Coworker Mad At Me For Keeping A Selfie...
Business & Finance18 mins ago
Storing blood
If you put some blood into a glass vial and sealed it, and then stored the vial in an underground vault for a thousand years, what would happen to it?
Did they have glass a thousand years ago, or did they use something else? What would have happened if the vial was made of, say, gold?
Did they have glass a thousand years ago, or did they use something else? What would have happened if the vial was made of, say, gold?
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by saxy_jag. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
well, if you put blood in an air-tight glass and wopped it underground, some looser with a... 'glass jar detector' would be wandering along the beach on a rainy saturday evening, (what a loser), and then BLAM! his little detector would start having an orgasm, and then he'd dig it up and call over one of his loser mates, and they'd be like, 'wow! we're finally gonna get something, oh i think i can feel it, i've, i've got it : ) .... oh... it's a jar full of blood, which bell-end buried this a thousand years ago?' HOWEVER, if he found it to be a gold jar, he's be like, 'wo! gold! mint! let's melt it down and make earings and sell it and be rich! oh christ it's full of blood, which bellend buried this a thousand years ago? who cares, we're minted :)' thats what'd happen, and they've had glass for ages, hence glass windows in castles and the like
Regardless of whether it was in a sealed glass vial or a gold container, it would turn to powder.
Blood begins to coagulate in a very short time after leaving the body. When blood is needed for pathological examinations in hospitals etc, the sample tubes contain a citrate/dextrose mixture or other substances to slow down the rate of coagulation.
Preventing coagulation of whole blood outside the body was virtually impossible until the work of Rous and Turner in 1916, who first discovered these citrate methods. So, it may be seen that keeping blood fluid is only something we've been able to do for less than a century
Glass is not impervious to the movement of liquids over many centuries. The liquid fraction of the blood could all leave the sample tube over the thousand year period, leaving the solid fraction behind.
Glass is known to have existed around 3000BC with known glass artifacts recovered in Egypt from around 2500BC. So yes, glass did exist a thousand years ago. No doubt skilled craftsmen could have fashioned a suitable glass vial at the time.
Blood begins to coagulate in a very short time after leaving the body. When blood is needed for pathological examinations in hospitals etc, the sample tubes contain a citrate/dextrose mixture or other substances to slow down the rate of coagulation.
Preventing coagulation of whole blood outside the body was virtually impossible until the work of Rous and Turner in 1916, who first discovered these citrate methods. So, it may be seen that keeping blood fluid is only something we've been able to do for less than a century
Glass is not impervious to the movement of liquids over many centuries. The liquid fraction of the blood could all leave the sample tube over the thousand year period, leaving the solid fraction behind.
Glass is known to have existed around 3000BC with known glass artifacts recovered in Egypt from around 2500BC. So yes, glass did exist a thousand years ago. No doubt skilled craftsmen could have fashioned a suitable glass vial at the time.
Well, the short answer is yes, it is feasible up to a point. Let me explain.
To begin with, the mature red blood cells in blood do not contain nuclei and therefore they do not have conventional DNA.
White blood cells such as Leucocytes do have nuclei and they therefore have conventional DNA. However, they also have a different type of DNA called mtDNA in the matrix of cell itself. mtDNA is for technical reasons, more easily recoverable than normal DNA from cellular material and the oldest sample seems to have been recovered from the remains of a well-preserved 100,000 year old caveman according to "Nature" and other journals.
The trouble with mtDNA is that its not exclusive to the individual and groups of thousand of people will have identical mtDNA. So for forensic purposes, it's next to useless.
So yes, if the correct techniques were used to recover the dried blood, it would be possible to isolate a sample of DNA or mtDNa. That's the relatively simple part.
From there on a whole host of problems arises depending on what you have in mind for the sample.
Incidentally, glass is one of the best substrates to collect dried blood from as no foreign matter contaminates the recovered sample.
To begin with, the mature red blood cells in blood do not contain nuclei and therefore they do not have conventional DNA.
