Talk:Blood type/Archive 1

src: www.thediabetescouncil.com

Video Talk:Blood type/Archive 1

Cleanup Taskforce Pt. 2

What still needs to be done here? There needs to be expansion on the evolutionary and social significance sections, but that needs to be left up to someone with more medical expertise. Is there anything else? Kerowyn 07:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, the article is in a fine shape and needs no further cleanup. It could indeed do with some expansion (such as the automated typing done in transfusion laboratories) but cleanup is not necessary. JFW | T@lk 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like a plan. Kerowyn 22:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it be worth promoting the Kell group to its own section? After ABO and rhesus incompatibility, Kell incompatibility is probably the third most important cause of serious hemolytic reactions in transfusion patients. In fact, when it comes to typing 'trauma packs' (units of packed red cells for use in urgent tranfusion situations where they can't wait for group-specific blood) at my laboratory we use Diamed Rhesus/Kell cards and won't use a K-positive unit. -- Danielle

Blood type is determined by the antigens (epitopes) on the surface of a red blood cell. Some of these are proteins, while others are proteins with polysaccharides attached. The absence of some of these markers leads to production of antibodies against this marker. The exact reason why this happens is poorly understood, as generally an antigen needs to be present to elicit an immune response. -This needs editing, the reason the antibodies against the A and B antigens are present is that there is no negative selection of the B lymphocytes that produce these antibodies, and the production of antibodies against antigens A and B is constitutive (unless prevented by negative selection).

Now if you could give a source for this fairly speculative idea (why would it be consitutive? what other antibodies are produced constitutively?). JFW | T@lk 13:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Maps Talk:Blood type/Archive 1

Cleanup Taskforce

If you believe that a certain area of the article needs particular improvement, please let me know here. This article was given to the Taskforce because "It repeats itself, is weirdly formatted." I'll try to clean up what I can, and check the science of the article, but the article as is looks fine. Kerowyn 01:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup after reverting to a stable version. Please do check the science and see if you have any ideas to put data in tables. JFW | T@lk 01:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It now reads like a textbook, not an encyclopedia. Reverted. Scientific and technical info IS important, but it should also be easy for people that are not medical students to get information quickly, especially with regards to things such as what blood types can accept what.

I'm all in favour of cleanup but not in the way it's going so far..

--Chaosfeary 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll be responding below. JFW | T@lk 23:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

src: i.kinja-img.com

Redirects (Bombay phenotype, O negative, etc)

Reorganising the redirects to point to the new categories now.
Please, if you change anything on this page REMEMBER TO CHECK "WHAT LINKS HERE" and correct links to subcategories on this page if you change the organisation.
Thanks, and best of luck to all editors who help with this rather complicated article yet still in need of much much more detail (especially with regards to the different blood type systems and what they actually are - there is currently no information at all.
--Chaosfeary 10:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "what they actually are?" Kerowyn 02:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)1

src: i.kinja-img.com

NEED INFORMATION ON TYPE U-negative

Under "Social significance" the article states:

In the United States, few African Americans donate blood, resulting in a shortage of U-negative and Duffy-negative blood for African American patients.

However, the U-negative type is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and Duffy-negative only briefly mentioned (and its significance to African-Americans remains unexplained). neckro 01:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to say this definitely needs more information added or perhaps it should be removed from the article, does anyone know if this type of blood actually exists? This article in general is full of holes and needs attention from an expert.

--Chaosfeary 10:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• • U-negative and Duffy-negative are real blood groups, though very rare. I'll add the info and a source link. Kerowyn 02:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

'Other blood types' observes that "These blood types systems are generally not significant for blood donations". But 'Social significance' implies that Duffy, at least, is significant. Could somebody who knows their facts better than me correct this discrepancy? --Calair 00:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• These other blood types usually aren't medically significant. Duffy does seem to be significant because of its occurance in African populations. I'll see what I can do. Kerowyn 02:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually Rhesus is indeed medically significant, because of the "Mother-fetus incompatibility", but this is essentially a "Western problem". In Asia, less than 0.01% of the people are rhesus-negative, indeed "very rare". On the opposite, Duffy-negative groups are not rare since most people in Africa and the majority of African-Americans are Duffy-negative. Some tribes in India are also predominently Duffus-negative. It is even possible that there is more Duffy-negative people in the world, than Rhesus-negative people. And this is medically significant because Duffy-negativeness provides some resistance against two variants of malaria. So, in addition of some focus on the Rhesus, the statistics focusing on US and Europeans (while there are huge geographical variations) make the article a little WASP-oriented as it is now.

Anonymous July 2006 --Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.133.220 (talk o contribs) 21:41, 26 July 2006

src: beyondorganicresearch.com

Uncategorized comments

Blood types are the ways in which substances on red blood cells are used for classification.

"Blood types are not evenly distributed throughout the human population. O+ is the most common, AB- is the rarest. There are also variations in blood-type distribution within human subpopulations. The figures given here are for people of European descent." - why give figures for euros? besides the fact that this is english wp... seems racist -(unsigned)

If you have other figures, add them. - Nunh-huh 03:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I gave the above intro sentence a rewrite for clarity, but this is not my subject so needs review. -- Tarquin 20:16 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

Does incompatability among the other blood groups also cause transfusion reaction? --rmhermen

Not usually, and not for most of those listed, which is why ABO/Rh are so well-studied. -- Someone else 22:12 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

src: ligk24eff9swd59c2ig8kf17ic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

Blood group Heredity

Likely outcomes of heterozygous parents

Is it possible for a B+ father and an A+ mother to produce an O- child?

Yes, absolutely,it is possible for SOME B+ and A+ parents to do so: and if they do so it tells you information about the parents' genotype.

The father's alleles must be B, O, Rh+, Rh- -> B+ The mother's alleles must be A, O, Rh+, Rh- -> A+ The child's alleles must be O, O, Rh-, Rh- -> O-

- Someone else 09:10, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Which Allele would an AB person have?

A and B. You see, every person has two copies of each gene, termed alleles. AB leads to the AB blood type. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. What are the chances of a blue eyed B+ father and a blue eyed A+ mother producing a brown eyed O- child?

Questions about paternity really need to be settled by paternity testing, not by comparing physical characteristics. -- Someone else 03:45, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Just going by the blood group, it's possible for a B+ father and a A+ mother to produce a O- child. AFAIK, brown eyes are dominant over blue eyes, so that part seems unlikely from my experience. For an objective result, a DNA paternity test is still indicated. --Alex.tan 04:50, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Can a O+ dad and an A+ mom have an O- child?

Yes. Take the major blood group first: Dad has two "O" alleles (if he had any other, he wouldn't be type "O".) Mom has at least one "A" allele. Her other allele can be either "A" or "O", and she'll still have blood type "A". If it's an "O", and her child inherits it from her, the child will also inherit an "O" from its dad, and will be blood type O. So an "O" dad and "A" mom can have either "O" or "A" children. If mom is AO, about half their children will be type A, and half will be O. If mom is AA, all their children will be AO.

Now take Rh factor. Both parents are Rh+, so each has at least one Rh+ allele. But their other allele can be Rh+ or Rh-. If each of the parents has both Rh+ and Rh- alleles, they will both be Rh+, but will be able to have either Rh+ or Rh- children (three quarters of their children would be expected (by chance) to be Rh+, and one quarter would be expected to be Rh-). - Nunh-huh 3 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)

Inheritance AB --> 0

"When a type AB parent has a type O child, or when one type A and one type O parent produce a type AB child, it is sometimes mistakenly assumed that the child MUST be illegitimate."

Why would that be mistaken? Doesn't it follow from the article that this inheritances must be impossible? Are there other mechanisms that would change the inheritance rule? - Marcika 14:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If someone doesn't elaborate the "h" protein (which is modified to become "A" or "B") they will test as type O by routine testing, even though they may have inherited an "A" or "B" gene from their parents. See Bombay phenotype. Very popular phenomenon in soap operas, not so much so in real life. - Nunh-huh 21:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is also a rare mutation called cis-AB whereby an AB child can inherit both A and B from one parent: Hummel, K.; Badet, J.; Bauermeister, W.; et. al: Inheritance of cis-AB in three generations (family Lam.). Vox Sang. 33: 290-298, 1977. PubMed ID : 919419 apers0n 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

src: interferencearchive.org

Blood type 0

The "0" in "AB0" is really the digit "0" (null, zero), not the capital letter O. The correct pronunciation is "blood type null". Landsteiner named this blood type 0 (null) because its red blood cells carry neither the A nor the B antigens--the amount of A and B is zero. Unfortunately, it is a very common error to see the letter "O" being used instead of the digit "0" (null).

