Talk:Red blood cell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nucleated RBCs

It may bhjsdfk.wsfgwk.eqgrt2e worth mentioning that a nucleated RBC is a I have added the article to the category named Respiration. I am now thinking that I should have added it to the sub-category within the Respiration category named Respiratory System. Respiration is something that red blood cells do by taking oxygen from the part of the Respiratory System called the Respiratory Tract to the cells of the body with mitochondrial Dna. Alec - U.K. 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Vertebrate erythrocytes

There seems to be something wrong with this section. A paragraph intersects with a picture and makes the page really wide. I don't know how to fix this, but I just wanted to note it.Xasz 01:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

shnify

very shnify today bahh shnify —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.23.122 (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

what are blood cells where do they come from. are they of live are we from space. if where from space did god. make us or did blood cells make us. are blood cells rael are we rael. are we just in a deam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.30.66 (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

what are blood cells

blood cells are thing that help your body live. red blood cells send air through the air gos to your lungs. and to your hart. white blood cells. they kill germs and they multiply and they can stop infections. platelets help your body stop bleeding when you cut your or a wound. platelets clump togther as soon as you start to bleed. the sticky clump of platelets traps red blood cells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.30.66 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

red blood cell

need more info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.71.151 (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We need more info on what you need more info about. If you have a specific question, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science may be able to help. SDY (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Erythrocyte shape

This Wikipedia article states: Mammalian erythrocytes are biconcave disks: flattened and depressed in the center, with a dumbbell-shaped cross section. This shape (as well as the loss of organelles and nucleus) optimizes the cell for the exchange of oxygen with its surroundings.

However, the shape of the red blood cell does not actually serve to optimize the cell for oxygen exchange. Since it is being squished through capillaries, it loses its shape when exchanging oxygen. Instead, it has been suggested that the biconcave shape of erythrocytes serves to maximize laminar flow and minimize platelet scatter, thereby suppressing atherogenesis. Source: The human erythrocyte has developed the biconcave disc shape to optimize the flow properties of the blood in the large vessels, C. Uzoigwe, 2006
Could someone edit that portion of the article?
Studytilidie (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Okays, I'm wondering why at the very beginning, second paragraph, it says "Whitney cells..." out of nowhere. There is no indication of the word Whitney before hand and it makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

Thanks for catching that. It was vandalism, introduced here. It is now fixed. --Arcadian 22:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out where to post a new question, but i have one. Did they forget to mention that a human red blood cell contains none of the chromosomes? Or did i miss it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.69.33 (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Erythrocytes in mammals are anucleate when mature, meaning that they lack a cell nucleus and as a result, have no DNA. In comparison, the erythrocytes of nearly all other vertebrates have nuclei; the only known exception being salamanders of the Batrachoseps genus.[7]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.4.112 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

lifetime determinants, oxidative issues and species or specifics of hemoglobin structure

this also comes up with dogs and cats that seem particularly sensitive but these refs should outline some issues,

Sivilotti, ML (2004). "Oxidant stress and haemolysis of the human erythrocyte". Toxicological reviews. 23 (3): 169–88. PMID 15862084.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Matarrese, P; Pietraforte, D; Gambardella, L; Vona, R; Maccaglia, A; Minetti, M; Malorni, W (Mar-2005). "Peroxynitrite induces senescence and apoptosis of red blood cells through the activation of aspartyl and cysteinyl proteases". The FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. 19 (3): 416–8. doi:10.1096/fj.04-2450fje. PMC 10.1096/fj.04-2450fje. PMID 15650007. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmc= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Denicola, A; Lissi, E; Freeman, BA; Rubbo, H; Radi, R (11-Jan-2002). "Diffusion of nitric oxide into low density lipoprotein". The Journal of biological chemistry. 277 (2): 932–6. doi:10.1074/jbc.M106589200. PMC 10.1074/jbc.M106589200. PMID 11689557. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmc= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Kantar, A; Curatola, G; Fiorini, R (1992). "Alterations in erythrocyte membrane fluidity in children with trisomy 21: a fluorescence study". Biology of the cell / under the auspices of the European Cell Biology Organization. 75 (2): 135–8. PMID 1393150.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Fernández, E; Martínez, G (Sep-1987). "Phototoxicity from nalidixic acid: oxygen dependent photohemolysis". Il Farmaco; edizione scientifica. 42 (9): 681–90. PMID 3691790. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Thornalley, PJ (Dec-1985). "Monosaccharide autoxidation in health and disease". Environmental health perspectives. 64: 297–307. PMID 3007096. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

References repeated in the ref list

How can I make references added not repeat in the ref list, so they only appear once? In case anyone is interested here is my bibliography on the subject: http://www.zotero.org/rogeriopfm/items/collection/1100893 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogeriopfm (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Blood Group Confusion

In the section "History" it says: "A year later Alfred von Decastello and Adriano Sturli, two colleagues of Landsteiner, identified a fourth blood group - AB - the serum of which causes both A and B red cells to agglutineate."

