Using enzymes produced by a bacteria that almost everyone has in their gut, researchers have removed the antigens from red blood cells that determine blood type, putting us within reach of producing universal donor blood.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/15069736

Bacterial enzyme strips away blood types to create universal donor blood

“Researchers at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and Lund University, Sweden, have used enzymes produced by a common gut bacteria to remove the A and B antigens from red blood cells, bringing them one step closer to creating universal donor blood.”

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    0·
    5 months ago

    I’m not whining, just teasing the one who, in spite of agreeing that it’s definitely a win, saw it necessary to yuck on everyone’s yum in UPLIFTING News of all places. 🙄

    This group is meant as a more hopeful counterweight to all the negative stuff in all other news groups and, for some, help not feeling that the world is only irrevocably fucked up. To be a wet blanket in such a group is a SPECIAL level of grouchiness lol

    • deranger@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      I have experience in the field. This is good news, but I don’t find it particularly uplifting. The reality is blood bank is much more complicated than the ABO type. If you eliminated all ABO antigens tomorrow blood banking would not be massively impacted. Blood drives would be easier and you’d see fewer calls for O neg donations. I’d expect the impact to mainly ease logistics. I do not think it would have much effect on patients / those needing blood. We do a good job managing O neg levels to ensure those who need it, can get it. This is not a case of me being grouchy, this is a case of organ donation being much more complicated than the first thing you learned about it.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      one of the problems with scientific literacy today is that on the web the value of nearly every new study, drug, technique, etc is overstated by both the media and the public. This is probably because overstating things increases engagement.

      Imo things can just be small steps in the right direction and that’s ok.

      • AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        5 months ago

        Man, science communication is in a bad spot if all they’re doing is blunting people’s expectations and, as the previous user very aptly mentioned “yucking everyone’s yum”.

        This is why people make fun of Neal Degrass Tyson, many times his explanations are both pedantic and unnecessary, which I would argue is the same as the comment that started this thread.

        Especially when what they were talking about was actually listed in the article!

        • deranger@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          5 months ago

          This “discovery” happened in 2009 as well, and it didn’t change things then. The actual scientific article for this rediscovery also states it doesn’t get work on A antigen, so this is very poorly communicated.

          I’m not yucking anyone’s yum here. It would be great to not have to worry about ABO. This isn’t the discovery that does it, though. This isn’t even really a new discovery, and it doesn’t even work as the layperson article describes.

          Here’s the actual article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-024-01663-4