All humans can be grouped into ABO and Rh+/- blood groups (at a minimum). Is the

Question

All humans can be grouped into ABO and Rh+/- blood groups (at a minimum). Is there any advantage at all to one group or the other? This article hints that there are some pathogens that display a preference to a blood type (for example Schistosomiasis apparently being more common in people with blood group A, although it could be that more people have type A in the areas that the parasite inhabits). Is there any literature out there to support or refute this claim or provide similar examples?

Beyond ABO-Rh, is there any advantage or disadvantage (excluding the obvious difficulties in finding a donor after accident/trauma) in the 30 other blood type suffixes recognised by the International Society of Blood Transfusions (ISBT)?

I'd imagine not (or at least very minimal) but it would be interesting to find out if anyone knows more.

Explanation / Answer

The less antigens a woman (or in fact a female of any species close enough to humans for this phenomenon) has, the higher are the risks of triggering an immune reaction during her pregnancy, if the child has those antigens.
The Rhesus incompatibility is probably the most common case of this problem.

One could thus assume that in populations that are genetically diverse in respect to blood groups, absence of antigens has negative effects on reproduction (unless countered by medicine).

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.