I think this is wrong. The serum of somebody with blood group AB doesn't cause anybody's cells to agglutinate, because it doesn't contain antibodies against any blood group. Could somebody with more Wikipedia experience please confirm this and change the article accordingly! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.45.151.136 (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the last part of the sentence, I don't think it requires any further classification, as the section is purely history-related. Besides, if AB serum caused agglutination, they wouldn't be able to accept any other blood than AB, which is incorrect. Perspeculum (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Homework

How much percent of 1 liter of blood are RBC's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.158.149 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ffgg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.178.28 (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

about 40-50% depending on whether your man or woman--Amaher (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Interaction with glucose / glycated hemoglobin

I would like to see an explanation of how glucose interacts with red blood cells.

This article says: "Oxygen can easily diffuse through the red blood cell's cell membrane."

The diabetes A1C test measures the ratio of glycated hemoglobin - glucose binding to hemoglobin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycated_hemoglobin

I assume that glucose (larger than O) must also enter the cell before binding to the hemoglobin proteins. Do RBCs actually utilize glucose as other cells do?

What's the purpose of merely binding to glucose? Why would this happen if glucose is needed for energy?

In most other cells, insulin is required for glucose to enter the cell. Is that true here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biotech99 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A dubious desire to fork this page

Red Blood Cells (note caps) is the proper name (in the US) for approximately 200 ml of erythrocytes in storage solution used in transfusion medicine. This could easily be a separate article, since it's essentially used as a medication. I'm not sure if this proper name is used globally. Should this information be added here, should the page be forked? Red Blood Cells (transfusion medicine)? The same issue will come up with Platelets, though the fork there couldn't be based on capitalization. Somedumbyankee (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add the information to this article for now; I suppose a separate article could also be written if there's enough material for it. AxelBoldt (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if the page isn’t split, I think it should be renamed to Erythrocytes with a redirect from Red blood cells --ITasteLikePaint (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I Agree. It should be renamed to Erythrocyte with a redirect from Red blood cell (or Red blood cells). I have inserted a {{movenotice}} to formally suggest the renaming of the article -- Meewam (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to disagree: keeping the naturalness criterion in Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding on an article title in mind, it seems to me that more of our readers will look under "red blood cell" than under "erythrocyte", a word many would be hard pressed to pronounce properly. I prefer to keep the encyclopedia accessible and to avoid jargon whenever possible. For what it's worth, Encyclopaedia Britannica also uses the article title "red blood cell". Within our encyclopedia, we currently have roughly twice as many links to "red blood cell" and variants to "erythrocyte" and variants: Special:WhatLinksHere/Red_blood_cell&limit=500. AxelBoldt (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the wiki policy on article titles, but now that I've read it I'll remove the {{movenotice}} -- Meewam (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Statistics

How many RBC are made/recycled every second? Asking cause it says on an interesting facts website "Your Body creates and kills 15 million Red Blood Cells every second"

Tgkprog (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Viruses and Red Blood Cells

Extreme exceptions, but the statement about it being impossible for viruses to infect red blood cells is too strong: This paper discusses viruses that get in early while there is still a nucleus (and therefore the red blood cell matures with the virus inside) http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/31/6/841.full.pdf

This paper discusses genetic engineered mice whose red cells trick the virus into infecting them (but the virus then cannot proceed because of lack of nucleus):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200307/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.248.70 (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with this sentiment. The ability of a virus to INFECT a cell is based on the glycoproteins that a certain cell carries on its lipid membrane which act as ligands for the viral protein receptors, NOT on whether a particular cell has nuclei or not. Without nuclei, the viruses might not be able to REPLICATE (distinct from INFECTION) in the cell - but of course, if the RBC is still ennucleated (as is the case in the bone marrow), it can still replicate there too. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.239.183 (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is another complication for you. After a red cell loses it's nucleus, it is a reticulocyte for a few days. I think some viruses might be able to replicate in reticulocytes. --AJim (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear DNA

