Red blood cell storage in SAGM and AS3: a comparison through the membrane two-dimensional electrophoresis proteome.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: SAGM is currently the standard additive solution used in Europe, while AS-3 is the third additive solution that has been licensed in the USA, and is also the one used in part of Canada. Although AS-3 is based on a saline-adenine-glucose solution, it also contains citrate and phosphate. Storage of red blood cell concentrates in CPD-SAGM is known to lead to the accumulation of a wide series of storage lesions, including membrane protein fragmentation and vesiculation, as we could previously determine through 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through 2D-SDS-IEF-polyacrilamide gel electrophoresis we performed a time course analysis (day 0, 21 and 42 of storage) of red blood cell membranes from leukocyte-filtered concentrates either stored in CPD-SAGM or CP2D-AS-3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: From the present study it emerges that the membrane protein profile of red blood cells stored in presence of AS-3 appears to be slightly different from (better than) previous reports on SAGM-stored counterparts. However, the increase of total membrane spot number due to the presence of fragments at day 21 and the significant decrease at day 42 are suggestive of a universal phenomenon which is not efficiently tackled by either of the two additive solutions investigated in the present study. CONCLUSION: To further delve into the storage lesion issue for RBCs stored in AS-3, it would be interesting in the future to assay metabolic changes over storage progression as well.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".