so many of these bogus stories on April 1st?

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Old Man's War - Smart Blood by rsborg · 2013-10-31 06:28 · Score: 2

Are we getting to where we could create this? IF we can replace blood completely or in part with a substance that has nanites that accomplish some tasks better - perhaps we're ready for SmartBlood.
From a blog synopsizing the technology[1]:

SmartBlood is a suspension of nanomachines that can, among its other abilities, instantly clot severe wounds. It has an increased oxygen-carrying capability, four times greater than ordinary human blood. In this, Scalzi is being very conservative. The "respirocytes" designed by Robert Freitas (1998) are cell-sized pressure tanks that can carry thousands of times the oxygen of an equivalent volume of erythrocytes. But perhaps the CDF doesn't possess full Drexlerian diamondoid nano tech.
[1] http://underbase.livejournal.com/49019.html

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Re:True Blood? by amicusNYCL · 2013-10-31 07:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, because the only thing stopping True Blood from becoming a reality was the lack of artificial blood.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Sookie! by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2013-10-31 09:05 · Score: 3, Informative

The Sookie Stackhouse (southern vampire series) books (and the "True Blood" TV adaptation) come to mind as well.
For those unaware of the series: They start from shortly after the big reveal, where the vampires came out of the closet after the Japanese invent a blood substitute that provides adequate nutrition for vampires, allowing them to live without hunting people.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The research doesnt back it up by voss · 2013-10-31 11:28 · Score: 2

"Cocaine is undoubtedly bad for the fetus. But experts say its effects are less severe than those of alcohol and are comparable to those of tobacco — two legal substances that are used much more often by pregnant women, despite health warnings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health/27coca.html?_r=0