"Erythrocytes in mammals are anucleate when mature, meaning that they lack a cell nucleus and as a result, have no DNA." Should the phrase 'as a result' be removed? It implies that any cell without a nucelus has no genetic material at all. Bacteria have no nuclei but still contain DNA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.202.99 (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "no DNA" part from that sentence. AxelBoldt (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

why are they here? Also, only bacteria cells do not have Nuclei —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.236.156 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

=

Do Human erythrocytes contain DNA or don't they? "They contain no nuclei." means very little. It implies that since nuclear DNA is found in the nucleus that they contain only mitrochondrial DNA. Very disappointed in the quality of this article. WIsh I knew enough to fix it.71.31.147.72 (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No nucleus, no mitochondria; no DNA. Norman21 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hemoglobin

{{editsemiprotected}} Hemoglobins are not molecules; they are proteins.

TheGovernor11 (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Y In theory, it's a biomolecule, which includes heteromeric proteins. haz (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hemoglobin is a molecule, and more specifically, a protein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.195.185.251 (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The spelling is not standardized. It's "haemoglobin" in the introductory paragraph. There's also "haemolytic" in the Senescence section. (I started to fix it myself but this is the first time I've encountered semi-protection..... Danchall (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

To increase readability, after "haemoglobin" add, "(also spelled, 'hemoglobin')". Note, the linked page is spelled, 'hemoglobin'. BTW, why is this article semi-protected? Doesn't seem it would be a target of vandalism. Considering... (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Inner life

We need to make a section on what organisms live within a red blood cell, human red blood cells at-least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.63.213.218 (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2013

I only have 7 edits so can not do this myself. I wanted to add the following text to the end of the section entitled 'Nucleus'.

The elimination of the nucleus in vertebrate erythrocytes has been offered as an explanation for the subsequent accumulation of non-coding DNA in the genome [cite reference quoted below]. The argument runs as follows: Efficient gas transport requires erythrocytes to pass through very narrow capillaries, and this constrains their size. In the absence of nuclear elimination, the accumulation of repeat sequences is constrained by the volume occupied by the nucleus, which increases with genome size.

[The Bigger the C-Value, the Larger the Cell: Genome Size and Red Blood Cell Size in Vertebrates doi:10.1006/bcmd.2001.0457]

Chalmersss (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a fascinating idea! Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hemoglobin spelling

spell the first hemoglobin right 173.34.17.202 (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't "wrong" (see ae and oe), but I've changed it to "hemoglobin" for consistency with the rest of the article. If you post another edit request, you should make sure it says answered=no, not answered=yes. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Mammalian erythrocytes

a-red blood platelets, b-cells that oxygenate system, c-white blood platelets and d-immune system color green as the picture showed. Deferring with blood type as three group classes (EoD+/EoD-) or branches of negative and positive group as (Ab-E+/Eo+D-) referred FFP or, (O±β.m-RBC) O~Rh≃AB+ as when the two types are mixed in transfusion cases? Plasma or antibodies are much smaller then seen under the spectrum line, which computing power is a lacked speed. Having only a max speed of 4.8Ghz or lower, running in a hotter clause facture by flare power. Putting more then one processor together does not solve the problem when come to needed speed? Most microscopes use a light-sorces for an eye of it, a repeating speed is needed to see under the spectrum-line we do not have. E~CFU has one-part-pre-million and now one-part-pre-billion readers, as the needed grows in new Technologies needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdentheGray (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2014

Paragraph three, in the intro:

" in order to accommodate maximum space for haemoglobin. "

Seems hemoglobin is misspelled.

74.197.90.199 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Total cell count relative to RBC count

It has been more recently estimated (2013) that the average human body contains about 37.2 trillion somatic cells (excluding ~100 trillion microbial cells). It appears that on average RBCs comprise 70% (26.3 trillion) of the somatic cell total. This entry says in two places the RBCs number only a quarter of the total human cell count and appears outdated. In my proposed revision here I break apart the claim of the relative percentage to other cell types from the claim of RBC density by sex (I don't think that my source speaks to them).

Existing text: Adult humans have roughly 2–3 × 10¹³ (20–30 trillion) red blood cells at any given time, comprising approximately one quarter of the total human body cell number (women have about 4 to 5 million erythrocytes per microliter (cubic millimeter) of blood and men about 5 to 6 million; people living at high altitudes with low oxygen tension will have more).

Proposed revision: Adult humans have roughly 2–3 × 10¹³ (20–30 trillion) red blood cells at any given time, comprising approximately 70% of the total human body cell number on average. Women have about 4 to 5 million erythrocytes per microliter (cubic millimeter) of blood and men about 5 to 6 million; people living at high altitudes with low oxygen tension will have more.