See also http://www.nobel.se/medicine/educational/landsteiner/readmore.html
--Herbee 03:52, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

• Actually, it's the letter 'O', not the digit '0' (and it would be by common usage even if Landsteiner had named it '0', which he didn't). Landsteiner called it "C" when he published in 1901. Group 'C' was first labelled 'O' in 1910 by von Dungern and Hirschfeld. Whether it stands for "Ohne", meaning "without", which has been claimed, or is a symbol meaning "null", it's now ABO not AB0. The page you point to is one of 57 pages that Google finds on the web that give AB0 and blood type, as compared with 13,500 that use ABO and blood type. -- Nunh-huh 04:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the information; you are evidently quite a "bloody" character.   ;-)

You are right in saying that Landsteiner didn't call it "0" (null). Apparently the issue is controversial, so for the time being I retract my claim that the letter "O" is an error. I don't accept your claim without further evidence, however.

I reject the way you use Google statistics; since when are scientific or historic issues decided by majority vote? Instead of throwing 13,500 hits at me it would be more useful to come up with one reference as authoritative as the Nobel Foundation.

Herbee 06:32, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't advise using Google to solve a science fact or a historic fact, but it's fine as a quick-and-dirty way to document current usage, especially when the count is overwhelmingly lopsided. I frankly can't think of a reference that would say "use 'O' not '0'" (or vice versa): the most likely would be a style guide such as the American Medical Association Manual of Style, but I'm not even sure it would be addressed there, and I don't have it at hand. Taking the two most likely from those at hand, it's "ABO" in Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine and William's Hematology, and in pretty much any textbook where you can tell the "O" and "0" apart. And consider this: When someone tells you his blood type, he says "blood type oh", not "blood type null" or "blood type zero". Which would be one reason why even if it did start as "0" it certainly has wound up as "O". -- Your sanguinary friend, Nunh-huh 21:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When somebody tells you his blood type in german, he actually says "null", not "O". Bernhard Bauer 18:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to drop the issue as undecidable. I'll leave the article as it was, i.e., using letter O. <smirk>Being an A+ I feel superior anyway.</smirk> And besides, it hurts the inner mathematician to say things like "zero positive" and "zero negative".

Herbee 23:49, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

Outside view from Germany: Over here, this is definitely blood type 0 (zero, "Null" in German). I have often observed that speakers of English, especially Americans, say "Oh" (the letter O) even when they clearly actually mean "zero" (in phone numbers, for example), presumably because it is shorter (one syllable, as opposed to two for "zero"). (Similarly, they call the last letter of the Latin alphabet (Z) a "see" instead of a "sed", even if "see" already is the third letter of the Latin Alphabet (C).) So my guess would be that, even if the blood type was at first spelled as a 0 (zero), it was pronounced as "oh" anyway, which lead to it being written as "O" also. --Rosenzweig 15:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually there is a distinct difference between the American pronounciations of "Z" and "C", and its aural discernment by native Anglophones (of any country) is not even an issue. "Z" as pronounced by Americans ("zee") is far closer to "tsee" than to "see". It's the same difference as that between "zip" and "sip"...easy for native Anglophones, difficult for others. But that's way off-topic.

I wouldn't say the zee/see descernment was a non-issue. It can be hard to tell them apart on some circumstances, even for a native speaker. Pronouncing it 'zed' might be recommended if it is vitally important that people understand you.

If this edit remains controversial and inconsistent with the article ABO why does the current version of the article remain AB0 instead of the more common usage ABO in english medical sources? With no opposition can we revert to ABO? Mnc4t 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realized this was already a discussion topic. See further down on this talk page: Talk:Blood type#Type O or type 0.3F. FWIW, this is not just a U.S. thing. In Canada, it really is called 'O' (the letter) and not '0' (zero). See this for an example in Canada. --Stéphane Charette 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

src: media.npr.org

"group" and "type" used as synonyms

The page seems to use "blood group" and "blood type" interchangeably. Is this intentional? If so, it should be explained before "blood group" is used for the first time. Fpahl 09:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just checked on the Web -- [1] makes a clear distinction between types and groups -- I don't think this is being followed here; if it is, it needs to be explained. Fpahl 09:24, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• MedLine gives "blood group" and "blood type" as synonyms, but some people do make the distinction. I'll make a note of it on the main page, with a link to MedLine. Kerowyn 01:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

src: si.wsj.net

Learning one's blood type

What is the process used to learn the blood type? I came to this topic for such a discussion and didn't. Only the intro gave a clue with "substances (carbohydrates and proteins) on the cell membrane" -- Sy / ^(talk) 21:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most often you would use a latex agglutination test. It detects antigen in a sample using antibody bound to a bead or other visible material. A positive reaction causes the beads to clump together. The bead clumps can be seen with the naked eye. A negative reaction leaves the latex beads in solution and looks milky. If beads coated with anti-"A" antibody cause clumping, you have the "A" gene; if beads coated with anti-"B" antibody cause clumping, you have the "B" gene. A "type and crossmatch" used before transfusion is a more detailed and comprehensive test. - <unknown user> 21:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The simple way to learn one's blood type is to give blood - let's add this to the article. My blood donor card, which I carry in my wallet, lists my blood type. -Elvey 20:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

src: structuretech1.com

U-negative

Under "Social significance" the article states:

In the United States, few African Americans donate blood, resulting in a shortage of U-negative and Duffy-negative blood for African American patients.

However, the U-negative type is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and Duffy-negative only briefly mentioned (and its significance to African-Americans remains unexplained). neckro 01:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

src: oldoperatingtheatre.com

Blood Compatibility matrix

Some indication should be amde as to wheher the "X" means compatible, or non-compatible.

How O is given to A, B

There are antibodies of both A and B, in O type. Then, why the antigens of A and B do not react with the antibodies in O, when O type blood is given to a person of A or B. Why O can be given to all, but cannot get from A, B or AB? I wonder why this antigens and antibodies work one way?

A transfusion reaction occurs when antibodies react to the antigens present in blood. O type blood does not contain any A or B antigens, so it does not cause transfusion reactions. A, B, and AB contains A or B antigens, and will cause a transfusion reaction when given to someone who has antibodies that will react with them. O type blood can be given to all, because it contains no antigens that would evoke a transfusion reaction; O type patients cannot receive blood from A, B, or AB donors because they would react against the antigens in the donated blood.

You seem to be suggesting that antibodies should themselves serve as antigens; while this is a reasonable thought, it's just not the case in this instance. - Nunh-huh 05:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's because it doesn't matter if you get a few antibodies of the wrong type, as there won't be enough of them to do any harm, but it does matter if you receive foreign antigens because that makes your body start producing lots of antibodies to attack the blood. MyNameIsClare talk 1 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)

Antibodies won't do any harm if there are no corresponding antigens for them to latch onto. Getting transfused with the wrong antigen will cause a reaction because you already have those antibodies in your system. Alex.tan July 1, 2005 13:19 (UTC)

Diego

Actually, Di(b) was found in several Irishmen and in several Spaniards. In fact, it was discovered in a criollo.

Origins of blood types

Evolution

What is the evolutionary purpose of blood types? Why did they evolve and what purpose do they serve for us? --203.26.206.129 12:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's anyone's guess. Some blood types give a slightly decreased risk of thrombosis (type O), which may explain why this essentially "truncated" form is so prevalent. If you come accross any useful information, could you insert it in the article? JFW | T@lk 23:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The reason for blood types

I'm curious: why do we have blood types to begin with?

In other words, why have we evolved towards having blood types? Why is it useful? Is it so that we don't just give blood to anyone and be cautious in regards to transfusions?

How different would our species be if everyone had compatible blood?

Or do we not know any reason why having blood types is useful and we just know how it works?

Eje211 14:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the answer is that differences in our genetic makeup make us different and there may be some selective advantages to certain blood types in certain conditions. Variety is good. Say, for instance, one rare blood type somehow protects you (and a small bunch of people with the same blood type) against a new, incurable deadly infectious disease that's rapidly spreading across the globe, well, if a significant proportion of the world's population gets killed off, suddenly your blood type is not so rare anymore. That's how evolution works. Alex.tan 17:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the book Eat Right for Your Type, Dr D'Adamo states that in ancient populations, Type O was predominant, and other types were rarer mutations. As different conditions were imposed on a population for different reasons (such as migration to different regions), other types proved to be more suited for survival in those circumstances. Off the top of my head, I remember him offering the Black Plague in Europe as an example where Type A came to dominance because of better survivability characteristics than Type O. He also states that some foods contain lectins that agglutinate all ABO types (a bean, maybe castor or lima, I forget which) which is problematic, while some foods only agglutinate certain types. Furthermore some foods prove to be beneficial for certain ABO types, which explains his book's title. Many early diets and cooking styles native to populations reflect these predispositions (if only as a matter of natural selcetion at work), he proposes, and it would be good for us to assume similar diets to improve our health. Frankly, I am suprised to see no mention of D'Adamo's work in Wikipedia, perhaps I will hunt down his books and offer more. Castlan 19:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please be careful. Pseudoscience comes to mind. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

While I am somewhat dissapointed by D'Adamo's lack of footnotes, and frustrated by his avoidance of indexes, I haven't yet found a credible direct dispute to any significant claims of his. I am aware of a text that might indicate behavior of lectins on stomach tissuus would need to be directly studied, but I wasn't willing to spend in excess of $200 US (iirc) to find out what exactly it found, depite it being a "real" scientificly strict (apparently, as I didn't actually get to read the) study.

