Relationship between<i><scp>ABO</scp></i>genotype and<scp>A</scp>antigen expression on platelets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although platelets (PLTs) are known to express ABH antigens, the extent of expression is different on PLTs compared with red blood cells and the relationship between PLT ABH expression and genotype has not been thoroughly investigated. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We measured blood group H and A antigens on PLTs from 100 normal volunteers using fluorescent-conjugated reagents and flow cytometry. Individuals were also genotyped at the ABO locus using a commercially available genotyping system. RESULTS: Expression of A and H antigen varied widely on PLTs from different individuals. Among group A and AB persons, H antigen expression was significantly greater than A antigen (p < 0.0001). The ratio of H-to-A antigen expression varied more than 100-fold in a predictable fashion according to genotype with values lowest in A1/A1 < A1/O < A2/A2 < A2/O. H and A antigen expression was unaffected by secretor status. The proportion of PLTs with high A expression also varied directly according to genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Blood group A and H antigen expression on PLTs varies in a predictable fashion according to genotype. Flow cytometry and genotyping identify individuals who strongly express A antigens, a finding that may be relevant to clinical PLT transfusion across ABO barriers.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".