Wurdeh (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Number of Heme in red blood cells

Section Human erythrocytes contains this sentence: "Each human red blood cell contains approximately 270 million of these hemoglobin biomolecules, each carrying four heme groups". Does somebody have a citation for this? 2*10^13 (#blood cells)*250x10^6*4(Fe)* 55(atomic mass) ≈ 260 grams. This is a lot but an underestimation. gives 2.5 grams of Fe stored in hemoglobin in a human body. B.serengeti (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you forgotten to include Avogadro's number in your equation? Norman21 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears the calculation is a factor 4 off. In my lab we use reference values of 1,7 - 2,1 fmol Hemoglobin per cell. This multiplied by Avogadro results in 1,02 - 1,26 billion Hb molecules per red blood cell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.126.35.36 (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Opportunity for optical microscope images of red blood cells

There are currently very few open-licenced optical images of red blood cells, other than slide smears which encourage misconceptions about how tightly packed RBCs are. Witness this article currently not having any. Nor Rouleaux. So I note that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9va0KPrVExs has a CC BY license, and nice images of RBCs. Some frames captures could make a nice addition to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Red_blood_cells , and to this article. Fyi. 71.192.162.194 (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

"and when oxygen has been released the resulting deoxyhemoglobin is of a dark red burgundy color, appearing bluish through the vessel wall and skin."

This claim is not correct.

Red blood cells are not bluish.. the bluish color of the veins is not related to the deoxygenation state of hemoglobin.

See for example http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2008/04/17/why-are-veins-blue/

192.114.182.2 (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Stumbling on this edit request I have two thoughts. First, the requested edit seems clear: change "the resulting deoxyhemoglobin is of a dark red burgundy color, appearing bluish through the vessel wall and skin." to "the resulting deoxyhemoglobin is of a dark red burgundy color. Though blood can appear bluish when seen through the vessel wall and skin.". I've set answered=no. Second thought: the handling of this request seems to represent a system failure. It's hard enough to get people to mention WP misinformation, without inaction when someone does. Expecting a visitor to both suggest and justify a change, and also monitor a WP editorial process, seems an unfortunate barrier to fixing misinformation. Perhaps if answered= had another possible value, like "clarification_requested", then cases of "there's an issue here, and we haven't dealt with it yet" could be mechanically distinguished from "there's no issue here". 71.192.162.194 (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have made this edit based on the wording you suggested.

The process suggestion to add a "clarification_requested" option to the template sounds interesting, but Template talk:Edit semi-protected would be a better place to discuss it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Red blood cell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Why does it keep saying "davio pawns all nooblets" randomly throughout this page? This MUST be a mistake. FrameLA 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Protein biosynthesis

"As red blood cells contain no nucleus, protein biosynthesis is currently assumed to be absent in these cells, although a recent study indicates the presence of all the necessary biomachinery in the cells to do so.[24]"

I think the "...although a recent study..." caveat should be removed unless a proper reference can be added. The paper referenced here is a microarray study, and only shows that transcripts for some genes involved in protein biosynthesis are present in red blood cells. This is very different to "all the necessary biomachinery" (it's not even all of the transcripts).

--Danielstn (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This still seems to be a necessary edit. The claim "all the necessary biomachinery" is not supported by (or even made) in the cited paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielstn (talk • contribs) 16:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, edited now. Ironically, my comment above requesting the edit was the 10th edit I needed to be able to do it myself Danielstn (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

ehdbafngfuyxuyxzhsjWEFLI|z', — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.19.125 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

ello from the other siiide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.19.125 (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016

Please change "Each circulation takes about 20 seconds." and "Human red blood cells take on average 20 seconds to complete one cycle of circulation.[3][4][34]" to " "Each circulation takes about 1 minute." and "Human red blood cells take on average 1 minute to complete one cycle of circulation."

The assertion that human red blood cells take on average 20 seconds to complete one cycle of circulation is incorrect. The average human blood volume is about 5L and the average cardiac output is about 5L/min, so the average circuit time for a red blood cell is 1 minute. The references cited for the claim of a 20 second average cycle time did not actually back up the claim when I looked up the stated references. The animated GIF showing the circulation of a red blood cell should also be edited to show a time of 1 minute rather than 20 seconds. (Actually, because the circuit down to the foot is one of the longest pathways a RBC can take, the time is probably much longer than 1 minute, since 1 minute is just an average time.)