While not as rigourously strict with the science as it should be (at least what is presented in his books) ER4YT doesn't seem to be significantly paranormal or disprovable. So while it has a stigma of pseudoscience, that stigma hasn't really been justified. Some supposed refutation I have come across turned out to be of even poorer quality, either reflecting it's own pseudoscience, or a lack of familiarity with the nominal subject. I would really like to see some explicit, maybe even rigorous debunking of D'Adamo's (occasionaly controversial? I can't see why) offerings. As of yet, I consider this closer to protoscience than unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

In any case, I don't think that anything I previously posted on this matter is all that fantastic. Is the mere mention of Doctor D'Adamo, or Eat Right For Your Type (ER4YT) enough to invalidate the respose I offered? Other than that vague stigma, is my above answer to the utility of divergent blood types unhelpful or incorrect? I do believe that I was careful enough to avoid anything that wasn't NPOV. Maybe, I shouldn't have tread so lightly, so as to provoke more of a direct response. Because while I like how it advocates my [Type O] consumption of most animal proteins, I find it's avoid lists including wheat and dairy to be cumbersome. My strongest objection to what D'Adamo presents is that it isn't comprehensive (cumbersome) enough. Castlan 07:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"Something is true as long as there is no evidence to the contrary".

I could not help answering this fallacy. Von Karma (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Earliest Blood Group?

The article says Evolutionary biologists theorize that the A allele evolved earliest, followed by O and then B. Does anyone know the source of this claim? The UK blood service's website says that it is O which is the oldest, followed by A then B. Who is right? MyNameIsClare talk 1 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)

Chimps have dominant A and a little O, and gorillas dominant B with a little O. Humans have supposedly evolved from a common ancestor, and we have over 95% identity with the chimp genome... So A being the "oldest" is extremely likely. O is a mutation. --Ody 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute...if we have common blood types with both chimps and gorillas, wouldn't all three have to be present in some ancestor? Unless, of course, humans are the product of chimps and gorillas (or their distinct ancestors) crossbreeding... Aklaus 07:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

See the articles on Human evolutionary genetics and Convergent evolution. --apers0n 09:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Japan's blood type theory of personality

Proposal to split Japan's Blood Type Theories of Personality

I propose that the Japan's Blood Type Theories of Personality section should be split into another article. It is independently notable, and a notable article of this length shouldn't be embedded in another article. Also, this theory is widely considered to be pseudoscience outside of Japan, and does not belong with an article that is predominantly medical/scientific interest. The Hokkaido Crow 06:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Motivation of Japanese blood type research

I removed the section stating that Japan researched blood type because "Western scientists were using blood type information as a sign of Asian inferiority because B type is common among asians and animals" (paraphrase). After exhaustive searching, I am prepared to say that this is probably an urban legend. Google turns up nothing more detailed than this... certainly no names of these Western scientists or Western countries in which they supposedly studied. This assertion should stay out of the article until someone can find an original source for it. The Hokkaido Crow 07:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Curious which blood type do japanese prefer?

In Japan, a popular belief is that personality is related to blood type. From the preponderance of some blood type in a population, "experts" claim to be able to deduce the character of that population. The "experts" also believe that they can calculate how well the blood types of different people match. A Japanese employer could therefore aim to get a proper mix of blood types among their personnel. Am i correct to assume Japanese prefer blood type B? I just assumed that because blood tpye B is more common in Asia.

There's no preferred blood type in Japan, it's situational. On the surface, it's all about gauging compatibility between people. Below the surface, it's a way to justify preconceived conclusions about a person or group of people. From direct observation, it seems to me that the traits the Japanese like to ascribe to "Type O" also coincide with traits that they ascribe to stereotypes of Westerners. Well, ???? ... looks like "Type O" is more common in Westerners than Japanese. 211.128.87.99 07:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Japanese video games

Is this why Japanese video games like Street Fighter will often list blood type in character stats? Kent Wang 20:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyone's guess, but quite likely. If you can offer a source, it may be worthy of inclusion in the article. JFW | T@lk 23:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From what I've learned about Japanese culture and my own personal deductions, I would say that the Japanese Blood Type Theory is the founding reason why video games often list blood types in character stats. Because most Japanese people know the personality traits assigned to each blood type, companies put them in character stats in order to inform people of the character's personality in a shortened way.Spacegirl92 06:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Universal Donors?

It turns out there are more factors including antibodies that can make a donor incompatible with a recipient. Although antigen-wise O- is universal, it would be irresponsible for a doctor to ever perform a transfusion without testing/crossmatching for compatibility...unless it's an extreme emergency or something. Worth mentioning?

http://www.bloodbook.com/compat.html http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=AB16D400-5BEC-4C6E-8DFE285852B1692A http://www.crestwoodmedcenter.com/CustomPage.asp?PageName=Lab%20-%20Bloodbanking

{{sofixit}} JFW | T@lk 06:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

New category?

With the talk of inheriting blood types, I would be inclined to link this article to somewhere in the genetics category. Please give feedback as to whether you think this should be done. If I get enough positive feedback, I will add the link. CanadaGirl

Be bold. I've added it now. JFW | T@lk 15:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Incompatibility

What would happen if I received a transfusion from someone who had an incompatible blood type? Are we talking the blood just won't "take" and my kidneys would remove it, or are we talking an instant, painful death? It's addressed briefly in the introduction, but is that all there is to it? (EDIT: I should add that this is just morbid curiosity)

It depends on the nature of the incompatibility, but an Arh- patient receiving Brh+ may develop a severe reaction with acute haemolysis, respiratory failure and renal failure. Whether this is particularly painful I don't know (thankfully this is rare), but you are correct that the clinical pattern of transfusion reaction should be mentioned somewhere (or at blood transfusion). JFW | T@lk 16:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps is should also be present but in more detail on the blood transfusion page, which is well developed. A list of types of transfusion reaction is on the blood transfusion article. Snowman 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I tried to do some cleaning up, but immediately realised that the old format was a lot better. I don't think we need subsections on every one of the ABO system. It clutters and distracts. Most of this information can be explained briefly in some prose and then elaborated in clear tables. For example, a table could state that a person with AB can receive all types, that RBCs express both A and B, and that the world prevalence is 4%.

It would be wrong to classify Kell, Kidd etc as "blood types". They are part of a person's extended RBC antigen pattern, which is identified as part of blood transfusion screening. They are not alternatives to ABO. Someone can be A Rh+ve and be positive or negative for Kell at the same time. The only problem is that in people negative for these epitopes, administration of a batch of positive blood will give rise to antibodies which may complicate further transfusions.

Chaosfeary (talk · contribs) is commended for the work on the article, but I think we need to decide together what improvements can be made. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have looked endlessly for the Decastrello & Spurli reference. It seems to be unavailable online. Does anyone know the full reference? JFW | T@lk 00:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Chaosfeary, I'm not sure why you reverted. The information I removed was completely redundant. Everything you inserted was simply the contents of the tables in the form of fairly clumsy prose. You were creating headers for every ABO/Rh subtype, which was not necessary to get the basic point accross.

You may have noticed that I've been restructuring the article to make it more user-friendly. This includes a short introduction of the general principles of blood type, and a historical note on Landsteiner, Wiener and other pioneers.

I'm not sure what you expect an encyclopedia article on blood types to look like, but I think my version was quite on the right track. Please don't revert again without discussion here. JFW | T@lk 23:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Decastrello & Spurli

Calling again for the Decastrello & Spurli reference. I've scoured Google endlessly, but it seems impossible to find the reference. JFW | T@lk 13:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Try looking for von Decastello and Sturli

in 1901 von Decastello and Sturli discovered group AB. (A. von Decastello and A. Sturli, 'Ueber die Isoagglutinine im Serum gesunder und kranker Menschen', Mfinch. med. Wschr., 1902, 49: 1090-1095.)

