Hide table of contents

Summary: I’m a cryobiologist working for a small startup in the UK. I’ve developed a cryoprotectant formulation that allows frozen packed red blood cell units to be prepared much faster than they currently can, which could save lives in the case of natural disasters and emergency situations in remote locations. It’s also a step toward improved blood banking systems which have the potential to save many more lives. I’m hoping to find funding or hear from anyone who could help with this.

(Note: For brevity, I will henceforth refer to packed red blood cell units as “blood”, although these units don't have the plasma, platelets and white blood cells that make up whole blood. Red blood cell transfusions are commonly used in emergency casualty care and have all the oxygen carrying capacity of whole blood.)

Frozen blood takes a long time to prepare for transfusion 

Imagine that your city has been hit by an earthquake, some rubble fell on you and now you’re losing blood from an internal haemorrhage. You need blood, but the city’s blood bank has been depleted by the sudden unexpected surge in demand. In these cases, a hospital might have a frozen supply as backup. But blood frozen with traditional methods (20-40% glycerol) takes over an hour to prepare (72-95 minutes). Most of this preparation time is spent slowly washing the glycerol out of the cells because red blood cells burst if the glycerol is removed too fast. You could die in the time it takes to prepare the blood for transfusion. 

I’ve developed a cryoprotectant formulation that can be washed out much faster, cutting the total preparation time down to 43 minutes. With further research, I expect that we could reduce this to 30 minutes or less, perhaps as little as 15 minutes. This is possible because I have replaced glycerol with a formulation based on DMSO and an advanced novel cryoprotective polymer, which are much faster to wash out from the blood.[1][2]

The need for readily accessible frozen blood 

Fresh (non-frozen) human blood units can only be stored for a maximum of 30-42 days before they must be discarded, depending on local regulations.[3] 35,931 units of blood are wasted each year in the UK alone, with 68% of the wastage being caused by expiry.[4] But the more important issue here is blood shortages, which disproportionately affect low-income countries.[5] It’s hard to get an estimate for global deaths due to blood shortages, but in India 12,000 people per day due to a lack of blood.[6] That’s 4,380,000 deaths per year, which is around 7x higher than the number of global deaths caused by malaria.

Developing a rapidly accessible frozen blood supply will help reduce both waste and shortages, and if we can transition to a system where blood is primarily stored frozen rather than stored in liquid form, we could develop a large frozen blood stockpile and both of these issues would mostly disappear.

In search of funding 

We are in search of funding to develop and promote the adoption of this technology. We currently have a runway of approximately £200,000 (USD $257,475) so even small contributions will have a large impact on the success of this endeavour. We want to use this funding to hire an additional scientist (right now it’s just me working on our blood program) and buy the equipment to produce and test units of packed RBCs to regulatory specifications. 

Our website: https://www.cryologyx.com/cryoshield-red

Contact: alex@cryologyx.com 

References

  1. ^

    Red Blood Cell Cryopreservation with Minimal Post-Thaw Lysis Enabled by a Synergistic Combination of a Cryoprotecting Polyampholyte with DMSO/Trehalose https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.1c00599

  2. ^

    Synthetically Scalable Poly(ampholyte) Which Dramatically Enhances Cellular Cryopreservation https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.9b00681

  3. ^

    Lee, J. S.; Kim-Shapiro, D. B. Stored Blood: How Old Is Too Old? Journal of Clinical Investigation 2017, 127 (1), 100–102. DOI: 10.1172/JCI91309 

Show all footnotes
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
63
· · 1m read