The references I cited are as follows: The first reference states that the average circulation time for blood is about 1 minute. The second reference states that the average blood volume in an adult is 4 to 6 L, and the third reference states that the average cardiac output in an adult at rest is 5L/min.

User96384 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done--The edits have been incorporated.Thanks! Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 17:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

Change the sentence "Each human red blood cell contains approximately 270 million of these hemoglobin molecules." to "Each human red blood cell contains approximately 270 million of these hemoglobin molecules." Orochikaku (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. GAB^gab 14:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017

I believe "prencess" should be "presence." TheseTwoThings (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Done and thanks for catching that Cannolis (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Count Count

I've heard the body's entire supply of red blood cells recycles every 6min. True? Trekphiler 08:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No. RBCs have a lifetime of 120 days, so it's not possible. Lennert B 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey,

What is the average RBC count for human?

-B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.195.64 (talk) 09:54, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

about 25 trillion--Amaher (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Here and many other locations on the internet say that a red blood "cycle of circulation" is 20 seconds. What does that mean? releasing oxygen atoms? or a circuit around the body from when it leaves the heart to when it comes back again? The 3 references are to books I don't have access to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idji (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Feb. 2013

Fact Check Request: "cycle of circulation" is 20 seconds

Adding to the above question, it seems to me the claim of 20 seconds needs to be both fact checked and clarified. The cardiac output (time for total blood volume to flow through the heart) is around 1 min. That said, the actual time for a single cell to make the cycle would depend on what path it happens to take. For example, a path through the well-perfused brain would take under 20 sec, while travel through the muscle or fat group may take a cell over 2 min (WW Mapleson, Br. J Anaesth 1973; 45: 319-334). The timed animation seems particularly misleading, as it shows a path flowing through a capillary bed in the foot making a full cycle in 20s. This seems very fast for the given anatomy. I would appreciate comment from someone with more knowledge of the subject than I to clarify or correct this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.137.133 (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this is not in the right spot. The article says 25% and 70% of the total cells in human are RBCs. This should probably be corrected. Josh (Australia.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.194.167.101 (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2018

change "70% all cells" to "70% of all cells" 70.48.110.189 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2018

What I want to do is edit this line in the page: "In 1959, by use of X-ray crystallography, Dr. Max Perutz was able to unravel the structure of hemoglobin, the red blood cell protein that carries oxygen."[53] The reference [53] does not lead to an active site, and so I would want to change the current reference to one that leads to an active site. Jordlang12041992 (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jordlang12041992: Do you have a link to the source you'd like to use? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done per my talk page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2019

The sentence

"Approximately a quarter of the cells in the human body are red blood cells."

should be changed to

Approximately a 84% of the cells in the human body are red blood cells.

SOURCE: http://book.bionumbers.org/how-many-cells-are-there-in-an-organism/ 178.75.137.220 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This may be a better source to use, the sources we cite give an estimate for the number of red blood cells but don't mention percentage of total cells. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The source provided in the edit request itself cites an unpublished paper. The paper is now published here and still supports 84%. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done I left the original citations in because, as noted above, they don't actually provide any support for the 25% figure and thus don't contradict this fixed one. A2soup (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request on 2 October 2019

I noticed an incomplete sentence in the Transfusion section which someone else appropriately flagged for clarification. It says, "In addition to the transmission of infection, certain types of transfusion reaction". I assume whoever wrote that meant to continue the idea about cross-matching from the previous sentence. I request that someone change that sentence to, "This determines whether or not the transfusion will result in certain types of transfusion reaction". Then you can link the page on transfusion reaction and just erase the part about infection which sort of popped up out of nowhere.

I would do it myself except I don't have enough edits. Plasteredpegasus (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Plasteredpegasus. Pinging Tom (LT) who added the sentence fragment in this edit. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestion! My bad - I think I had more planned but got too excited editing the latter parts then forgot about it. For later reference Adrian J. Hunter, Wikipedia is a collaborative website and nobody WP:OWN's the content so I'm always happy if the content I uploaded is edited and don't necessarily need to be notified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Have fixed up the sentence, moving it above. Hope this works too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

function of rbc

The introduction says that rbcs transport oxygen, which is certainly true, but it does not mention that they are also specialized to transport carbon dioxide back to the lungs, which is also a very important function. I guess I ought to go find a reference. --AJim (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, here is what I have in mind. The circulatory system is designed to deliver oxygen to cells that are consuming it. These same cells are producing carbon dioxide in proportion to their consumption of oxygen. Hemoglobin takes up carbon dioxide as it gives up oxygen. Therefore it will be taking it up chiefly from cells that are producing it. It then carries this new production back to the lungs, where it gives it up while taking up oxygen. While most carbon dioxide in the body is in the form of bicarbonate ion, the concentration is closely regulated. It seems to me that while hemoglobin does not account for most of the carbon dioxide in circulation, it must account for a large proportion of the flow of carbon dioxide from producing cells to the lungs. --AJim (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