Independently, two other workers-in addition to Landsteiner, and von Decastello and Sturli-demonstrated that human blood could be classified into four groups. Jan Jansky (J. Jansky, 'Haematologick6 studie u. psychotiku', Sborn. Klinick;, 1907, 8: 85-139.), a Czech, published his work in 19075 in an obscure local journal. In America Moss published his own (very similar) work in 1910.(W. L. Moss, 'Studies on isoagglutinins and isohemolysins', Bull. Johns Hopk. Hosp., 1910, 21:63-70.)

unfortunately inadequacies of communication led to duplication not only of work, but also of the nomenclatures devised to describe the new blood groups.

Landsteiner had designated his three groups by the letters A, B, and C-the latter being that in which "the serum agglutinates the red blood cells of Group A and B but the red blood cells of C are not influenced by the sera of A and B" -while von Decastello and Sturli had not given any particular name to the fourth group which they had discovered.

Jansky had used Roman numerals to identify his four blood groups and Moss did likewise-but whereas (by chance) both Jansky and Moss had used II for Landsteiner's A, and III for his B, they differed over the usage of I and IV, Jansky referring to Landsteiner's C as I, and to the group of von Decastello and Sturli as IV, while Moss reversed this, calling Landsteiner's C group IV, and von Decastello and Sturli's group, I.--Neilfraser3010 13:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some of this (and the references) could go on the artile page. Snowman 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Added history to external links on Blood Type page, also references and external link to ABO page --apers0n 06:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Haemoglobin S not a blood type

I took this out becuase while basically correct it is not to do with blood types in the generally used sense. (There are another 140 or so Haemoglobin variants mostly of no significance, if one wanted to get into that). "The autosomal recessive disorder sickle-cell anemia (so named because it causes red blood cells to become flatter and sickle-shaped) is found primarily in people of African descent; while this condition causes significant health problems, the same gene also gives resistance to malaria. This resistance is a dominant trait, so somebody who inherits only one copy of the sickle-cell gene enjoys better resistance to malaria without the problems of anemia. This offers carriers an evolutionary advantage in malaria-prone areas, an example of heterozygote advantage. " Goood article, people, rambles a little perhaps. Midgley 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Haemoglobin S is an example of an hemoglobinopathy and it is not a blood group. Snowman 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

I read the following:

1. Individuals with type B blood have the opposite arrangement: antigen B is on their cells, and antibodies against antigen A are produced in their serum. Therefore, a B-negative person can only receive blood from another B-negative person or from an O-negative person.

and got confused. My my blood donor card lists my blood type as "A pos". I had to read the whole article to realize the "pos" referred to Rh factor, and that "A pos" was NOT a synonym for "B-negative". I'm not sure if/how to address this. How 'bout we add this to the intro?: "The most common blood types are O+ and A+, also written O pos and A pos" -Elvey 20:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's easiest just to remove Rh-related discussion from the 'ABO System' section and let readers absorb one concept at a time - especially since some of the Rh-related material in that section was contradicted by later material anyway. While I'm at it, I've tried to make usage of terms like 'group' vs 'type' more consistent with other portions of the article, but I'd appreciate it if somebody familiar with the science issues could look over it and make sure I haven't inadvertently broken anything.

I altered this sentence: "Type O+ blood is most common, though in some areas type A prevails, and there are other areas in which as many as 80% of the people are type B" because it wasn't clear whether it was meant to be talking about A- and B- or whether it was comparing apples to oranges (type O+ vs non-Rh-differentiated A and B). --Calair 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad data in Rh frequency tables?

I'm not a geneticist, but the tables in Blood_type#Rh_factor_frequency and Blood_type#Inheritance_2 seem to disagree. If Rh- is recessive and the incidence of the Rh- allele is 3% (0.03) in the African population, shouldn't the occurrence of Rh- blood should be (0.03)² = 0.0009 = 0.09% rather than the 0.9% stated in the table? Similarly, shouldn't an allele frequency of 1% in the non-African, non-European population translate to a factor frequency of 0.01% rather than the 0.1% stated? The European figure looks right, though; allele frequency = 40% = 0.4, 0.4² = 0.16 = 16% as stated.

I'm guessing somebody did these calculations in their head and just lost a decimal place; it's easy enough to do when working with percentages. Would be much obliged if somebody could check and correct either myself or the article. --Calair 23:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your logic, but what if Rh neg people are grouped in villages. Snowman 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That could account for it in theory, but I'd be surprised if inter-group mixing was low enough to allow for those numbers in practice; since both disagree with the theoretical answer by a factor of exactly 10, I think a calculation error is the most likely explanation. --Calair 02:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actual blood group frequency (some approximations) and not theoretical calculation now used in table. Snowman 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I think that it is a bad habit to write "Rh negative" as "Rh-". These occurs several times on this page. Anyone, who has worked in blood bank would know that that this could be misread or changed with a smudge. You could get disiplined for this sort of sloppy writing in a blood bank. It may not be taught like this on the wards but it is equally vital on the wards I think. It is the minimum to write "Rh neg" and "Rh negative" would be preferable. Similarly "Rh positive" should never be written "Rh+". "Rh pos" is the minimum and preferably "Rh positive". Accuracy if vital in all aspects of blood groups. Snowman 18:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that when labelling samples etc, robust identification is good. But in discussion, it's not as much of an issue, and compact expression can be handy when naming blood types over and over. For instance, the Australian Red Cross blood bank's "About Blood" section uses the +/- notation in explaining blood types to potential donors[2], as does the San Diego Blood Bank[3], and the (UK) National Blood Service uses both[4].

But if the +/- notation is deprecated in a clinical setting, that could be worth acknowledging in the article (especially if it can be confirmed that this is a worldwide practice; many other blood collection policies vary from place to place). --Calair 22:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

prevalence of blood types

If O allele is recessive, how did type O came to be the most frequent?

Because it's common enough that a lot of people inherit two copies of it. If the incidence of O allele is ~ 65%, then the chance that you'll get two copies of it is 0.65 x 0.65 ~ 40%, so we have roughly 40% type O, with the rest split between A, B, and AB.

If A, B, and O alleles were all equally common (33% each), we'd expect to see only 11% of the population with O, 33% with A, 33% with B, and 22% with AB - but as it happens, O is significantly more common than A or B. A recessive allele that's common enough can still become the most frequently expressed. --Calair 02:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Rhesus factor

Should this page blood type be merged with the the page Rhesus factor? Snowman 17:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. There's lots more to say about Rhesus factor than what's currently in that article. --David Iberri (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

At the present time there more on this page than the Rhesus factor artical page. Snowman 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hemolytic disease of the newborn

How should HDN be included on this page?
Wiki HDN, Rh disease and ABO HDN pages have evolved quite a lot over the last 3 months. Snowman 18:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Essentials of HDN reworded and shortened on blood type page, but linked to wiki HDN pages. Snowman 14:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blood transfusion

How should blood compatibility be represented on this page?
Perhaps some of the contents on the blood type article page in the section headed "Compatability" would be better placed on the blood transfusion page.
The article page on blood transfusion is well developed. Snowman 14:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blood types in different animal species

The information in the introduction stating that "cats have 3 blood types, cattle have 11, dogs have 12, pigs 16 and horses have 34" needs some clarification. Are we talking about blood types or blood type systems? What is the source of this information? Giving exact numbers of blood types (blood type systems?), after stating that much less is known about these than about their human counterparts, is somewhat self-contradictory. --vibo56 16:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. The whole sentence was copied from blood transfusion wiki article page. Snowman 17:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the cats and dogs blood groups sentence - perhaps someone knows the references. Snowman 09:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Animals do have that many blood groups, see Related blood group factors in animals page for references apers0n 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at this reference I'm still not sure. Snowman 21:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

From the above reference, how about something like this: "Animal blood sometimes agglutinates (to varying levels of intensity) with human blood group reagents, but the structure of the blood group antigens in animals is not always identical to those typically found in humans. The classification of animal blood groups therefore uses different blood typing systems to those used for classification of human blood." Refs:

