4.2 Article

Routine storage of red blood cell (RBC) units in additive solution-3: a comprehensive investigation of the RBC metabolome

Journal

TRANSFUSION
Volume 55, Issue 6, Pages 1155-1168

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/trf.12975

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health from NIGMS, NIH [P50GM049222, T32GM008315, P50 GM049222]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundIn most countries, red blood cells (RBCs) can be stored up to 42 days before transfusion. However, observational studies have suggested that storage duration might be associated with increased morbidity and mortality. While clinical trials are under way, impaired metabolism has been documented in RBCs stored in several additive solutions (ASs). Here we hypothesize that, despite reported beneficial effects, storage in AS-3 results in metabolic impairment weeks before the end of the unit shelf life. Study Design and MethodsFive leukofiltered AS-3 RBC units were sampled before, during, and after leukoreduction Day0 and then assayed on a weekly basis from storage Day1 through Day42. RBC extracts and supernatants were assayed using a ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography separations coupled online with mass spectrometry detection metabolomics workflow. ResultsBlood bank storage significantly affects metabolic profiles of RBC extracts and supernatants by Day14. In addition to energy and redox metabolism impairment, intra- and extracellular accumulation of amino acids was observed proportionally to storage duration, suggesting a role for glutamine and serine metabolism in aging RBCs. ConclusionMetabolomics of stored RBCs could drive the introduction of alternative ASs to address some of the storage-dependent metabolic lesions herein reported, thereby increasing the quality of transfused RBCs and minimizing potential links to patient morbidity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available