ArticleTransfusion2022
The genomic landscape of blood groups in Indigenous Australians in remote communities.
Article in Transfusion, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic characterization of clinically significant blood group variants in Aboriginal Australians.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2024Article
- Equity in blood transfusion precision services.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Genetic Characterization of Blood Group Antigens for Polynesian Heritage Norfolk Island Residents.Genes · 2023Article
- A Retrospective Cohort Study of Red Cell Alloimmunisation in Rural, Remote, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Admitted to Intensive Care in the Northern Territory, Australia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The pharmacogenomic landscape of an Indigenous Australian population.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- The genomic landscape of blood groups in Indigenous Australians in remote communities.Transfusion · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRed blood cell (RBC) membrane-associated blood group systems are clinically significant. Alloimmunisation is a persistent risk associated with blood transfusion owing to the antigen polymorphisms among these RBC-associated blood groups. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) offers an opportunity to characterize the blood group variant profile of a given individual. Australia comprises a large multiethnic population where most blood donors are Caucasian and blood group variants remain poorly studied among Indigenous Australians. In this study, we focused on the Tiwi Islanders, who have lived in relative isolation for thousands of years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We predicted the blood group phenotype profiles in the Tiwi (457) and 1000 Genomes Phase 3 (1KGP3-2504) cohort individuals using RBCeq (https://www.rbceq.org/). The predicted phenotype prevalence was compared with the previous literature report.
resultsWe report, for the first time, comprehensive blood group profiles corresponding to the 35 known blood group systems among the Indigenous Tiwi islander population and identify possible novel antigen variants therein. Our results demonstrate that the genetic makeup of the Tiwi participants is distinct from that of other populations, with a low prevalence of LU (Au[a-b+]) and ABO (A2) and D+C+c+E+e- phenotype, an absence of Diego blood group variants, and a unique RHD (DIII type4) variant.
conclusionOur results may contribute to the development of a database of predicted phenotype donors among the Tiwi population and aid in improving transfusion safety for the ~2800 Tiwi people and the ~800,000 other Indigenous Australians throughout the nation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.