Talk:Human blood group systems/Archive 1

Lewis

Does Lewis cause transfusion reactions rarely? Snowman 09:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one delayed haemolytic reaction was found to Lewis b. PubMed apers0n 10:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Does it give the wrong impression to say that Lewis is unimportant in trasnsfusion on the article page. Snowman

I think that it does! InvictaHOG 11:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Article page changed in line with above. Snowman 12:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

List order

Is this list in any particular order, or could it be reorganised by ISBT number? apers0n 16:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if others had an order, but I didn't! InvictaHOG 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which page?

Recent developments have improved this page; however, I thought that what is on this page would be part of the blood type article page where most of it was copied from. Snowman 13:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Blood_type#Thoughts_about_organization,_the_way_forward for discussion on this. apers0n 13:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My primary impetus for creating this page was to begin preparing the blood type article for featured article status. Long lists, though used commonly in medicine, are not generally used in the encyclopedia setting (reflected in the Wikipedia Guide to Layout) and are frowned upon in the featured article process. I envision a blood type section on the different antigens with a link to this list at the top and discussions of illustrative antigens in the main body text. Some possible points to discuss would be the severe HDN caused by Kell, malaria with Duffy, etc. Of course, this is just one vision of the final article and I would love to hear other thoughts! InvictaHOG 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not think of featured article rules, being relatively new to the wiki. I suppose it does not matter that much where the list is as long as it is linked. I am hoping that the blood groups article page does reach featured article status. With this in mind I have listed HDN for a future medical collaberation topic of the week (perhaps soon). Nomenclature should be consistent across HDN and blood groups pages. I feel that HDN would benefit from that extra magic medical collaboration brings. Snowman 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As this page is more than a list, perhaps it should be called Human blood group systems. May need the speical move function to move the history of the changes as well. Snowman 13:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The move would work for me. I can certainly see this page actually becoming an article now, something I hadn't anticipated before. We could artificially divide among major and minor antigens or just leave it be... InvictaHOG 13:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Will it work to put asterisks (or other marks) to indicate major antigens in the existing list? Or will a large table work with a colum to indicate major or minor? Snowman 13:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think it would help/add information to split the antigens, you could even just put a header for major and a header for minor and not worry about a table. It's up to you. I moved the page with the relevant links. InvictaHOG 14:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok as it is. Snowman 14:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The French site has a good table [1] apers0n 20:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, French table looks right (I do not speak French). Snowman 23:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Table

Copying the table format from the French wiki has added 3 blood group systems not previously accounted for.

Also the Hh antigen system is currently part of ABO_blood_group_system#Bombay_phenotype - either needs a redirect, or to move the article from ABO. apers0n 08:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the French table some of the tables on the Rhesus, ABO and blood type pages need a tidy-up. Snowman 09:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

ABO page is not that crowded, so perhaps a redirect will suffice as present. Should Bombay phonotype have its own page? Snowman 09:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Bombay and McLeod syndrome could both use their own page. InvictaHOG 11:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Snowman 12:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

McLeod syndrome now exists.

Hh antigen system is separate but could do with a tidy up. apers0n 18:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Could the purpose of the table be made more clear? It's not really explained at all, and in its current form doesn't add much to the article, IMHO. GBMorris (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ISBT numbering - 26 or 29 systems?

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)

This page was translated from the French wiki earlier today and is still being worked on as part of the Blood type collaboration. There were previously 26 systems on this page, which is why 27-29 are not linked. Looks like the last 3 are the result of over-enthusiasm... Any idea of ISBT numbering for GIL?

Here are the last 3 rows removed from the table. apers0n 19:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Human blood group systems
ISBT N°	Common name	Official abbreviation	Epitope or carrier, notes	Locus
027	Ii	I	Branched (I) / unbranched (i) polysaccharide.	6
028	Globoside	P	Glycolipid.	3
029	GIL	GIL	Aquaporin 3.	9

The ISBT now recognises 29 blood types, so the above 3 will go back in. http://www.iccbba.com/wpantigentables.htm apers0n 06:43, 25 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)

Broken link

The link http://www.iccbba.com/wpantigentables.htm to the ISBT antigen tables is broken, and so removed from the reference. The Google cache of the page is [2] --apers0n 09:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do blood banks screen donors for all these blood types?

Are all known types reported on a donor's card? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards to blood group serology in the UK they would routinely test the ABO group and the Rhesus D antigen, but they would screen for a wide range of atypical blood group antibodies as well. Snowman 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But they don't screen for all blood groups? What's the difference? Xiner (talk, email) 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Blood group analysis involves testing for blood group antigens on the surface of RBCs and antibody screening involves testing for atypical blood group antibodies (IgG and IgM) in the serum. See "blood type" page. Snowman 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the imprecise use of words. I guess what I meant to ask is, are all known blood group antigens on the surface of RBCs scanned when you donate blood, and are the results disclosed to the donor? Xiner (talk, email) 16:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards to blood group and serology testing in the UK a blood bank would routinely establish the ABO group and the absence or presence of the Rhesus D antigen, and they would screen for a wide range of atypical blood group antibodies as well. In the UK all results of blood group antigens are given to the person that was tested, which would routinely comprise the ABO group and Rh D antigen status. See "Blood type" page. Snowman 18:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 18:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Errors / Improvements / Merge?

