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.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe