Talk:hh blood group

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to blood.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

South Asia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

http://www.bh.rmit.edu.au/mls/subjects/abo/resources/frequency4.htm - the external link to this article - seems to be no longer active. Can anyone provide alternative source of information?

So, looking at the diagram on the page, I wonder that ... anyone can the Hh phenotype be seen as some sort of "super-O", in that hh phenotype blood can be used to donate red blood cells to everybody else, i.e. Hh, O, A, B, and AB? (Similar to O phenotype blood which can be used to donate red blood cells not only to itself, but also to A, B and AB - but not hh.) Not taking into account the immense waste it would be to use such a rare blood type that way, of course.

Technically, that is correct. hh individuals blood could be given to anyone. (Ignoring the rH (aka + - ) (ie A+ A- )) But as you pointed out, it would be an immense waste to just give that blood to anyone, as it is so rare. Similiarly, O- blood can be given to anyone (except the rare Bombay person), but hospitals avoid wasting it, and would prefer to give "type specific blood. A+ to an A+ person. DocGratis 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

disease?[edit]

This sentence seems problematic to me:

For the reason that it requires two recessive parents to transmit the disease, it almost goes without saying that the condition mainly occurs in small closed-off communities where the recessive gene has a chance to find two parents with this same blood type.

As far as I can tell from the rest of the article, the Bombay phenotype is not a disease at all. It might be seen as an unfortunate condition given that you can't have blood transfusions, but most people will never need a blood transfusion. Would someone like to pick a more appropriate word? --Trovatore 07:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased the sentence. --Leeyc0 (Talk) 08:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood compatibility[edit]

As a result, people who have Bombay phenotype can donate to any member of the ABO blood group system (unless some other blood factor gene, such as Rhesus, is incompatible),...

Is this really true? I agree for the erythrocytes. But people with Bombay should have antibodies in the plasma which would coagulate with the antigens on the erythrocytes of the recipient. --Dietzel65 (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that problem avoided anyway as it's not the whole blood that is given to the patient? One caveat to this axiom of 'universal donor' is that this applies to packed RBCs, and not to whole blood products. Using the first table, type O carries anti-A and anti-B antibodies in the serum. To transfuse a type A, B, or AB recipient with type O whole blood would produce a hemolytic transfusion reaction due to the antibodies found in the serum of whole blood. Correjon (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phenotype --> genotype[edit]

Hi,

the second sentence "Individuals with the rare Bombay phenotype (hh)" is not precise, hh is the genotype. I haven't corrected it because it could be confusing as later you can read only phenotype. Have you got any ideas how to change it to keep easy understanding?

Tardigrada2008 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

controversy[edit]

My section "controversy"-was deleted because the of the citation? There are others, one like this,http://bucks.happeningmag.com/ai1ec_event/safe-pride-blood-drive/?instance_id=
but since the ending is "instance ID"---I'm thinking that it will disappear-the link may not be there after a year or less?(Safe Pride Blood Drive By gmpulaski on January 21, 2013 | Leave a response When: Back to Calendar February 22, 2013 @ 12:00 pm – February 23, 2013 @ 10:00 am Where: The Eagle Fire Hall 46 North Sugan Road New Hope,PA 18938 USA)...........There are (many) more like that so, I don't think that I should use them in the main article? Also i did not want to use Twitter as a source, but there are a lot of Twitter links too. Yes the "Safe Pride" group is self-promoting, but that was not the meaning of my addition to the article. I started a new section rather than add to "cultural"-because that was mostly pop-culture references, (fiction)-not "real life". Again-the meaning-of, "controversy" was not about the group "safe pride"-but about the controversy with the antigen. I think I can undo that? And I'll try to find another reference too.(just not a real time-sensitive one).24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a newspaper ref and added that. Also put controversy back in hope that is ok? Note the comments page where it appears that people are looking-for more info. on this interesting topic.24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a link to a medical journal which appears to have ©-restrictions on linking! So I don't want to post the link.24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK-so can you give me a better clue? Should I put the "controversy" in with the cultural section? That actually was my 1st instinct, but everything in that category, (so far) looked to be fictional. That is why I started the new section. A news source should be OK for that (cultural) section? (the source that you deleted was a news site unrelated to the person involved with the controversy). I'm just assuming that you're trying to say that sourcing for a science article s/b a medical journal or something scientific within medical article guidelines, so yes I see where it does not fit in except for cultural.24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No. My point is, until you can provide a reliable, non-POV source, the material you have added does not belong on Wikipedia. --Thorwald (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture[edit]

I realize that this is not terribly important, but the source cited for information about the use of the Bombay Phenotype on General Hospital is incorrect, or at least incomplete. They're showing a marathon of older General Hospital episodes this weekend (March 29-31, 2013), and I just saw the episode from 1980 in which the blood test for the baby is ordered. The episode states twice that both parents are Type O and the baby is Type B. That's what brought me to this page--I wanted to understand the mechanism. If I understand correctly what I've read here, the Bombay Phenotype couldn't explain that combination of blood types, so perhaps the show performed a retcon in a later episode. Since I can't provide a source to corroborate what I've seen, I don't know the correct course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.77.97 (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original paper wasn't written by Bhende[edit]

The original paper of this blood group might be this [1]. NIH says the writter of this original paper is Bhende, but the external link to the Lancet is different article [2]. Searching the title of the original article, I found different page article written by Ludwik Hirszfeld [3]. I'm comfused. Which is the discoverer of the Bombay Blood Group, Bhende or Hirszfeld ? -- Akaniji (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]