To continue this note. It is a major oversight to ignore the role of rbc in CO2 physiology. The rbc plays an essential role in carbon dioxide transport because rbcs contain the enzyme carbonic anhydrase, which facilitates the interconversion of CO2 (dissolved gas) and bicarbonate ion. The gas diffuses readily from the tissue where it is produced into the rbc, where it is converted to bicarbonate, which does not diffuse back. A small amount of the CO2 also binds directly to the hemoglobin. This process is reversed in the lungs, where CO2 concentration is relatively low, allowing it to diffuse into the alveoli and be expired. In fact, the fastest control system operating on controlling CO2 in the body, and the related bicarbonate concentration and pH, is breathing. See Chloride shift, Haldane effect, and Bohr effect for related discussions. There is also a comprehensive discussion in Guyton, but I do not have it to hand at the moment. --AJim (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Another useful piece of the story: there are about 1 million copies per RBC of the Band 3 protein complex, the ion exchanger that works with carbonic anhydrase to export the generated bicarbonate. --AJim (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have had some free time recently to allow me to find references to the role of the RBC in CO2 transport. I am surprised to see that it has taken me 8 years, and that no one else has tried. There are plenty of mentions of this essential function in other articles, just not here. This seems unfortunate to me, because this article seems pitched to beginners, who might most benefit from the understanding. I will be adding a section about the role of RBC in CO2 transport soon, unless someone wants to discuss it here first. AJim (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I just added a new section on RBC function, The role of RBC in CO2 transport. Please have a look. AJim (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Grammar error

Grammar error under Function: "as" not "and". I can't correct it as it's protected, so can someone? It's not a big issue though, just wanted to point it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:9e3b:cd00:4596:5dc2:1c75:c260 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Sorted that for you. Rcsprinter123 (pitch) 21:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

Chapapa (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

In function section, we should add the role of red blood cells in the systemic metabolism of signaling lipids, innate and adaptive immunity, and systemic immunometabolism,

 Not done. I don't believe these are valid sources as they are paid (source 1 is $95), and source 2 is no longer accessible. MBihun (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

July 2023

Wrong unit "...surface area of about 136 μm²..." Should be 136 μmm² 90.186.43.98 (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

Change acronym to abbreviation 2600:1006:A117:DC0B:2C26:3CB:49A9:C70B (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Under the identifiers section, change the heading “acronym” to “abbreviation”. An acronym is an abbreviation that spells a word, like LASER. 2600:1006:A117:DC0B:EC46:2CFD:305C:68DF (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

70% or 84%?

Introduction: "Approximately 84% of the cells in the human body are 20–30 trillion red blood cells."

"Human" section: "Adult humans have roughly 20–30 trillion red blood cells at any given time, constituting approximately 70% of all cells by number."

The most recent article cited is fn. 6, from 2016, the source for the number in the intro. It has me confused, in that it gives the 70% figure from a previous article (fn. 20, from 2013, paywalled, cited in the "Human" section) and shortly thereafter goes on to assume 84% without any explanation I can find.

Could someone with actual subject knowledge in the matter take a look at these and figure out what's being said? Roger.Lustig (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Response to the above.

There are 3 main areas that create confusion and spread on this issue; first, the number of ml of blood in the defined "adult" uses different values depending on the gender and the data source for each gender; second, the number of RBCs per mm3 (or per uL) of blood in the defined adult has a broad range across both male and female genders; and third total number of cells in the human body has a broad range across male and female genders and sources. The spread decreases considerably if the data is limited to a defined “reference male” with defined weight, height, and age bracket.

There are currently only four references that address both RBC count and total body cell count together for a “reference male”; the first three (Freitas, 1999;[1] Bianconi, 2013;[2] and Sender,2016;[3] address a partial set of human tissues, a partial set of cell types in each tissue, and a partial set of RBC repositories within the body. The fourth study, Hatton / Shander, 2023,[4] addresses 65 organ and tissue systems, 400 cell types and the three major RBC repositories in the body (the vascular system, spleen, and red bone marrow). All four studies address a 70kg “reference male” but use different parameters for the “reference male” height, surface area, and age; and in some cases, different organ and tissue mass values.