• Two categories of blood groups, human-type and simian-type, occur in apes and monkeys and can be routinely tested by methods established for grouping human blood. Abundant data have been obtained on blood groups of chimpanzees, baboons and macaques. Studies of populations of animals, both feral and kept in captivity, resulted in the definition of a number of erythrocyte antigens, some of which fall into separate blood group systems. Two complex chimpanzee blood group systems, V-A-B-D and R-C-E-F systems, proved to be counterparts of the human M-N-S and Rh-Hr blood group systems, respectively. Two graded blood group systems were defined in Old World monkeys: the Drh system of macaques and the Bp system of baboons, both linked by at least one specificity shared by either of the blood group systems. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6775134).
• Over 13 canine blood groups have been described. Eight DEA (Dog Erythrocyte Antigen) types are recognized as international standards. Ref: 1. Symons M, Bell K. Anim Genet 1991;22(3):227-35 Expansion of the canine A blood group system. 2. Symons M, Bell K. Anim Genet 1992;23(6):509-15 Canine blood groups: description of 20 specificities. 3. Andrews GA, Chavey PS, Smith JE. Res Vet Sci 1992 Nov;53(3):315-9 Reactivity of lichen lectins with blood typed canine erythrocytes.
• There are eight recognized blood groups in the horse: A, C, D, K, P, Q, T, and U.
• The polymorphic systems in cattle include the A, B, C, F, J, L, M, S, and Z polymorphisms.

etc. some From Boyd, WC. Fundamentals of Immunology Third Edition 1956, Interscience. apers0n 10:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The reference says that the eight blood groups of horses are like the ABO system of man. To me this implys that this is one blood group system. Please enlighten us all.Snowman 12:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is not enough information on horses in particular from this reference, but it says "These are similar to A, B, AB, and O groups found in humans." To me this means the blood grouping system used to categorise the blood of horses is a different system to those used for humans (such as ABO), even if the blood group antigens may look similar to those of humans. It probably came from here: [5] where there is some further basic information, but this 1964 paper describes the equine blood grouping system in much more detail [6] apers0n 18:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You have two useful references. Seems like their are 8 blood group systems in hourses. Can you make a new page about animal blood groups? Species pages could be linked to your new page as well (in the fullness of time). I only know a bit about human blood groups. Snowman 15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Error ??

I think there is an error in "plasma compatibility chart". See the french "groupe sanguin" --194.206.242.93 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I swapped the 'donor' and 'recipient' labels around, which should fix that table & is more consistent with the previous one. The section still needs cleanup, though (some of the stuff below those tables has been transplanted from elsewhere, and now points back at its own section). --Calair 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki tables

It seems to me than wiki tables are more difficult that html tables. Can anyone iron out some of the structural irregularities in the compatibility tables? Snowman 13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Blood type frequencies

I have reordered the columns at the first "Distribution of main Blood types" table; I think it makes more sense if it displays first the X+ blood types, then the X- blood types, instead of decreasing frequencies (especially if someone later adds another country's stats). ctgPi 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rare blood types

Does rare blood types need to be included into this section? or should it be place on its own? With rare blood types I mean the 600 know antigen besides ABO and Rhesus e.g U-, RzRz, jK (a- b-), Di (b-), Dr (a-), Kp (b-) in order for some one how has the following blood type to understand what it is?: O Rh-,D-C-E-c+e+,M+S-,Le(a-),K-,Fy(a+b),Jk(a+b-)CMV- ??

Ideally, I think there ought to be a separate subpage for each of the 26 well-characterised blood group systems, with overview information on the main page. All of the blood types in the example fall into one of these, and are not regarded as rare blood types. The final CMV- is not a blood type, but indicates the fact that the person in question does not have antibodies against cytomegalovirus. --vibo56 ^talk 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you mention overall organisation. I think that there is probably too much clumped onto this page. The 26 blood groups (and the rear groups) could have there own pages. The blood type page would become a core page with links to all the other blood groups and blood group related topic pages. Some people prefere a lot of information clumped onto one page. However, my vote is for separate pages. Any more votes? Snowman 15:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts about organization, the way forward

It's nice to have such a well-designed page to start with for MCOTW! Excellent work! I think that Snowman's thoughts above are right on. This could be a nice portal-esque page into the wide world of transfusion medicine. It's certainly likely to be the place that most laypeople would look when searching for information about a wide variety of blood type related information. I think that this article would do well to use the summary style which is popular on large subjects undergoing featured article consideration.

• Organization - I think that the lead is too long, too involved, and not in lay terms. I think that changing the structure to one more reminiscent of the medicine template (ie history last) would be somewhat beneficial, though I think that information about the ABO/Rh groups should be at the top because they represent the most common introductions to blood type. Much of the ABO blood group and Rhesus information could be off-loaded into separate articles and ABO delinked from this page. Creation of individual antigen pages would be nice - I've created a list of human blood group systems but will await comments before replacing the list currently in the article. Bombay phenotype and McLeod phenotype could go on their respective system pages and/or could have their own pages created. I think that compatibility and human diseases (such as HDN) should stay on this page, though separate articles could also go into more depth. I think that transfusion medicine should be expanded and the platelet/FFP information should be placed there.

These are just my preliminary thoughts and I'd love to hear what everyone else (especially those who have done so much good work here!) thinks. I'll hopefully help out a little in the next few days, but will be away from civilization throughout the month of July and hope to come back to a featured article! InvictaHOG

• Regarding the list of blood types you created: It's no longer in sync with the main article, and contains a couple of errors. I suggest that we avoid the redlinks, and create the links when someone writes an article on a particular blood group system. --vibo56 ^talk 23:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi .. I don't think that each of the systems needs a separate article, there is too many of them and there is not so many literature on all of them. Maybe we could add short descriptions to the list, I mean for the systems that are not so common. ackoz 21:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There's lots of literature on the clinically relevant systems. As far as I know, all but one of the numbered systems have had their genes cloned. I certainly agree that ABO and Rh should be made separate pages, and have been thinking of starting these, but haven't gotten any further than to print out some recent review papers on ABO and Rh. It wouldn't hurt to have a separate subpage for each of the 26, as well as a page for high-frequency antigens, and a page for low-frequency antigens. --vibo56 ^talk 22:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that each antigen system should have its own page. Especially as their functions become better understood, there will be a lot to include. I have synced the list with the main page and would be appreciative if you'd point out the errors so they can be fixed! Lists such as the one currently on the page do not fly at FAC and using the separate page is at least one way to go. I prefer to make redlinks when I feel that an article should be created. I think that all of the antigens should be created, so I think that it makes sense to link them now instead of having to go back later! I think that a separate page for the "minor blood group antigens" in addition to the list also makes sense. InvictaHOG 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the errors, please see my comment below. --vibo56 ^talk 11:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Distribution of blood types

Something that is missing from the article is the distribution of blood types around the world. See also http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm --WS 21:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, that was too quick there is already a table with some of this information in the article. A map would be nice though. --WS 21:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont think we can use them. ackoz 22:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

McLeod phenotype

This paragraph sticks out as a relatively prominent unimportant item on the page now. I'm leaving it as it is, because it could be appropriate as a subheading of a section (or rather, page) on the Kell system. --vibo56 ^talk 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I created the Kell page and moved the McLeod information there. It might also be nice to remove the general template on the bottom of this page and create a new transfusion medicine specific one instead. InvictaHOG 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! That sure was quick! I am leaving for summer holidays, and won't have time to comment any detail now, but I think you've done a marvelous job! Only one thing, you use K₁ and K₂ for K and k. I don't think this is standard nomenclature, although K1 and K2 (no sub- or superscripts), are sometimes used. Also, for the K_null phenotype, I believe a superscript usually is used: K⁰, and not a subscript as you have used. I'm not changing it now since I don't have time to check sources. Regarding the separate list of blood groups, the most glaring error was the statement that H was not immunogenic, but by syncing you fixed that one. The only remaining item that I would question, is the usage of K₁ for K. Regarding the transfusion medicine template, I understand your suggestion as removing the {{cardiovascular_system}} template, and creating a {{transfusion_medicine}} template. I agree wholeheartedly, but have no idea about how to do this. Again, thank you. --vibo56 ^talk 11:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the transfusion medicine template. Several other things could be added (such as cross-matching, Coombs test, etc.) but I left it where it is. I propose adding the antigen systems to the template as the pages are created. InvictaHOG 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the wiki needs an page on cross-matching blood. There is a Coombs test page which I did some work on. Should HDN be in the template? Snowman 13:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I added HDN to the template. The Coombs page has some nice information - I think that it would be nice to have a better crossmatching page. I rewrote the introduction to this page. Let me know what you think. The other introduction was wonderful, but I'm thinking ahead and wanted to make sure that each medical term is explained before we use it. Sometimes it leads to imprecise (or even erroneous!) language, so let me know if I've made a mistake! I think it would be nice to go into the history of the discovery of ABO, Rh, the Coombs test with Kell, etc. shortly thereafter. Discussion of the ABO/Rh in some detail, a representative/interesting sample of other antigens, followed by discussion of disease states. A lot of this is already in place, I'm just hypothesizing one way to develop the page. I too will be leaving for the summer (one month in Siberia away from computers) on Thursday so hopefully this page will be featured when I return! InvictaHOG 03:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Linked McLeod syndrome to Kell_antigen_system#McLeod_phenotype until a separate page is created for it.

