Macro- and Microdifferences in Blood Group Antigens and Antibodies

Abstract

Evidence is presented that the graded differences observed among the subgroups of A in man and nonhuman primates, and in newborn as compared with adults is due, not to differences in the nature of the determinant group nor to differences in the number of antigenic sites on the red cell envelope, but to differences in the length of the chain subjacent to the determinant group.

Blood Groups of the Mantled Howler Monkey (Alouatta palliata)

“…The specificity of the eluates was further confirmed by absorption ex periments. This kind of B-like agglutinogen is not limited to New World monkeys but occurs also in lower mammals such as rabbits and guinea pigs, and many species of microorganisms [19], and is comparable to the Forssman antigen, the distribution of which cuts across taxonomic lines in nature.…”

Serologic Languages and the A₁-A₂ Blood Groups

“…In conclusion, the stimulating articles by Wiener and Socha [5,6] make it obvious that the 'deep structure' of serology (includ ing the structure of authentic serologic sys tems and the conceptual framework) is in deed a most complex and fascinating field of study [1,2], I do, however, challenge Wiener and Socha [5,6] as well as contem porary serology with regard to statements about serologic 'facts' and claim to have shown unambiguously with this article that most of these so-called 'facts' are informa tion about 'thing-images' produced by map ping experimental observables or 'thingproperties' onto the extremely prejudicing and restricted contemporary (simple-com plex) serologic language or theory.…”

“…As illustrated in table I, state ments about the A,-A2 system can be sepa rated in statements about experimental facts These antibodies are labelled anti-A and anti-A i [4,5] At samples have A and A, [4,5] A2 samples have only A [4,5] A At samples show a better 'fit' with anti-A than A2 [6] B At samples have a larger 'number of antigen sites' [4] The relations between 'determinant groups' and 'specificities' is a 'microdifference' [5] or EF and statements about what I call theory facts or TF. Some TF (e.g.…”

“…'absorption facts' in S1-S3) are shifted into a set of TF (e.g. 'symbol facts' in S1-S3) which for example specify that A, samples have two 'symbols' [1,2], 'specificities' [1,5], 'factors' [5] or 'antigens' [4]Other TF (e.g. in S4) might be ad hoc theories more or less subtly disguised as 'facts' but could also be pure (language-and theory-independent) EF, depending on the assumptions and techniques used in reveal ing e.g.…”

“…The 12 maps in table II vigorously chal lenge some nearly 50-year-old 'facts' about the A,-A2 system [4][5][6] by showing that these alleged 'facts' represent information about 'thing-images' and not information about 'ihmg-properties'. The totality of the 12 maps in table II exhaust the information which SL-2 is able to supply about such 'tiling-images'.…”