Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

All Blood Converted to Type O?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:28 PM
from the pumped-iron dept.
Biotech Science
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

All Blood Converted to Type O? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Damn. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stanistani (808333) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:30PM (#18576193) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • At least I can still sell my mighty swimmers! [ehow.com]
    • 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!

      • Re:Synthetic Blood (Score:5, Interesting)

        by networkBoy (774728) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:50PM (#18576519) Homepage Journal
        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

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by empaler (130732)
          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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by chooks (71012)
          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

      • Re:Synthetic Blood (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jimstapleton (999106) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:50PM (#18576535) Journal
        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.

      • Re:Synthetic Blood (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Firethorn (177587) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:52PM (#18576563) Homepage Journal
        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jimstapleton (999106)
          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.

          • Re:Synthetic Blood (Score:4, Informative)

            by milamber3 (173273) on Monday April 02 2007, @01:06PM (#18576773)
            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.

          • Re:Synthetic Blood (Score:4, Informative)

            by Firethorn (177587) on Monday April 02 2007, @02:16PM (#18577737) Homepage Journal
            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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Thwaites (614532)
            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!

        • Re:Synthetic Blood (Score:4, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2007, @01:13PM (#18576849)
          You are such a pessimist. Is your blood type B-negative?

        • What about allergy to the enzyme? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Monday April 02 2007, @01:13PM (#18576863) Journal
          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.
            • In fact, enzymes are just protein chains and allergies are frequently reactions to foreign proteins so it is a very legitimate concern.

        • Re:Synthetic Blood (Score:4, Informative)

          by norton_I (64015) <hobbes@utrek.dhs.org> on Monday April 02 2007, @01:39PM (#18577259)
          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.

      • Re:Synthetic Blood (Score:4, Informative)

        by WhyDoYouWantToKnow (1039964) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:54PM (#18576595)
        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 [brown.edu]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Doctor Memory (6336)
        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

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by tpjunkie (911544)
          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 ma

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Captain Nitpick (16515)

          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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by tdelaney (458893)
        That would be O- not O+. Negative RH can donate to positive RH, but not the other way around.

  • Uh oh... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Spudtrooper (1073512) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:32PM (#18576219)
    The Japanese are totally gonna freak out... [wikipedia.org]
    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Pope (17780)
      Good grief!

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

  • No RH, no problem... for me. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by el americano (799629) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:36PM (#18576291) Homepage
    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.
    • 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 [wikipedia.org] 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 i

  • O negative, eh? (Score:5, Informative)

    by arthurh3535 (447288) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:38PM (#18576331)
    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!
    • 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

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by trianglman (1024223)

        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-

  • After a search of 2,500 fungi and bacteria the researchers discovered two bacteria - Elizabethkingia meningosepticum and Bacterioides fragilis - which contained potentially useful enzymes.

    Is it just me, or does anyone else not like the name Elizabethkingia meningosepticum? I don't have a problem with the Elizabethkingia, but the meningosepticum sounds bad, making me think Elizabeth King was not the discoverer but rather the Patient Zero.

    Why can't they be more like astronomers who call things as they see t

    • No.
      It's named after a scientist who first described this type of bacteria. [bacterio.cict.fr]
      "Elizabethkingia Kim et al. 2005, gen. nov.
      Type species: Elizabethkingia meningoseptica (King 1959) Kim et al. 2005.
      Etymology: N.L. fem. n. Elizabethkingia, in honour of Elizabeth O. King, who first described bacteria associated with infant meningitis, notably [Flavobacterium] meningosepticum in 1959."

    • 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?

  • Blood made suitable for all (Score:5, Informative)

    by sas-dot (873348) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:47PM (#18576465)
    Here more info from Nature [nature.com]

    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)

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by sokoban (142301)
        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.

  • Duh (Score:5, Informative)

    by Scott Lockwood (218839) * on Monday April 02 2007, @12:50PM (#18576521) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • I am O- (Score:5, Funny)

    by jlowery (47102) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:50PM (#18576523)
    All bow before me, The Universal Donor!
    • Lucky us that can say that. I don't think the AB+ guys would happily say "All bow before me, the Universal Receiver!"
      • Donor? Receiver? Oh no, I think I know a certain goat-related website that fits this thread...

        -l
  • Does it work on blood supplies like what the Red Cross maintains? A lot more people could donate and make a quick buck.

  • More than ABO and RhD blood groups (Score:5, Informative)

    by kenrick (888343) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:57PM (#18576641) Homepage
    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.

  • Bad News for Vamps (Score:5, Funny)

    by travdaddy (527149) <travo@nOsPam.linuxmail.org> on Monday April 02 2007, @01:03PM (#18576733)
    Bad news for Vampires, Type A is the tastiest. So much for just going to the blood bank for meals!

  • In the Meantime (Score:5, Interesting)

    by necro81 (917438) on Monday April 02 2007, @01:06PM (#18576777) Journal
    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 [wikipedia.org] criteria [participate.net] used by the Red Cross and other organizations, but the overwhelming majority of eligible donors simply do not give [givelife2.org]. Chances are good that, at some point in your life, you too will need a blood transfusion [givelife2.org].

    Find a blood drive [givelife.org] near you.

    • Re:In the Meantime (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Overzeetop (214511) on Monday April 02 2007, @01:30PM (#18577119) Journal
      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.
      • 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 b

  • 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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by teidou (651247)

        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, a

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by UnknowingFool (672806)
      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 probl

    • 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...

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.