The intro could do with restoring the statement that the article is mainly on human blood types (even though the page on animal blood types does not exist yet), otherwise it's a great improvement.

I have shortened and simplified the ABO system section as it now has its own page, where more detail can be included, and summarised the history of discovery, as the use of ABO was too repetitive, will do the same with Rhesus. apers0n 10:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add that I think a) we should move the page to "Blood type (human)" or b) should put a disambig at the top of the page to a "blood type (non-human)" page. Even if we write an exhaustive article on humans, if we leave it this way (even with a caveat that the article will cover just humans) we will not get it past FAC because it will not be complete. See pneumonia for a similar case in which we had to create a non-human pneumonia page to satisfy FAC. InvictaHOG 10:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambig to "blood type (non-human)" would be better, as most people would probably be looking for human blood type information.

Marked the Category:Blood_antigen_systems for deletion as the transfusion medicine template and the list of human blood type systems make it redundant. apers0n 11:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The previous intro made clear the distinction between use of 'blood group' and 'blood type', this needs to be mentioned.

Added 'Blood type' to the 'Human blood group systems' template. apers0n 14:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify the antigen/blood group/blood type information - InvictaHOG 15:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are the Template:Human blood group systems and the Category:Blood antigen systems to be used simultaneously? I suppose the latter is not exclusively human. apers0n 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Developing other pages

In creating the template, I've set up a few other new pages for anyone who would like to share their expertise. I created a transfusion reaction page which is pretty stubby but should discuss the common reactions and should be plugged into the "request for expansion" on the transfusion page when done. I've created Transfusion-related immunomodulation to round out the red links associated with that. There are still multiple antigen systems to work on, but I've added Kell, Kx antigen, and Kidd antigen. And then there's this article. I think that it will improve when we can draw on the supporting pages. We still need really nice ABO and Rhesus factor pages. Others have mentioned writing them so I'll hold off for now. However, I think that they will be key to allowing work on this particular page to go forward with summary style, etc. The Bombay information needs to be moved off onto an ABO page. We need to meticulously reference all of the statements that remain. I think that we should expand the clinical importance section of the article and maybe discuss acquired changes in blood type/antigens in a small section. InvictaHOG 03:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how was waiting for who, but I have move Rh system and ABO system to own pages to move things along. I am not sure where history of Rh and ABO systems will go. Links and redirects need attention. Snowman 12:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have summarised the history in the ABO and Rhesus sections and moved the whole of each section to the relevant pages as there is a link to those pages at the head of each section. apers0n 08:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bombay phenotype: the following now redirect to ABO_blood_group_system#Bombay_phenotype: Bombay blood; Bombay Blood; Bombay blood type; Bombay Blood Type; Bombay Blood type; Bombay blood Type; Bombay Phenotype; Bombay phenotype; Substance H. apers0n 09:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

New page: Hh antigen system. The above redirects now point to that page. apers0n 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added some more references to this article, but the table "Distribution of ABO and Rh Blood types (averages for each population)" has none.

Can anyone improve or find references for the following sentences:

• The ABO antigen is also expressed on the von Willebrand factor (vWF) glycoprotein, which participates in hemostasis (control of bleeding). In fact, having type O blood predisposes very slightly to bleeding, as vWF is degraded more rapidly. in "Miscellaneous", as there are several ABO antigens.
• In Nazi Germany research was done to associate B-type blood type with inferior personal characteristics. B-type blood was relatively common among German Jewish populations. This research has since been discredited.

--apers0n 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

These sentences have been on the page unquestioned for a long time and I do not known who contributed them; I appreciate your thoroughness. Are they facts or not facts? Snowman 08:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Some thoughts on other related pages:

• ABO blood group system could do with some information about minor subgroups e.g. A₂.
• Talk:Cross-matching has a To do list.
• The Transfusion medicine template section on Blood products could be usefully pointed towards a new page on Blood products - alternatively it could point towards the category?
• The transfusion medicine template points Transfusion reactions to 'Blood_transfusion#Complications' - this could do with it's own page.
• Human blood group systems (and consequently the Blood type page) has increased the number of recognised blood groups from 26 to 29 following parts of this discussion copied from the talk page:

"The intro states that the ISBT recognises 26 systems. The table lists 29. Something is wrong here. Number 3 and 28 appear to refer to the same system. Moreover, Issit and Anstee (Applied blood group serology 4th edition, Montgomery Scientific publications, 1998) state that "The Ii collection does not satisfy the criteria established by the ISBT working party for designation as a blood group system" (page 277). The ISBT working party insists that there has to be absolute genetic independence, before enumerating a new blood group system. When such evidence is absent, the term antigen collection is used. Thus, Ii is an antigen collection, and not a blood type system. Regarding GIL, I'm not sure about whether independence is established, but since the gene has been cloned and the human genome has been sequenced, this should be knowable. 62.16.189.71 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)"

"Looking at the ISBT website again it says: "Blood group collections (Table 3): genetically-, biochemically-, or serologically-related sets of antigens, which do not fulfill the criteria for system status" includes I and Glob, although these are also listed on table 1 (Blood group systems) - updated 2004. Is this a contradiction? --apers0n 06:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)"

A transfusion reaction page does igsist and link made to it in box. Snowman 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone throw some further light on the 26-29 blood groups issue? --apers0n 10:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the entire article needs a thorough referencing. This should certainly be done prior to peer review. I'm not personally a fan of "trivia" sections in articles and would probably favor excision or incorporation of them in most cases. InvictaHOG 09:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Images for the article

I've found two images. We should put them into the article:

• Image:Blood groop structure AB0.png
• Image:Coombs test schematic.png

NCurse _work 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be great to have some pictures in the article.

The first one is in Dutch? and would need some modification of the names of the blood groups.

The second is already on the Coombs test page, but could be duplicated here as it is important in relation to the subject. apers0n 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

First one is in German. I don't think the second one is of much added value to this article. --WS 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Coombs test schematic was purpose made for the Coombs test page. I might be ok to have another link to the schematic on the cross matching page, but just a link to the coombs page would be adequate. I think that the Cooms schematic it is not within the scope of the blood type page. Snowman 23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be nice to make a few images for the page. If they are still needed when I get back in a month, I'll make a few! InvictaHOG 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made a link to the excellent IgM image on the IgM page, but it may not be needed on this page. I think that a IgM agglutination of RBCs diagramme is needed. Snowman 12:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Blood type.png?

This image of blood type agglutination was wrong because it had IgG instead of IgM. I think it is orphaned now. I think, It would be ok if the IgG's were replaced with IgM's to show how agglutination occurs. Agglutination does not work like this (as shown in this diagramme) for IgG without the Coombs reagent. Snowman 12:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Added agglutination pic. but has anyone got a better one? --apers0n 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to user InvictaHog for the new picture ABO_blood_type.svg showing IgM pentamers. The picture looks good and gives a good visual summary. Snowman 08:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to contact you and find out what other images are needed. The images are svg and thus easily edited by anyone, so feel free. I had several more in mind - agglutination, cold agglutinin, etc. are all easily made now that the groundwork is done. I was planning on putting images in those two articles sometime today, but will take requests for images in other articles as well! This page is top of my list for making featured article! InvictaHOG 16:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been meaning to replace Image:Agglutination.jpg with a crop from Image:Bedside_card.jpg as the former is rather fuzzy. --apers0n 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that new photographs may be needed to show visual agglutination on a glass slide or/and in wells as seen in a routine laboratory method. Snowman 09:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

An image about the molecular structure of the A, B and H antigens; I guess something like three chains (one each for A, B and H) with a shematic cell membrane. I forget the exact sugar sequence of each, they are similar except for a few terminal sugars. This could go on the ABO page or this page or both. Should ABO_blood_type.svg go on the ABO page? Snowman 09:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on a form of cut-away image of the membrane with the receptor antigens. The svg can certainly go on the ABO page (I don't care if it stays here or not, though I think that most people will read blood type with ABO in mind). I'm trying to get a photomicrograph of agglutination - one possibility would be to have the photomicrographs juxtaposed with a vector schematic of what is happening. InvictaHOG 09:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Broken link

The page on antigen tables from the iccbba website [7] has moved again, and couldn't find anything in archive org, so the reference now just points to the iccbba main page. --apers0n 05:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ABO_blood_type.svg

