Research Concept · HypothesisPre-publication

Should oxygen-delivery potency matter more than hemoglobin concentration alone?

Hemoglobin concentration tells us how much hemoglobin is present. It does not, by itself, quantify how effectively a specific blood product or hemoglobin formulation loads oxygen, unloads it under tissue conditions, interacts with flow and microcirculation, or ultimately contributes to tissue oxygen delivery.

01 / What changed in 2026

A functional potency question can now be asked quantitatively.

Rogers and colleagues introduced lung-to-tissue oxygen flux, L-TOF, as an in vitro metric for comparing oxygen-delivery potency across fresh and stored red-cell products and formulations containing hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers.

The authors explicitly note that transfusion dosing is commonly based on hemoglobin levels without accounting for differences in oxygen-delivery potential between products.

02 / BHOC research hypothesis

Concentration should not be confused with function.

For BHOC development, the central question is not simply how many grams of hemoglobin are administered. The more useful development question is how much reproducible oxygen-delivery function a defined dose provides under relevant physiological conditions.

A functional potency framework could eventually connect formulation attributes, oxygen affinity, dose and oxygen unloading with downstream physiological endpoints. That relationship has to be demonstrated, not assumed.

03 / The evidence signal

L-TOF suggests that equal volume or equal hemoglobin does not automatically mean equal modeled oxygen-delivery potency.

300 mLFresh RBC reference dose in the study's in vitro comparison.
476 ± 21.6 mLDay-42 stored RBC concentrate modeled as equipotent to 300 mL fresh RBCs.
158%Modeled dose increase reported for day-42 stored RBC concentrate in that comparison.
04 / Questions to test

From analytical potency to clinically meaningful oxygen delivery.

Chu and colleagues (2026) provide a complementary functional framework for characterizing oxygen-supply efficiency beyond hemoglobin concentration alone. Their parameter system integrates oxygen affinity (P50), cooperativity through the Hill coefficient, Bohr-effect responsiveness through an acid-base sensitivity index, and theoretical oxygen-release capacity under simulated lung and tissue conditions [2]. The study included red blood cells, bovine hemoglobin (bHb) and a dextran-modified bovine hemoglobin conjugate (Dex20-bHb), making the analytical approach directly relevant to research questions around cell-free and modified hemoglobin oxygen carriers.

These analytical properties are only one layer of functional oxygen delivery. Comparative studies of a structurally different natural extracellular hemoglobin provide additional questions for testing. Tsai and colleagues evaluated microvascular response together with nitric-oxide and carbon-monoxide reaction kinetics in preclinical models [3], while Le Gall and colleagues examined biodistribution and the ability of the same extracellular hemoglobin system to reduce hypoxia in poorly vascularized tissue in vivo [4]. These studies do not establish equivalence with BHOC, but they support separating oxygen-binding properties, vascular interaction, microcirculatory behavior and tissue oxygenation when functional potency is evaluated.

Which potency metric?Should functional potency combine P50, Hill coefficient/cooperativity, Bohr-effect responsiveness and theoretical oxygen-release capacity rather than rely on hemoglobin concentration or P50 alone?
Which in vivo correlate?Which microcirculatory, perfusion or tissue-oxygenation measurements track with analytical oxygen-delivery potency?
Which clinical endpoint?Does a functional potency metric predict physiological recovery, organ injury, transfusion requirement or other clinically meaningful outcomes?
Evidence boundary: L-TOF and the Chu et al. oxygen-supply-efficiency framework are analytical or modeled approaches. The M101 studies cited here are product-specific preclinical evidence from a different extracellular hemoglobin architecture. None of these studies establishes clinical superiority of BHOC, HBOCs or any blood product. Product-specific vascular response, nitric oxide interaction, microcirculatory flow, safety and patient outcomes remain separate questions requiring experimental and clinical evidence.

References

  1. Rogers SC, Brummet M, Tobin KV, et al. Defining and quantifying oxygen delivery potency of blood products. Blood Red Cells & Iron. 2026;2(2):100054. doi:10.1016/j.brci.2026.100054. PMID:42453356.
  2. Chu Z, You G, Li W, et al. Simulated Oxygen Supply Efficiency Assessment to Represent Stored Red Blood Cells Quality. Life. 2026;16(2):205. doi:10.3390/life16020205. PMID:41752843.
  3. Tsai AG, Intaglietta M, Sakai H, Delpy E, Drieu La Rochelle C, Rousselot M, Zal F. Microcirculation and NO-CO studies of a natural extracellular hemoglobin developed for an oxygen therapeutic carrier. Curr Drug Discov Technol. 2012;9(3):166-172. doi:10.2174/157016312802650814. PMID:22564165.
  4. Le Gall T, Polard V, Rousselot M, et al. In vivo biodistribution and oxygenation potential of a new generation of oxygen carrier. J Biotechnol. 2014;187:1-9. doi:10.1016/j.jbiotec.2014.07.008. PMID:25034433.

Research Concept · Hypothesis · Author: · Published: · © Archil Jaliashvili