Talk:Human blood group systems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
-
[edit] 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)