White blood cells such as Leucocytes do have nuclei and they therefore have conventional DNA. However, they also have a different type of DNA called mtDNA in the matrix of cell itself. mtDNA is for technical reasons, more easily recoverable than normal DNA from cellular material and the oldest sample seems to have been recovered from the remains of a well-preserved 100,000 year old caveman according to "Nature" and other journals.
The trouble with mtDNA is that its not exclusive to the individual and groups of thousand of people will have identical mtDNA. So for forensic purposes, it's next to useless.
So yes, if the correct techniques were used to recover the dried blood, it would be possible to isolate a sample of DNA or mtDNa. That's the relatively simple part.
From there on a whole host of problems arises depending on what you have in mind for the sample.
Incidentally, glass is one of the best substrates to collect dried blood from as no foreign matter contaminates the recovered sample.
Thanks again, Prof - very useful.
You'll have probably gathered I'm in need of this information for a novel I'm writing. There's a vial of blood collected from an Anglo Saxon queen that has been preserved for a thousand years and can maybe - just maybe - be cross-matched with that of her present day direct descendant. However, the vial is broken towards the end of the story and is lost in a building collapse. I'm now able to have a character say that it would probably have been useless in any case.
You'll have probably gathered I'm in need of this information for a novel I'm writing. There's a vial of blood collected from an Anglo Saxon queen that has been preserved for a thousand years and can maybe - just maybe - be cross-matched with that of her present day direct descendant. However, the vial is broken towards the end of the story and is lost in a building collapse. I'm now able to have a character say that it would probably have been useless in any case.
My God, I'm flabbergasted! Do you know, I've been asked for advice by governments, universities, defence agencies and loads of other organisations in my time, but this is the first time I've been asked a question by the author of a novel!
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to advise you.
A variation of standard PCR DNA analysis techniques would, in theory at least, be the most suitable for what you have in mind. This method has been used during examinations of dinosaur bones and bones of early man.
Now ancient bone analysis is problematical because of contamination with other DNA over the centuries, mtDNA contamination and the almost total degradation of DNA during that timespan. These are the reasons why bones from skeletons over 1000 years old have rarely provided any useful DNA. A famous case is that of Kennewickian Man, where the scientific community were very disappointed over the amount of information gleaned.
Despite all this, bone still remains the best tissue choice. Nevertheless, in general, the older the tissue, the less likely it is that reliable DNA remains.
Blood will always be more problematical as the number of DNA bearing white cells is far less than the number of red cells in a sample - usually the ratio is anything between about 700 to 1000 red blood cells to 1 white blood cell.
White blood cells are more sensitive to the surrounding environment than red cells, age more rapidly and are per se, more delicate. The chances of a reliable sample of cells being recovered after a thousand years even in a glass vial is pretty remote. This is the reason why there are virtually no accounts of DNA analysis of ancient blood in any of the usual academic journals.
All in all, the book ending you suggest is perfectly feasible. Just don't call your expert theprof!
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to advise you.
A variation of standard PCR DNA analysis techniques would, in theory at least, be the most suitable for what you have in mind. This method has been used during examinations of dinosaur bones and bones of early man.
Now ancient bone analysis is problematical because of contamination with other DNA over the centuries, mtDNA contamination and the almost total degradation of DNA during that timespan. These are the reasons why bones from skeletons over 1000 years old have rarely provided any useful DNA. A famous case is that of Kennewickian Man, where the scientific community were very disappointed over the amount of information gleaned.
Despite all this, bone still remains the best tissue choice. Nevertheless, in general, the older the tissue, the less likely it is that reliable DNA remains.
Blood will always be more problematical as the number of DNA bearing white cells is far less than the number of red cells in a sample - usually the ratio is anything between about 700 to 1000 red blood cells to 1 white blood cell.
White blood cells are more sensitive to the surrounding environment than red cells, age more rapidly and are per se, more delicate. The chances of a reliable sample of cells being recovered after a thousand years even in a glass vial is pretty remote. This is the reason why there are virtually no accounts of DNA analysis of ancient blood in any of the usual academic journals.
All in all, the book ending you suggest is perfectly feasible. Just don't call your expert theprof!
1 to 8 of 8
Latest Posts
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
ChatterBank47 mins ago
Crosswords85 mins ago