Can Rhesus D Pos and Rhesus D Neg be added? Or is this an idea for a new svg. It might be informative to see visually that although RhD antigens (if Rh D positive) are present on RBC's there is normally no antibodies, (and that if they do occur they are usaully, but not always IgG). The Rhesus part can go on the rhesus page, the ABO part can go on the ABO page (I have just made a link on the ABO page - the svg looks fine there) and a combined image can go on the blood type page. Or does this sound too complicated? This expanded svg can go in ABO & Rh section of the blood type page. Snowman 09:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on several different ways to present it and see what looks best. Probably over the next week, since I'm in a stretch here of overnight shifts. InvictaHOG 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I just finished a cold agglutinin svg and will work on a few others as time permits. InvictaHOG 05:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

With different headings and caption this svg would also work on the agglutination (biology) artical page. It would also work on the blood groups page with yet different headings and caption in the compatibility section. I do not known how to edit the headings of the svg. Snowman 10:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I can do it if you let me know - I didn't know if you'd prefer to have an IgG/Coombs type on the agglutination page or if you'd rather have one side with and one side without IgM (either of which would be easy!). I'm almost done with the ABO and Bombay antigen diagram (I am done but want to sit on it for a few days) InvictaHOG 14:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point; agglutination (biology) would include both IgG Coombs type agglutination and IgM agglutination. There is a schematic on the Coombs page. Snowman 08:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Powerful" IgM antibodies

There has been a little debate between Mmoneypenny and myself as to whether to include the term "powerful" in relation to IgM antibodies and blood type. Quoted from my talk page:

"I appreciate that the pentameric structure of IgM makes it bigger than the IgA dimer or IgG monomers. However, I do not believe that IgM is any more powerful than any of the other antibodies and calling it such may confuse laypeople. In fact, IgE might be called even more powerful because it causes immediate life-threatening (Type I hypersensitivity) anaphylaxis. I have seen both conditions (anaphylaxis and immediate transfusion reactions) and the anaphylaxis is by far the scarier. I am therefore removing powerful, but if you feel it should stay, let's start a discussion on the talk page and see what others think."

So, what do others think? --apers0n 21:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We should stick to the most specific language possible. Powerful does not seem to be the right word. A description why IgM causes a stronger response would be an acceptable substitute. InvictaHOG 00:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like there may be evidence that IgM is both faster in it's immune response and has a significant effect despite only being 6% of total Ig's.

• "Class M (IgM) is a very large type of antibody found in blood plasma. Each molecule is made up of five of the basic Y-shaped molecules. This means that it has five times as many sites that can combine with antigen making the IgM molecule much more powerful than IgG or IgA. IgM is the first to appear in an immune response, as much as a day or two before IgG, but is eventually replaced with IgG antibodies." [8]
• "IgM makes up 6% of the total immunoglobulins in normal individuals. IgM is a very powerful antibody in the fight against foreign invaders. ... IgG makes up 80% of the total immunoglobulins." [9]

Perhaps the wording could be improved to: "The associated anti-A antibodies and anti-B antibodies are usually fast-acting IgM antibodies", but the following sentence may also require revision: "RhD negative individuals can produce powerful IgG antibodies when they are transfused with RhD positive RBCs" --apers0n 05:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hurray! After only a few weeks on wikipedia I am having my first discussion about the use of one word! I guess I just don't think using words such as "powerful", "weak", etc. are suitable for an immunoglobulin. Am I being pedantic? Probably. Does it matter? Probably not. I think my problem is with describing one Ig as powerful, people might wonder if the others aren't as powerful. If the sentence went along the lines of: "Immunoglobulins are a powerful weapon in the fight against disease and IgM is the largest of these immunoglobulins..." (Okay that sentence is bad, but I'm thinking on the hoof here!) As for the two references above, well the first one is from innvista which "began in 1997 as a hotel program" and the second reference goes on to describe IgE as the "miserable" antibody. None of the major (NEJM, Lancet, Nature, BMJ) journals use the word "powerful" when describing IgM and I guess I'm not used to thinking of it as such. Anyway, enough rambling on from me, I'm sure consensus will be reached and thanks for listening. All the best.Mmoneypenny 06:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Language is important - especially as we move forward with attempts to bring this article to featured status. Your contribution and critiques are appreciated! InvictaHOG 07:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From a textbook on immunology:

"The severity of the reaction depends on the class and amounts of the antibodies involved. Antibodies to the ABO system antigens are usually of the IgM class, they cause agglutination, complement activation and intravascular haemolysis. Other blood groups induce IgG antibodies, and although these agglutinate the cells less well than IgM antibodies they activate Type II hypersensitivity mechanisms and cause red cell destruction. The cell destruction may cause circulatory shock, and the released contents of the red cells can produce acute tubular necrosis of the kidneys." Immunology. Roitt, Brostoff, Male. Churchill Livingstone 1985. p. 20.4

It seems that the agglutination of IgM is stronger, but the nature of the bodily reaction as a result of agglutination of IgG can be more dramatic. Perhaps this could be reworked and added to the article. --apers0n 06:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be borne out by the Coombs test article (see Section: Enhancement Media).Mmoneypenny 20:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. --apers0n 06:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Duffy antigen and malaria

PMID 778616 found that some Duffy negative children have been infected by P. Vivax. The wording in the article, which mentions Fy- as protective should ideally reflect these new findings. --apers0n 18:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Type O or type 0?

It seems that someone has recently changed all (or many?) references to "type O" to instead say "type 0". (They changed the letter 'O' to the number zero). Is this common, or is this simply vandalism? --Stéphane Charette 18:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are the diffs, which were done by 195.23.6.3 earlier today. ...but it seems that using zero instead of the letter 'O' may be common in Europe and the USSR (according to ABO blood group system#Nomenclature in Europe former USSR). --Stéphane Charette 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a solid reason for this, since "O" sounds similar to "A" its use is discouraged as it can cause potentially lethal mistakes in emergency blood transfusions. Hence, "Type 0", "Zero" or "Nil" is preferred. -- Dialecticator 12:05, 21 jul 2007 (CEST)

AB / A1B / A2B

I wanted to know about Blood Subgroups. I infer from this article that a person from AB group can accept blood of AB group. I'm A1B+ve. Does that mean I can accept blood from A2B as well? Vyas b 18:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In principle the subgroups of A have the same antigenicity and are therefore compatible, but transfusion based purely on ABO group is only done in an emergency. Should the A subgroup issue be added to this article or the cross-matching article? --apers0n 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that A1B can be mistaken for B blood group and this is a problem. A1 is less antigenic than A2. Snowman 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the most obvious place for A1 and A2 is on the ABO blood group page. Snowman 11:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How are you supposed to know...?

How are you supposed to know what blood type you are? Do you just look at the descriptions and if the one fits you, you call it your 'blood type'? Or do you have to go to a doctor and ask? 75.17.15.0 01:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You have to have a blood test. In future you may wish to consider asking the friendly people at the science reference desk who are very helpful and informative (and will answer your question much faster!)Mmoneypenny 10:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference for type B in Nazi Germany

Although evidence exists that type B is comparatively common in Jewish populations, It has not been possible to find enough references for the following statement relating specifically to research in Nazi Germany on type B and personal characteristics, so it has been removed from the article:

• In Nazi Germany research was done to associate B blood type with inferior personal characteristics.[citation needed] Type B blood was relatively common among German Jewish populations. This research has since been discredited.

One reference relating to the discrediting of the research:

Proctor R N (1988). "Red Gold. Blood Basics: Blood in War - Protecting German Blood - PBS". Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis. Harvard University Press. Retrieved 2006-11-21. 'In some cases, it can be ascertained whether or not an illegitimate child is the offspring of a Jewish father, because the Asiatic B blood type is more common among Jews than among Europeans.' Reche conceded that such tests were never conclusive, given that no single blood type was typical among Jews; most Nazi physicians admitted this was the case.  --apers0n 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

GA review

A good article has the following attributes.

1. It is well written.

Reasonably clear.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

There was a citation needed tag in the misc section, but I fixed that.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

It covers the subject well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

I don't think it is biased in any way.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.

it is stable.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

Good figures.

Further suggestions

The sections on transfusion and immune responses to blood incompatibility seemed slightly repetitious. Most of the material in the Misc section should either be deleted or incorporated into the rest of the text.

GA pass, congratulations, good work. TimVickers 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the paragraphs in the Misc section moved to main text of the page, 2 paragraphs to a new "See also" section, and one paragraph to ABO page. No information lost. Snowman 16:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Relative importance of ABO and Rhesus

What is the justification for attaching more importance to the ABO blood group system than the Rhesus group system? [10] This statement could either be justified in terms of what the importance relates to, i.e.

