4 ms·
After Bone Marrow Transplant, Man’s Semen Contains Only Donor’s DNA
- jangid 7y agoThis is going to be a legal nightmare in near future.
- londons_explore 7y agoOnly for those accused with bone marrow transplants.
- tinus_hn 7y agoNo, only for bone marrow donors. If the recipient commits a crime the donor will be the suspect.
- travbrack 7y agoSo does this mean his skin, hair, nails, etc now grow with the donor's characteristics?
- Epskampie 7y agoWell, for the hair, no, as the article says: > Samples of his chest and head hair, meanwhile, show only Long’s DNA.
- singularity2001 7y agoOnly because the seamen contains no sperm. The germline is unaffected by marrow transplants
- Scaevolus 7y agoRight, his red blood cells have donor DNA, and when they die they leave DNA fragments that eventually get excreted in seminal fluid. This isn't some weird testicle transplant situation. It's closer to other stories of micro or "trace" contamination.
- rgrs 7y agowhose DNA will the kid have?
- schrodinger 7y agoSemen without sperm will not produce a child, I’d imagine.
- krageon 7y agoThe sperm is what makes the child (along with the egg, obviously), which is what is meant by "the germline is unaffected". Thus, the child will have the DNA of the mother and the father. The donor doesn't really factor in to that story. Given the generally separate nature of testicles, it would be really surprising if that wasn't the case.