HN Explorer

12 comments

[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 45.3 ms ] thread
jangid
This is going to be a legal nightmare in near future.
londons_explore
Only for those accused with bone marrow transplants.
tinus_hn
No, only for bone marrow donors. If the recipient commits a crime the donor will be the suspect.
krageon
As was said elsewhere in the comments approximate five hours before this:

> Samples of his chest and head hair, meanwhile, show only Long’s DNA.

tinus_hn
So the donor better hope the evidence the police happens to find is hair, not sperm.
travbrack
So does this mean his skin, hair, nails, etc now grow with the donor's characteristics?
Epskampie
Well, for the hair, no, as the article says:

> Samples of his chest and head hair, meanwhile, show only Long’s DNA.

singularity2001
Only because the seamen contains no sperm. The germline is unaffected by marrow transplants
Scaevolus
Right, 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
whose DNA will the kid have?
schrodinger
Semen without sperm will not produce a child, I’d imagine.
krageon
The 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.