New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Scientists Discover New Adaptation to Oxygen-Poor Air at High Altitudes

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Visitors to high-elevation locales often experience difficulty breathing because the amount of oxygen available in the atmosphere decreases with increasing altitude. In extreme situations, altitude sickness can be fatal. But people born and raised at high altitudes function well despite the reduced availability of oxygen. New findings published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that residents of a high-altitude village in Ethiopia have a unique way of adapting to the lower levels of oxygen at high elevations.

Previous research had suggested two ways that humans may adjust to lower oxygen levels. Both methods involve hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that binds to oxygen and carries it throughout the body. Members of a well-studied group living the Andes, for example, have more hemoglobin than do people who live at sea level. Natives of the Tibetan plateau, in contrast, have similar hemoglobin levels as their low-living counterparts, but a greater percentage of the protein binds to oxygen molecules in the blood. Cynthia M. Beall of Case Western Reserve University and her colleagues studied 313 native residents of the Ambaras Region of the Semien Mountains National Park in Ethiopia, situated 3,530 meters above sea level. Surprisingly, the subjects not only had hemoglobin levels similar to those seen in sea level populations but they also displayed comparable rates of binding between oxygen and hemoglobin. The authors posit that the Ethiopian population represents a third method of adaptation to high-altitude oxygen deprivation, although the underlying biological mechanisms remain unknown. Learning why the three populations differ, they conclude, will require further investigation.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe