Blood donor exposome and impact of common drugs on red blood cell metabolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational models based on recent maps of the RBC proteome suggest that mature erythrocytes may harbor targets for common drugs. This prediction is relevant to RBC storage in the blood bank, in which the impact of small molecule drugs or other xenometabolites deriving from dietary, iatrogenic, or environmental exposures ("exposome") may alter erythrocyte energy and redox metabolism and, in so doing, affect red cell storage quality and posttransfusion efficacy. To test this prediction, here we provide a comprehensive characterization of the blood donor exposome, including the detection of common prescription and over-the-counter drugs in blood units donated by 250 healthy volunteers in the Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study III Red Blood Cell-Omics (REDS-III RBC-Omics) Study. Based on high-throughput drug screenings of 1366 FDA-approved drugs, we report that approximately 65% of the tested drugs had an impact on erythrocyte metabolism. Machine learning models built using metabolites as predictors were able to accurately predict drugs for several drug classes/targets (bisphosphonates, anticholinergics, calcium channel blockers, adrenergics, proton pump inhibitors, antimetabolites, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and mTOR), suggesting that these drugs have a direct, conserved, and substantial impact on erythrocyte metabolism. As a proof of principle, here we show that the antacid ranitidine - though rarely detected in the blood donor population - has a strong effect on RBC markers of storage quality in vitro. We thus show that supplementation of blood units stored in bags with ranitidine could - through mechanisms involving sphingosine 1-phosphate-dependent modulation of erythrocyte glycolysis and/or direct binding to hemoglobin - improve erythrocyte metabolism and storage quality.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".