Talk:Rh blood group system

message: I can attempt to add some information about this phenomenon, but it should probably be addressed by an MD or an MT/SBB (or equivalent).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.148.0.27 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Weak D"

message: Should the rhesus factor page be merged with blood type?  Snowman 17:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion continued at Talk:Blood type#Merge with Rhesus factor. --David Iberri (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I anticipate that the Rhesus factor page will be superceded by the Rhesus blood group system page.  The Rhesus factor page becoming a redirect. Snowman 12:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: All above is superceeded as Rhesus factor page is now a redirect to Rhesus blood group system page. Snowman 12:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have redirected the relevant talk page, as well. I like the new page, good work. InvictaHOG 12:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: It seems like the entry could be reorganized a bit for clarity, in particular the significance/preference of notation forms seemes to be featured too prominently. --Belg4mit 00:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that you can make some improvements to the article page. Snowman 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: Would appreciate it if there was a comment on how to test an individual's Rh factor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.228.241.114 (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blood for transfusion is routinely tested for D by the same sorts of reagents that are used to test for the ABO system.  The test is simple; mix cells from the unknown (patient or donor) in a test tube with known anti-D and look for a reaction.  The same process works with almost any other antigen, though some require incubations to show properly.Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  testing for Rh factor 

message: Anybody know anything about R, and how it relates to Rh?  I know from a fictional reference and some real online article titles that it is rare and/or extinct and found in Native Americans, but that's it. —MJBurrage(T•C) 03:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rz ?

message: I don't know why is there so much talk about merging the article, and organizational problem; I found the article quite alright, in fact, good.
Any way, I would like to draw attention to the following paragraph:
"The Wiener system used the Rh-Hr nomenclature. This system theorized that there was one gene at a single locus on each chromosome of the pair which controls production of multiple antigens. This concept postulated that a gene R gives rise to the “blood factors” Rho, rh’, and hr” and the gene r will produce hr’ and hr”."
Are the "gene" in the above paragraph supposed to be "alleles", in which case, the whole thing would make better sense? I was, in fact, by myself going to change that to allele, but thought, it's better if I allow others to approve of my contention.
Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I found the article alright

message: This is a common misconception See for example Geoff Daniels at http://books.google.com/books?id=EIgT4d86l18C&lpg=PA33&ots=9GswZZQK_n&dq=rh%20not%20rhesus&pg=PA33  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.189.24 (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's completely right, I started correcting the Blood type article and now also this one. Feel free also to edit. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Rh not Rhesus! 

message: I can see the section 'Rhesus Factor' attempts to provide a simple explanation however it is still heavily laden with medical and bio science terms. Could someone add a less technical summary so that those reading the article without a degree in genetics or medicine can still gain a basic understanding the term. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laymans terms 

message: Since the blood group system is called Rh and not Rhesus (it was a scientific error that lead to this wrong name in the first case), the present article should be renamed to Rh blood group system. Unfortunately, I do not know how to do this myself. The misnomer Rhesus blood group system should redirect to the new name. Thank you. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I found the way how to rename an article in WIKI:HELP. I moved the article as mentioned there to the new name. Also the redirect was automatically created. Unfortunately, I did not realize that there was a previous redirect from Rh blood group system to Rhesus blood group system which created a double redirect. I would be grateful, if a more experienced editor could delete the old redirect from Rh blood group system to Rhesus blood group system. There should be just one redirect from Rhesus blood group system to Rh blood group system. Thanks a lot. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a temporary fix, I renamed the redirect in Rh blood group system to Rh blood group system itself, which now works for both Rh and Rhesus. However, an admin may solve it more cleanly by deleting the Rh blood group system redirect page without deleting the current page with the actual content. rfd submitted. Thanks. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be renamed 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect :Rh blood group system. Since you had some involvement with the Rh blood group system redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).  Firefly's luciferase (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rh blood group system listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: There is a lot of confusion on the terminology. Please consider in edits:
:Gene RHD → protein RhD → antigen D (number 1 of the Rh system; and variants)
:Gene RHCE → protein RhCE → antigens C, c, E, e and other variants
:Thank you. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: This section in the article just bases on the 2 references cited in the section above this one. Please add secondary sources to confirm this original research for the encyclopedia. Thanks. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section [[Rhesus_blood_group_system#Origin_of_RHD_polymorphism|Origin of RHD polymorphism]] 

message: As several people have mentioned above, the previous table listing phenotypes and genotypes was missing a lot of data. I've completed the list with every possible combination of haplotypes (excluding variants like CW etc.)
I noticed the table underneath it actually only references people in Turkey, so I've edited that in to make it clear how limited an area the data relates to.
Ideally I feel that the two tables should be combined, with a worldwide distribution rather than a single country. I know that there are differing racial distributions (for example the R0 haplotype is much more common in people of African origin than those of Caucasian origin) so it might be worth adding several columns to the end, one for each statistically relevant geographical variation. With that in place, I don't see a need to have a second table showing the differences between donated and required phenotypes in a single country. Magma (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found a few references to Rh genotype frequencies but the only extensive one covering all genotypes was in a 1948 paper that extrapolated the expected frequencies from the known haplotype frequencies in the UK. This obviously isn't representative of worldwide distributions, but given the variation in frequency worldwide  I think this is the best that can be achieved. One study I read from India showed marked differences in Rh genotype distributions from region to region within the one country, so any international comparison in the table would quickly become cumbersome. A comprehensive worldwide study would only be of academic interest with no practical application and I doubt it would be performed. Magma (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rh phenotypes and genotypes 

message: Sections of this article are copied verbatim from http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/rh-factor/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.200.30 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like it. It was , almost identical copy of source material. Then  to remove 'you' a week later. I'll go ahead and remove it from the lead. (If there is more copied text, please note it here or go ahead and remove it.) If someone would like to write original/paraphrased text to replace the copied text, please go ahead. Thanks, 15zulu (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: The article fails to explain any connection between the c and C or e and E antigens.  The table does not list any c−/C− phenotypes, but doesn't explain why they're not possible.
Here's what I think is going on:
: Each RHCE gene encodes one of two C antigen variants, c or C..  Since diploid cells have two RHCE genes (one from each parent), the combination may be cc, CC or cC/Cc, resulting in phenotypes of c+C−, c−C+, or c+C+, respectively.  c−C− is not possible.
: The same applies to the e/E antigen which also has three possible phenotypes.
: The D antigen does not have a d variant, rather "d" indicates the complete absence of D.  People with dd genotypes are D−, while dD, Dd, or DD result in D+.
: There are 8 possible gene variants from each parent, resulting in 36 possible genotypes.  (Less than 8×8=64 because the maternal and paternal genes are indistinguishable.)  This results in 3×2×3 = 18 possible phenotypes.
If this is true, the article really needs to say so somewhere. 23.83.37.241 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing as heck... is this an accurate summary? 

message: The article now reads, "It is the second most important blood group system, after the ABO blood group system." Important to what? I believe it means something like "important in medical practice" but thought I'd see what others think.
IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important in what way? 

message: I have to get a certain shot a couple months before delivery. 2601:5C1:300:D560:788B:7DF9:6312:7B2F (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have Rh neg 

message: Girl voice 2409:4043:197:4907:28B3:927F:96BD:B822 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kedens2018 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Molecular Genetics

message: "According to a comprehensive study, the worldwide frequency of Rh-positive and Rh-negative blood types is approximately 00% and 00%, respectively." 2600:1700:9AA2:630:354C:35A7:38E8:F246 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing percentages