Now We’re All Type O
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Health Care, Science
Researchers have discovered a way to turn any blood type into type O, that being the blood that can be used in any transfusion. This is huge.
How’d they do it? From BBC:
The new technique works by using bacterial enzymes to cut sugar molecules from the surface of red blood cells.After a search of 2,500 fungi and bacteria the researchers discovered two bacteria - Elizabethkingia meningosepticum and Bacterioides fragilis - which contained potentially useful enzymes.
They found that enzymes from both bacteria were able to remove both A and B antigens from red blood cells.
Be on the lookout for more of these bacteria therapies. An increasing number of researchers are doing amazing things with them.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 2nd, 2007 and is filed under Health Care, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
A researcher named Witebsky was doing similiar things in the 1920-1940. He was using bacterial and plant polysaccharides to duplicate human blood group antigens to try to overcome some of the problems with transfusions. He had some success, but transfusions are very complex and changing the surface antigens of the red cells is only part of the story.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I hate it when scientists name the species they’ve discovered after themselves. Especially when scientists have common last names, like Phidippus johnsoni, Ornithoctonus andersoni or Brachypelma smithi . I have to admit, I’ve never seen it done with a Genus before. Elizabeth King, whoever you are, you are lame! Use a Latin word or phrase that describes the features of the organism, dammit!
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:10 am
Jimmy, before you get too worked up, you might want to at least confirm that Elizabeth King (whoever she might be) was actually the one who named that particular Genus. It is, after all, at least possible that it was named by one of her students or admiring colleagues.
That said, there is a lot to be said for your point that naming species after people is a lot less useful than naming them after characteristics. At least for the declining number of us who are able to decipher the meaning of the Latin. For the rest, the only difference would seem to be how easy the name will be to pronounce.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I think it’s moronic to complain about bacteria being named after people. Chances are, you don’t understand enough Latin for it to matter whether it describes the organism or not. You can only base so much off characteristics before you wind up with mile-long names like Brevis puniceus orbis cumcuspis, in which case I’d much rather say Elizabethkingia. People don’t care what the names mean - they care what the organism is and how it affects us.
And the fact that you’ve never seen this done with a Genus before is proof you shouldn’t be complaining - the Genus Yersinia was named after Alexandre Yersin. It boasts a well-known bacterium, Yersinia pestis, better known as the bubonic plague. And I assure you no one cares what it’s name means.