Red Blood Cell Count differences:

Of the four detailed cell-count studies (Freitas, 1999; Bianconi, 2013; Sender, 2016; and Hatton / Shander, 2023), the reported vascular blood volume for a 70kg reference male in each is 5.4L, ~5.2L, 4.943L, and 5.2L respectively. The reported male RBCs/uL (or RBCs/mm3) in each is 5.2e6, ~5.0e6, 5.033e6, and 5.0e6 respectively. The reported RBC count in each study is 28.5e12, 26.3e12, 24.88e12, and 27.3e12. The Freitas and the Hatton / Shander counts include RBCs sequestered in the spleen; the Hatton / Shander-dataset also includes immature RBCs (reticulocytes) in the bone marrow and vascular system. (Ignoring the spleen and bone marrow components, Freitas and Hatton / Shander counts are at 28.1e12 and 26.0e12 RBCs respectively for a direct comparison to vascular-only counts from Bianconi at 26.3e12 and Sender at 24.88e12). The vascular-only RBC counts are derived from the vascular-blood-volume x RBCs/unit-volume data.

The Hatton/Shander 5.2L blood volume for their 26.0e12 vascular RBC count is based on a reference male 70 kg in mass (ICRP 23)[5], 176 cm in height (ICRP 70,[6] and 89,[7]), and 20 to 50 years old (ICRP-89). ICRP 89 uses the regression equation in the Oak Ridge National Labs study, Reference values for total blood volume and cardiac output in humans, by Williams, 1994.[8] Williams provides blood volume regression equations derived from 18 original studies comprising 1160 subjects. The adult male regression equations (page 6, bottom) for a 70kg adult male, 176cm tall, yields a total blood volume of 5.196L rounded to 5.2L. The Hatton/Shander estimate uses an RBC count of 5.0e6/mm3. Lab-Corp. (one of the two largest blood labs in the United States) provides a male RBC range of 4.14e6/uL to 5.80e6/uL, yielding a 4.97e6/uL midpoint. Mayo Clinic reports a normal male range of 4.65e6/mm3 to 5.35e6/mm3,[9] yielding a 5.00e6/uL RBC midpoint. Alberts (Molecular Biology of the Cell, 5th Edition, 2007) reports a value of 5.0e6/mm3. ICRP publications use 5.4e6/mm3 for the reference male (ICRP-23 & 89), slightly above the 5.2e6mm3 used in the above Freitas Nanomedicine count.

Total Body Cell Count differences:

One textbook and three studies and have reported human cell counts based on segmented cell estimates in the body; Freitas, 1999, Nanomedicine, Vol. I: Basic Capabilities, 1st ed. Landes Bioscience; 1999; Bianconi, 2013, An estimation of the number of cells in the human body; Sender, 2016, Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body; Hatton and Shander, 2023, The human cell count and size distribution.

The Freitas total body cell count estimate of ~35e12 is tied to 31.5 blood cells (RBCs, WBCs, & platelets), and to 3.5e12 tissue cells based on the average cell size from multiple tissue cells divided into the body's estimated ~28.8kg of tissue-cell-mass. The Freitas RBCs alone are 28.5e12. The Freitas RBC:Total-cell ratio is 28.5e12 to 35e12 or 81%.

The Bianconi estimate at ~37e12 is identified as a higher level survey tied to partial cell counts in a partial list of 20 tissues addressing ~50 cell types. Bianconi clearly indicates that most of the tissue cell data is incomplete. Bianconi reports a 28.7e12 blood cells (RBCs, WBCs, and platelets, in the vascular system and in the tissues) and 8.3e12 tissue cells. The RBCs alone are 26.3e12. The Bianconi RBC:Total-cell ratio is 26.3 to 37e12 or 71%.

The Sender estimate of 29.6e12 total cells (nominally 30e12) is based on an analysis and revision of the four largest cell counts in the Bianconi study; it reduced the vascular endothelial cells from 2.54e12 to 0.6e12; the brain glial cells from 3e12 to 0.1e12; the skin fibroblasts from 1.85e12 to 0.185e12; and it reduced the RBCs from 26.3e12 to 24.877e12. These four reductions reduce Bianconi’s high level survey count by ~7.9e12 cells from 37e12 to 29.1e12. Sender then adds 5e11 total body lymphocytes bringing the total revised Bianconi cell count to 29.6e12. The Sender RBC:Total-cell ratio is 24.88 to 29.6e12 or 84%.