• "The most important of these in relation to blood transfusion is the ABO blood group system and the second most important is the Rhesus blood group system." or rephrased to:
• "The most well-known of these are the ABO blood group system and the Rhesus blood group system."

--apers0n 15:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see you point of view and I will change the wording back. I thought that in a general sense that ABO is more important than Rh. Snowman 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

U-negative

Did we establish what the U blood group was or what U-negative means? Snowman 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A "the the" typo

This sentence obviously has a typo (or several), but I'm not completely certain about the correct fix: "The most significant blood groups arise from antigens the the ABO blood group system and the Rhesus blood group system." Skarkkai 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a clumsy sentence and it needed fixing. I have rewritten it. Snowman 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Discovery

Shouldn't there be a section on how and when humans discovered that there are different blood types?--PoidLover 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to add to the history. Snowman 14:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Red blood cell compatibility table (proposal)

Would there be any objection to having donor-types and recipient-types displayed in the same order for this table? This would more clearly emphasize self-compatibility (i.e. the filled principle diagonal), as in the following:

--DWIII 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is very good. On the article page I have changed "-" to "neg" and "+" to "pos", as is used in many blood banks. Snowman 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Inheritance

I think this article needs something added to show what blood types could possibly be inherited from parents of certain blood types. Harold14370 22:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The following text was inserted by 70.239.0.188 (28 June 2007) between comment tags (which rendered it invisible):

   Inheritance of Blood Types     These charts show the possible blood type results for offspring.     Blood Type  Mothers's Type      O A B AB      Fathers' Type O O O, A O, B A, B      A O, A O, A O, A, B, AB A, B, AB      B O, B O, A, B, AB O, B A, B, AB      AB A, B A, B, AB A, B, AB A, B, AB      Rh Factor Mother's Type      Rh + Rh -      Father's Type Rh + Rh +, Rh - Rh +, Rh -      Rh - Rh +, Rh - Rh -   

I have moved it to here for now (pending reformatting, citations, etc). --DWIII 21:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Rh D, E, e, C and c antigen genetics could be included, perhaps of the Rh Blood group page. Snowman 13:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ABO blood group inheritance in on the ABO page. Snowman 14:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Table is from here: http://mistupid.com/health/bloodinherit.htm 86.157.99.155 (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Year missing for chart

The 'Table of ABO and Rh distribution by nation' does not say what year this information was obtained.

I agree, this could be improved. Each line has a reference, but few give the date of the reference on the article page. Snowman 08:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

2nd paragraph: The ABO blood group system and the Rhesus blood group system are more likely to cause harmful immunological reactions than the other blood group systems. As a matter of English grammar, systems don't cause reactions, only incompatible systems. Also, the "other blood group systems" aren't cited. I propose:

Errors during transfusions involving the ABO blood group system and the Rhesus blood group system are more likely to cause harmful immunological reactions than the other 27 blood group systems. --Lexein 18:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. Are there any more like that? Snowman 14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

According to Blood type#ABO and Rh distribution by nation, 9% have type B+ in the U.S. (which agrees with what the blood donation people just told me). But the graph at Blood type#Geographical distribution says less than 5% in the U.S. have the B allele (presumably including B-, AB+, and AB- as well as B+). More precisely, the entire U.S. is shown in a light color that means 0-5% B allele, except for an area of Alaska that doesn't have enough population to matter. The same contradiction applies to Canada and Australia. Art LaPella 22:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This edit has now resolved the contradiction, if it isn't reverted.

blood types

people of which blood type can safely receive A negative blood? and why? Types of blood 196.208.5.127 15:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Chocos

See the blood compatibility table on the article page. Snowman 23:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This article gets my vote as "Hardest to Follow" in all of Wikipedia

Is it just me, or is it quite difficult to understand what half this article is talking about? In my opinion, it is way too wordy, and uses too many technical terms without explaining them well enough. Psythik (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I'm probably the biggest 'make lead sections longer' Nazi on Wikipedia, but this article's intro seems a little bit long for me. 4 paragraphs would be okay, but I think 5 substantial paras are too many except in exceptional circumstances, and this isn't that long an article (much of it is tables). Richard001 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reorganized the page keeping much of the information as before. The introduction is now much shorter. It is a complicated subject, so perhaps four paragraphs are justified in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Blood Type Vary On Its Own?

Both of my parents have O+ blood, but I have O- and don't know why. I never had a transplant or a different immune system. Is it possible that my blood used to be O+ but became O- after I had damaged myself in the past?71.90.23.222 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

each of your parents has two copies of the Rh gene, one (+) and one (-). A child is Rh (+) if he inherits either one or two (+) genes. You'd expect three quarters of your children's parents to be Rh (+), and one quarter to be (-). You just happen to be one of the children who inherited the (-) copy from both parents. You were O- when you were born, and have been ever since. - Nunh-huh 23:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Plasma Compatibility table is opposite of text

It sure looks like the table depicting plasma compatibility is the opposite of what is described in the text. Rlw (Talk) 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. Rlw (Talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do people keep flipping this table? It's correct as is! Leave it alone! Rlw (Talk) 01:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood the chart in the same way they seem to have. Fortunately, I came here to leave a note since it isn't like me to change articles directly unless I really know what I am doing. So, I think I can shed light on just why people are getting confused. The compatibility section of the article discusses RBC compatibilities, then plasma compatibilities, and finally switches back to discussing RBC compatibilities. The diagram from the middle subsection appears as if for reference while reading the text in the last subsection. It seems likely from your comment that the people who are editing the article to 'fix' the diagram are simply missing the distinction between plasma and RBC. They think the plasma chart is actually the RBC chart and are trying to 'fix' it. I can tell you from personal experience I was confused with the diagram while reading the 'Universal donors...' subsection because of its unfortunate positioning until I read the preceding subsection and realized the distinction. I suggest moving the subsection 'Universal donors and universal recipients' to the bottom of the 'Red blood cell compatibility' subsection so that it precedes the plasma compatibility subsection. After all, don't they belong together? Why are they separate, with the plasma section sandwiched in the middle? With this change, people would probably then be looking at the appropriate chart for the section they are reading. - Luke123 (Talk) 03 November 2008

Where Are The Other Blood-Groups

Unless the other non ABO blood groups like MN are included this article's name becomes improper. Please include, at least, a list of the other grops.sarindam7 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See the section "Other blood group systems" and linked page, Snowman (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How about rare blood types

Forgive my ignorance, because I am from this major, but I heard somewhere about other especial blood types, such as KpAB... There isnt much info about it on the web, but it would be nice to have it added here, if verified. See the list on this website: [11] --Bruno Braga (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kidd antigen system (also known as Jk antigen); see Kidd system. Snowman (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There's always being a question about the distribution of blood type for me..Anyone helps?

I'm wondering if one person who has been transplanted a bone marrow, then his blood type will be changed. Then what will happen if he or she give birth to a child? (assuming the two parents has changed the blood style for the bone marrow transplantion) Will the child follow the blood type as he or she has, or follow the blood type he or she has become to have? --Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjboy007 (talk o contribs) 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The child will inherit from the parent just as if the parent had never had a bone marrow transplant. The transplant doesn't change anything about the genes that will be passed to the child. - Nunh-huh 23:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dodgy statistics

"ABO and Rh distribution by country" In the case of france, the source being given is a VERY simple page of a hospital website in monaco. Nothing to do with stats for France, please do something about this, see if INSEE has something about blood type and rhesus, or remove it. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.158.196 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

IP vandalism

This article is the frequent target of bad edits by IPs, changing "positive" to "negative", "AB" to "O", etc. This is probably vandalism; it may also just be a lack of understanding of the subject matter. I've temporarily protected the article against such IP edits. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ABO and Rh distribution by country for USA is incorrect

Probably a typo but the figure for USA B+ should be 8.5% not 18.5% --Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmwut5 (talk o contribs) 11:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Values in table now match source. - Nunh-huh 12:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Blood type distibution in Israel(Can be added to the main page)

A+ 34% A- 4% B+ 17% B- 2% O+ 32% O- 3% AB+ 7% AB- 1%

The page stating this is: http://www.mdais.org/362/ It is the Red Magen David organization's. The national rescue service, and the organization which manages the blood bank of Israel. I haven't found a version of this page in English. - SurDin (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Human only?

I assume other mammals have blood types too, but this focusses only on humans. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about human blood types (or blood groups). For animal blood types, see blood type (non-human).SurDin (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image Mistake, second image with sugar moieties

This image is incorrect. The sugar moiety binds to the cell thru the GlcNac, not the fucose. Can the author correct it? --Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly Katula (talk o contribs) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir is not a nation!

With regards to the table of blood group distribution! --Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.87.182 (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia