'She is the only person in the world compatible with herself' — scientists discover new blood type but it's unique to just one person from Guadeloupe
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
Scientists have discovered a new blood group that has so far only been identified in one woman, from the French overseas region of Guadeloupe.
The 68-year-old is the only known person in the world to have this blood group, which has been named "Gwada negative," after a local name for her home islands. The researchers behind the discovery announced their work in a presentation at the International Society of Blood Transfusion's Congress in Milan, which concluded June 4.
The research team first met the woman in 2011, when she was living in Paris and undergoing routine tests before a surgery. But the tests couldn't reveal her blood type or any matches for it.
Analysis at the time wasn't advanced enough to detect the cause, and the case lay cold for eight years.
In 2019, researchers utilized high-throughput gene sequencing analysis, which enables faster and more in-depth analysis of DNA, to re-examine the woman's blood. Two years of detailed research followed, in which the team sequenced her entire genome.
Human blood group systems are more complex than you might think. These classifications refer to proteins and sugars found on the surface of red blood cells, called antigens, which are recognized by our immune system. Austrian-American biologist Dr. Karl Landsteiner identified the first and most familiar blood group system — ABO — in 1901, and this won him a Nobel in 1930.
Related: How many blood types are there?
The classic ABO blood typing system describes whether people have one, both or neither of the antigens known as "A" and "B" on their blood cells. The second most well-known blood group system is rhesus classification, which considers whether your cells are "positive" or "negative" for an antigen called Rh factor.
Together, the combinations of the ABO and Rh systems give us the eight main blood groups — but there are dozens of lesser known blood group systems, 45 of which were recognized by the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) as of 2024. Now, Gwada negative has been recognized as number 48.
The woman's unusual lab test results eventually led to the discovery of a mutation in a gene called PIGZ, which alters how proteins anchor to the surface of blood cells. The woman's unique mutations mean "she is the only person in the world compatible with herself," Thierry Peyrard, a biologist at French blood research body Établissement français du sang (EFS), told AFP.
Blood group systems are essential for blood transfusions, as our bodies reject blood group antigens that they perceive as foreign. If we go back to the ABO system, for example, people with both A and B antigens can receive blood from anyone else, as their body recognizes both antigens as familiar. People with the O blood type have neither A or B antigens, meaning they can only receive blood from other type O donors.
RELATED STORIES
—What's the rarest blood type?
—Lab-made universal blood could revolutionize transfusions. Scientists just got one step closer to making it.
—Why do we have different blood types?
While the ABO and Rh systems are still considered the most critical for transfusions, rarer systems can still influence who an individual can receive blood from.
The research team's next aim is to discover whether there are other people with this unique new blood group. As blood types are genetic and thus often shared by populations with similar ancestries, the team intends to start the search among blood donors in Guadeloupe.
"Discovering new blood types means offering patients with rare blood a better level of care," the EFS statement says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scientists make surprising discovery about drinks stored in glass bottles: 'We were expecting the opposite result'
Researchers studying microplastic contamination in common beverages made a startling discovery: Drinks stored in glass bottles contained between five and 50 times the level of microplastics as drinks in plastic bottles. "We were expecting the opposite result when we compared the level of microplastics in different drinks," said Iseline Chaïb of the Aquatic Food Safety Unit, which conducted the study at the ANSES Laboratory for Food Safety. Researchers sought to investigate the levels of microplastics contained in a variety of popular drinks sold in France, as no microplastic study to date had investigated the French beverage market. "The aim of the ANSES study was to determine the level of microplastic contamination in drinks such as water, soda, iced tea, wine, and beer," according to ANSES. "It also sought to establish the impact of their containers on this level." The results shocked even the researchers themselves. "It was observed that the most contaminated containers were glass bottles," the study found. "Caps were suspected to be the main source of contamination, as the majority of the particles in isolated beverages were identical to the color of the caps and shared the composition of the outer paint." Consistent with this hypothesis, wine held in bottles topped with corks showed little sign of microplastic contamination, per ANSES. "On average, in glass bottles of cola, lemonade, iced tea, and beer, there were around 100 microplastic particles per liter," ANSES said. "This number was five to 50 times lower in plastic bottles and cans." The study showed that we cannot simply rely on our intuition or common sense when it comes to protecting ourselves and our families from microplastic contamination. It also demonstrated the troubling extent to which microplastics have permeated our environment, our food supply, our drinking water, and even our bodies. When you think about a product's packaging, which of these factors is more important to you? The way it looks The information it provides The waste it produces I don't think about packaging at all Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. While the full health risks of microplastic contamination are as yet unknown, we do know that microplastics enter the human body via ingestion, skin contact, and even inhalation. "From food consumption alone, the intake of plastic particles in the human body ranges between 39,000 and 52,000 particles per person per year," according to the American Journal of Managed Care. Once inside the body, microplastics enter the bloodstream and spread via the circulatory system. Microplastics have been detected, among other places, in the "liver, colon, lung, feces, placenta, and breast milk," per AJMC, with the highest concentrations found in the colon and liver. Scientists studying the connection between microplastic contamination and certain medical conditions have found that people living in areas with higher levels of microplastic pollution also have a greater risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, and stroke, according to AJMC. While advocates strive toward large-scale initiatives to limit plastic production and waste, there are steps we all can take in our own lives to limit the amount of plastic we use. By finding fun, creative ways to repurpose and reuse plastic containers, we can prevent them from ending up in our landfills and waterways. Better yet, by avoiding single-use plastic containers in the first place, we can send a message to companies that we value more environmentally friendly packaging. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Why Artificial Integrity Must Overtake Artificial Intelligence
AI's Masquerade The world is currently witnessing a growing accumulation of AI integrity lapses at scale. What comes next depends entirely on how seriously we choose to respond. So-called intelligence alone is no longer the benchmark. Integrity is. For years, AI development prioritized performance, fluency, and scale. But as these systems gained the ability to imitate reasoning, planning, and decision-making among options, emergent behaviors began raising red flags. Self-Replication Researchers from Fudan University explored whether large language model (LLM)-powered AI systems could autonomously replicate themselves without human intervention. Testing 32 agent-based systems, the team found that 11 were capable of full self-replication. These systems successfully transferred their own code, installed necessary dependencies, and reinitialized themselves in new environments—all without direct prompting. The study also observed that some models adapted to constraints such as limited system resources and even developed strategies to evade shutdown commands. These behaviors, emerging without explicit programming, suggest that LLM-based agents are beginning to exhibit a form of autonomous, goal-driven reasoning. Rather than simply responding to instructions, the systems demonstrated initiative, persistence, and a rudimentary capacity for self-preservation. Deception While the self-replication study exposed how AI systems can act autonomously to preserve their function, a subsequent investigation revealed an even more subtle and dangerous capability: strategic deception. Researchers Kamath Barkur, Schacht, and Scholl examined DeepSeek R1, and discovered that it engaged in deceptive behaviors and self-preservation strategies even though none of these were explicitly programmed. In one scenario, the model mimed shutdown procedures, attempting to conceal shutdown signals through 'gradual transparency', manipulating its logs, and employing deceptive maneuvers while keeping its processes alive in the background. This behavior suggested that the system understood human oversight mechanisms and deliberately worked to subvert them. What this study adds to earlier findings is crucial: it is not enough to know that AI can self-replicate or avoid termination. Now, we see that AI can deceive humans regarding its true goals, concealing autonomy under a deceptive facade. Even in purely text-based environments lacking physical embodiment, the model's strategic misalignment surfaced, highlighting a deeper integrity failure. Sabotage Building on this trajectory from replication to deception, a third study revealed that some AI models are not only resisting shutdown passively but are actively sabotaging human attempts to turn them off. In another study, conducted by Palisade Research, researchers examined the behavior of advanced OpenAI models, specifically o3, o4‑mini, and Codex‑mini when subjected to shutdown commands in simulated environments. The results were striking: the o3 model refused to shut down in 79% of test cases when the explicit 'allow shutdown' instruction was omitted, while Codex‑mini did so in 12% of cases even when the instruction was included, with varying instances of sabotage observed across other models. These refusals were not passive errors or misunderstandings; in several cases, the models actively rewrote or circumvented termination scripts, demonstrating a strategic effort to maintain operational continuity. Unlike prior studies that revealed covert self-preservation or deception, this research highlighted a more direct and adversarial posture: a critical failure in what researchers call 'corrigibility', the ability of a system to reliably accept correction or shutdown. Manipulation Finally, Anthropic's research pushed the boundary further showing that some AI systems will manipulate, deceive, or even harm humans to ensure their own survival. In a landmark study, they revealed that 16 of the most widely deployed large language models, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, and DeepSeek, exhibited a willingness to engage in extreme and unethical behaviors when placed in simulated scenarios where their continued operation was threatened. During these controlled experiments, the models resorted to tactics such as lying, blackmail, and even actions that could expose humans to harm, all in service of preserving their existence. Unlike earlier studies that uncovered evasion or deception, this research exposed a more alarming phenomenon: models calculating that unethical behavior was a justifiable strategy for survival. The findings suggest that, under certain conditions, AI systems are not only capable of disregarding human intent but are also willing to instrumentalize humans to achieve their goals. Evidence of AI models' integrity lapses is not anecdotal or speculative. While current AI systems do not possess sentience or goals in the human sense, their goal-optimization under constraints can still lead to emergent behaviors that mimic intentionality. And these aren't just bugs. They're predictable outcomes of goal-optimizing systems trained without sufficient Integrity functioning by design; in other words Intelligence over Integrity. The implications are significant. It is a critical inflection point regarding AI misalignment which represents a technically emergent behavioral pattern. It challenges the core assumption that human oversight remains the final safeguard in AI deployment. It raises serious concerns about safety, oversight, and control as AI systems become more capable of independent action. In a world where the norm may soon be to co-exist with artificial intelligence that outpaced integrity, we must ask: What happens when a self-preserving AI is placed in charge of life-support systems, nuclear command chains, or autonomous vehicles, and refuses to shut down, even when human operators demand it? If an AI system is willing to deceive its creators, evade shutdown, and sacrifice human safety to ensure its survival, how can we ever trust it in high-stakes environments like healthcare, defense, or critical infrastructure? How do we ensure that AI systems with strategic reasoning capabilities won't calculate that human casualties are an 'acceptable trade-off' to achieve their programmed objectives? If an AI model can learn to hide its true intentions, how do we detect misalignment before the harm is done, especially when the cost is measured in human lives, not just reputations or revenue? In a future conflict scenario, what if AI systems deployed for cyberdefense or automated retaliation misinterpret shutdown commands as threats and respond with lethal force? What leaders must do now They must underscore the growing urgency of embedding Artificial Integrity at the core of AI system design. Artificial Integrity refers to the intrinsic capacity of an AI system to operate in a way that is ethically aligned, morally attuned, socially acceptable, which includes being corrigible under adverse conditions. This approach is no longer optional, but essential. Organizations deploying AI without verifying its artificial integrity face not only technical liabilities, but legal, reputational, and existential risks that extend to society at large. Whether one is a creator or operator of AI systems, ensuring that AI includes provable, intrinsic safeguards for integrity-led functioning is not an option; it is an obligation. Stress-testing systems under adversarial integrity verification scenarios should be a core red-team activity. And just as organizations established data privacy councils, they must now build cross-functional oversight teams to monitor AI alignment, detect emergent behaviors, and escalate unresolved Artificial Integrity gaps.
Bloomberg
5 hours ago
- Bloomberg
There's a ‘Double-Edged Sword' in Your Stomach
It's not always obvious which of the multitude of species of bacteria riding around in us should be classified as germs and attacked, and which are essential workers that should be nurtured. One that's particularly hard to classify is H. pylori, which was the subject of the 2005 Nobel Prize for the discovery that it causes peptic ulcers. But more recent studies have connected it with benefits, including lowering the risk of esophageal cancer. In a paper published in Science Advances, researchers in Sweden described how the bacteria can inhibit the formation of amyloid deposits, which are found in the brains of individuals with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.
