ArticleTransfusion2024
Molecular communication between red blood cells of different phenotypes during blood storage in mice.
Article in Transfusion, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Immunology of Transfusion Medicine: Past, Present, and Future.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Red blood cell metabolism: a window on systems health towards clinical metabolomics.Current opinion in hematology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe cellular and molecular changes during red blood cell (RBC) storage that affect posttransfusion recovery (PTR) remain incompletely understood. We have previously reported that RBCs of different storage biology cross-regulate each other when stored together (co-storage cross-regulation [CSCR]). However, the mechanism of CSCR is unclear. In the current study, we tested the hypothesis that CSCR involves acquisition of molecular signatures associated with PTR. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsThe whole blood compartment of either B6 or FVB mice was biotinylated in vivo prior to blood collection and storage. Bio-B6 or Bio.FVB were stored with RBCs from B6 mice transgenic for green florescent protein (GFP) (B6.GFP). After storage, avidin-magnetic beads were used to simultaneous purify Bio-RBCs (positive selection) and B6.GFPs (negative selection). Isolated populations were analyzed by transfusion to establish PTR, and subjected to metabolomic and proteomic analysis.
resultsB6 RBCs acquired molecular signatures associated with stored FVB RBCs at both the metabolomic and proteomic level including metabolites associated with energy metabolism, oxidative stress regulation, and oxidative damage. Mitochondrial signatures were also acquired by B6 RBCs. Protein signatures acquired by B6 RBCs include proteins associated with vesiculation.
conclusionThe data presented herein demonstrate the appearance of multiple molecular changes from poor-storing RBCs in good-storing RBCs during co-storage. Whether this is a result of damage causing intrinsic molecular changes in B6 RBCs or if molecules of FVB RBC origin are transferred to B6 RBCs remains unclear. These studies broaden our mechanistic understanding of RBC storage (in particular) and potentially RBC biology (in general).
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.