There are various errors (in group type descriptions, rare blood groups) and non-precise descriptions in this article. I am thinking that a merge with the much better article Blood type (just transfer the table with the acknowledged blood group systems by ISBT; afterwards deleting this article / change into a redirect to Blood type) would solve the problem. What do others think? --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Last changes in P and GLOB system

There were a few changes introduced by User:Aytrus in the P and GLOB blood group systems. Although it is confusing that currently the P blood group system (ISBT 003) has the P1 antigen and the GLOB system (ISBT 028) has the P antigen, it is a fact (see current ISBT nomenclature). Additionally, there is the collection 209 called GLOB with P^k and LKE antigens. Based on just recently presented research results, there may be modifications in this classification in the future. However, I think wikipedia should reflect the current status of knowledge. Otherwise please add citations to the proper references to reflect the last changes. I think that the last modifications on P and GLOB should be reverted since they are not correct. Thanks --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The current status is the reverted one plus some explanations on the antigens. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my superficial changes and thank you very much for fixing the table, but I was misled by this update that I still think it's wrong: the P antigen involved in Parvovirus B19 infection is the one in chromosome 3, as we can also see in the latest edition of Williams hematology. --Aytrus (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Unfortunately, I cannot access the page of your link. As I said, this whole story on P variants is currently a little confusing and will hopefully be simplified soon. These systems must be seen together (see also this database). The mentioned NEJM article in the article on P antigen system (association of P antigen and parvovirus B19; PMID 8139629) just showed that people with the rare p phenotype (=lacking of P, P1 and Pk) are not associated with parvovirus B19. However, it was shown at least once that Gb4Cer (the molecular structure of the GLOB system, i.e. the P antigen) is not associated with parvovirus B19 (PMID 15661151). Therefore, one of the other antigens or a combination of them are necessary. In conclusion, I would wait with modifying this topic until it has been clarified how these closely related antigens are connected on the molecular level and in respect to the phenotype (in particular in respect to parvovirus B19). Probably, the best approach will be to collect this description into one article, e.g. P-related systems describing Globoside and P (Pk) blood group system as mentioned in the dbRBC database linked above. This new summarizing article could evolve from/replace the current P antigen system article. The ISBT table here should not be changed until the official table has changed. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I had already thought about a merging article, it's certainly the best solution (moreover, it would finally make all links blue in the ISBT table). Thank you again for your attention. --Aytrus (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Junior and Langereis Blood Types

I don't know enough on the subject to add this in myself, but this article puts the number of proteins at 32, adding Junior and Langereis to the list. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} 01:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

These are not assigned ISBT numbers ([3]) because they do not meet criteria as a blood group. There are no polymorphisms—only occasional absence of antigen. The article overrates the discovery; this is why popular science reporting is not WP:MEDRS.Novangelis (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What do D+ C+ E- c- e+ K- mean on blood group test?? (France)

As well as A+ I have the above letters on my recent test. What do they refer to? There is no mention of them anywhere here or the main blood group page. "Shocked" that something as fundamental as this is not covered by Wikipedia! A major lacuna??

[[₳File:SSS|framed|none¢₡₢--122.163.37.84 (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Bold text]]

Edits of this date

Two complete sections are noted as near to nonsense, and besides tagging them as being without sources—and moving the silliest, most offensive content (a discovery claim, and reference to information "courtesy of")—into footnotes, these two inane sections ("Blood grouping postulates" and "Rare blood types") were left for others to dispose of. Literally, one can hope.

The lede was restructured to remove redundancies (and so it does not begin with a number!), and all sources were checked and completed (with several dead or outdated links fixed).

Regarding sources, a reminder: Wikilinks are not sources. Per WP:VERIFY, complete, verifiable sources for all information that is not common knowledge must appear. And none of this article is common knowledge (as the cross-reference to the simpler article makes clear).

Finally, regarding pasting in material from other articles, and the expert tag: Other's disregard of WP:VERIFY at overseas Wikipedias does not free us from following the verifiability policy when we transfer material. There are messes everywhere in WP.en because of disregard of this: in this article, all the material in the epitopes and notes column of the principal table is essentially unsourced, and therefore also violates WP:VERIFY''.

An expert is called, to delete or revise the two sections described, to restructure the article in accord with a good text source, and to find a source for all the material in the non-compliant table column (and begin to check it top to bottom).

Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Marriage with opposite blood group

What if i got married by a person who's not matching me with blood group?! Femitha Kabeer Rk (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have kids, it will just mean that there is a good chance that they will not have the same blood type as you. For example if you are an A and they are a B, you can have a child with AB blood, or, depending on your (and their) phenotype there may be a chance that they can inherit O blood, A or B blood. If you marry them and don't have kids, nothing will happen, you just won't be able to donate blood to them (possibly, depending on how your blood types match up). 192.199.53.2 (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Content moved from article

I thought this was still useful information, but it certainly doesn't belong in the article under WP:SELF:

This table was borrowed in significant part from a tabular ISBT document available via the web (columns 1, 2, 3 and 5), with column 4, regarding epitopes and entry notes, being largely unsourced (and therefore suspect material not in compliance with Wikipedia policies). That and other unsourced information—i.e., not appearing in the ISBT table cited, or new to the table since publication of the ISBT table—should be considered as currently unverifiable by this encyclopedia's standards.

References

Enterprisey (talk!) 19:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Attention from an expert in medicine needed

Former text of the reason parameter in the maintenance box:

the whole of the article lacks the scope of even a basic text, and two sections complete are poorly conceived, structured, and executed, e.g., incl. presenting minor discoveries without source, and referring to courtesy information from an Indian Health organization; in addition, all of the information in the table column on epitopes and notes cannot be traced (i.e., it violates WP:VERIFY)

Moved here because it was making the box too big. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human blood group systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518210051/http://ibgrl.blood.co.uk/ISBT%20Pages/ISBT%20Terminology%20Pages/Table%20of%20blood%20group%20antigens%20within%20systems.htm to http://ibgrl.blood.co.uk/ISBT%20Pages/ISBT%20Terminology%20Pages/Table%20of%20blood%20group%20antigens%20within%20systems.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)