The Hatton / Shander estimate of 36.5e12 total cells provides detail cell counts and cell size for 65 human organ and tissue systems addressing ~400 cell types across the human body. Cell counts and cell sizes are supported by ~1500 references. Hatton / Shander report 33.05e12 blood cells (RBCs, WBCs, and platelets, in the vascular system and in the tissues) and 3.45e12 tissue cells. The RBCs alone are 27.3e12. The Hatton / Shander RBC:Total-cell ratio which includes spleen and bone marrow RBCs is 27.3e12 to 36.5e12 or 75%.

The primary areas of cell count differences between the Hatton / Shander data and Sender’s revised Bianconi data is detailed in the of the Hatton / Shander study Supporting Information download, Appendix01, section “Differences with prior whole-body cell counts”. Using the 26.0e12 vascular-only-RBC count in Hatton / Shander in order to compare it to the “vascular-only-RBCs to total-body-cell-count” ratio in the Bianconi and Sender studies, the Hatton / Shander value is 26e12 / 36.5e12 or 71% compared to Bianconi at 71% and Sender at 84%. Jashander (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2023

Change "Approximately 84% of the cells in the human body are 20–30 trillion red blood cells." To "Approximately 75% of the cells in the human body are 20–30 trillion red blood cells." Replace reference 6 with https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2303077120

Change "Adult humans have roughly 20–30 trillion red blood cells at any given time, constituting approximately 70% of all cells by number."

To "Adult humans have roughly 20–30 trillion red blood cells at any given time, constituting approximately 75% of all cells by number." Replace reference 20 with https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2303077120

See detailed discussion and support information in the Red Blood Cell Talk section, entered 10/20/2023 by JAShander

Change Jashander (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Philroc (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Philroc,

What would consensus look like in this case? Are either of the authors of the Bianconi, 2013, paper or of the Sender, 2016, paper out of consensus with the proposed edits? If someone else is contending it, what are their thoughts so that I may respond beyond the already rather extensive response.

There are only three peer reviewed published papers on this topic and the first two use mostly the same data that the original authors (Bianconi, et.al.) clearly state is incomplete. Bianconi's Figure 2 identifies their partial list of human tissues (20) with more than half those tissues containing only a partial list of human cell types as identified by the asterisks in the Fig. 2 caption; "Figure 2. Human total cell number comparison. *Total cell number calculated for the whole organ; **total cell number calculated only for some cell types of the organ."

Their cell count list consists of 50 defined cell types for those complete and partially complete organ systems and an additional seven undefined cell groups in those same tissues. They conclude their paper with:

"We believe that our initial reference table for cell number in the human body, when completed, possibly with a common effort, will have many useful applications in all biomedical fields needing quantitative measurement in order to build structural, functional, pathological and comparative models of human organs and of the whole body."

Dr. Strippoli, the designated contact author for the 2013 Bianconi paper reviewed the Hatton, Shander, et.al. paper in October of last year and stated "In general, let me say that the work is a masterpiece, it is astonishing the amount of data of inestimable value it provides and the biological insights it offers, ... " A complete copy of his e-mail is listed below.

Our paper moves the Bianconi, 2013, paper and the Sender, 2016, paper from 50 cell types in 20 partially complete organ and tissue systems to 400 cell types in 65 organ and tissue systems spread over 1200 cell groupings at ~99% completion.

This places the Hatton paper well beyond the counts of Bianconi addressing 50 defined cell types and the Sender 2016 revision of the four largest cell counts in that partial list of 50 cell types.

E-Mail from Bianconi, 2013, designated corresponding author:

Subject: Re: Post Scriptum Re: Human cell size

From: "Pierluigi Strippoli" (e-mail hidden JAS)

Date: Fri, October 28, 2022 9:23 pmo:

To: "Ian H" (e-mail hidden JAS)

Cc: "Jeff Shander" (e-mail hidden JAS)

Priority: Normal

Create Filter:

Automatically | From | To | Subject

Options:

View Full Header | View Printable Version | Download this as a file | View Message Details | View as plain text

Dear Ian,

I'm sorry for the delay; it has been a complex time.

I'm now enclosing a folder containing my comments (.docx file) and an article (.pdf file).

In general, let me say that the work is a masterpiece, it is astonishing the amount of data of inestimable value it provides

and the biological insights it offers, still it is clear that this is only the beginning of a long journey

through the data that will constitute a fundamental framework for many quantitative studies in human biology to come.

Thank you very much for the possibility to read the manuscript. I hope that it will be published soon!

Congratulations to all the Authors, with my best wishes to you and Jeff,

Pierluigi Jashander (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)