Slashdot Mirror


Stem Cells Change Man's DNA

An anonymous reader writes "After receiving umbilical cord stem cells to replace bone marrow as treatment for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Greg Graves temporarily had three different sets of DNA. Eventually, one of the two sets of cells transplanted into his bone marrow took root, leaving him different DNA in his blood from the rest of his body: 'If you were to do a DNA test of my blood and one from my skin, they'd be different,' Graves said. 'It's a pretty wild thing.'"

171 comments

  1. Beginning of the end? by h890231398021 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps this is the beginning of the end for the use of DNA as "incontrovertable" evidence in criminal cases?

    1. Re:Beginning of the end? by debilo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps this is the beginning of the end for the use of DNA as "incontrovertable" evidence in criminal cases?
      How so? The original DNA isn't gone or hidden. It still can be retrieved, you just need to take several different samples until you find a match.
    2. Re:Beginning of the end? by earnest+murderer · · Score: 1

      Considering the level of documentation and rarity of bone marrow transplants... I'm not sure it's really the beginning of the end. Maybe the beginning of one more step in a very limited number of cases...

      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    3. Re:Beginning of the end? by stonedcat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Finally I can murder all those people who made fun of my tinfoil hat!

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
    4. Re:Beginning of the end? by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. There's plenty of trace evidence he could leave behind that contains his native DNA--hair, skin cells, saliva, semen, probably. So if he was arrested for a crime, it would be a simple enough matter to test a hair sample, or do a cheek swab, which would yield his native DNA. It might create more grounds for reasonable doubt, because the presence of two different sets of DNA might increase the likelihood of contamination during testing. I think it's a stretch, though.

    5. Re:Beginning of the end? by sholden · · Score: 1

      Because the fact that blood at a murder scene matches the doner's DNA, doesn't mean the doner was there - the guy who got the stem cells could have been. So it's not "incontrovertable",not that it ever was anyway...

    6. Re:Beginning of the end? by debilo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the fact that blood at a murder scene matches the doner's DNA, doesn't mean the doner was there - the guy who got the stem cells could have been. So it's not "incontrovertable",not that it ever was anyway...
      So the case could be narrowed down to, say, a handful of suspects at best? And that's not taking into account the fact that all of them probably will live in different places, thus either increasing or decreasing their level of suspectedness, and all the other circumstances that would require too great a coincidence to be so indistinguishable that the real culprit couldn't be singled out. Given that, I'd say DNA evidence will stay as foolproof as usual for years to come.
    7. Re:Beginning of the end? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "There's plenty of trace evidence he could leave behind that contains his native DNA--hair, skin cells, saliva, semen, probably. So if he was arrested for a crime, it would be a simple enough matter to test a hair sample, or do a cheek swab, which would yield his native DNA. It might create more grounds for reasonable doubt, because the presence of two different sets of DNA might increase the likelihood of contamination during testing. I think it's a stretch, though."

      I was thinking the other day, that if someone was wanting to plan out and kill and do whatever else to someone, that it would be a smart thing to plan before the heist, to get things out of people's trash...(ugh) used condoms, tissues with whatever bodily fluids...cigarette butts, etc. I'd think the criminal could throw all kinds of mixed DNA samples on the crime scene...

      Since DNA is used so much these days...and considered almost 'definitive' the the average layman juror...would this not automatically add in a bit of reasonable doubt?

      Was also thinking that it would be a great way to frame someone for a rape/murder....really scary if you think about it.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Beginning of the end? by Javi0084 · · Score: 1

      Don't let this troll fool you, he copied the message from the_humeister (922869) just a few posts below!!

    9. Re:Beginning of the end? by provigilman · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You're assuming that the police are aware of the multiple DNA profiles. At least in the US we have very strict privacy rules governing medical information...we can't just make someone where a bracelet saying "I have two DNA profiles!!!". Since it's in his medical records it's sealed and someone would either have to remember his name from a news story, or he would need to volunteer the info. (And yes, they can subpoena the medical records, but they would have no cause for doing so unless they already knew)

      So if their DNA evidence came from skin or hair cells he could happily submit to a blood test to confirm that he's not the killer...all without their knowledge. Or vice-versa...they have blood and he says "Yeah, I'll give you a sample, but I don't like needles. Can we just do a cheek swab?"

      Probably what this will lead to, if anything, is duplicate testing and/or testing of the same material as what was found. You find saliva, you test saliva. You find blood, you test blood.

      --
      "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
    10. Re:Beginning of the end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's not taking into account the fact that all of them probably will live in different places

      Donors are generally within range of the same hospital, so they're not that far apart.

      So the case could be narrowed down to, say, a handful of suspects at best?

      Or you do what they do now, pick one and claim you have incontrovertible proof that their DNA was found at the scene of the crime. Plenty of cases are shuffled through the system with no motive, no weapon, and barely a "it was dark and he looked black" identification, throw in that "incontrovertible" evidence and a jury's more than happy to convict.

      DNA evidence will stay as foolproof as usual

      I live in Houston, and I can tell you that the universe has made far greater fools than you can proof against, and many of them work for the HPD. Why, just the other day a DNA retest showed that a guy who has been in prison over a decade was innocent and a repeat-offender rapist was the actual criminal in one rape case. BTW, the innocent person lived blocks from the rapist.

      All the evidence I need as a Houstonian is in the story of Josiah Sutton. Two rapists, two sets of DNA, neither set is his, but if the DA's shows no inclination to believe the DNA, why should the rest of us be expected to believe any different?

    11. Re:Beginning of the end? by davidsyes · · Score: 0

      If he committed and "licked" (beat) a crime, would you say:

      HeLicks or

      Helix

      is his name

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    12. Re:Beginning of the end? by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      And that's not even getting into the idea of people getting stem cells after the crime.

      It's the type of thing I think you'd only see in movies, but imagine a hitman with a private doctor who injects stem cells after every hit... of a hitman who does it without the help of a doctor. The guy could leave different DNA at each crime scene with almost no worries of being linked to each murder.

      Or what if someone inserted the DNA of another person in an attempt to frame the person? Insert DNA, kill someone, scratch yourself with the dead body's nails: instant frame job.

      I didn't read the artical so I don't know how long it took for the person's DNA to change, and the second scenario would require having the to-be-framed individual's stem cells or a some way to synthesize it, but that doesn't mean it won't be possible soon... of course it doesn't mean it will be possible either.

    13. Re:Beginning of the end? by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't forget, while very rare, this can and does occur naturally.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

    14. Re:Beginning of the end? by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      yeah but the practice isn't that widely used yet and there will likely be records of this DNA.

      The DNA testing still narrows it down to a very small set of people.

    15. Re:Beginning of the end? by hypnagogue · · Score: 1

      Or what if someone inserted the DNA of another person in an attempt to frame the person? Insert DNA, kill someone, scratch yourself with the dead body's nails: instant frame job.
      This is even easier to do without bothering with stem cells.

      The flaw in your plan is that you will be a positive match for the DNA at the crime scene. Bad idea. Better to just plant the DNA evidence.
      --
      Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
    16. Re:Beginning of the end? by juancnuno · · Score: 3, Interesting
    17. Re:Beginning of the end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't help the innocent teenager who submits to a DNA test and is now arrested. His umbilical stem cells' DNA is also making blood (now evidence) for the real killer who's middle aged by now.

    18. Re:Beginning of the end? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      It's the type of thing I think you'd only see in movies, but imagine a hitman with a private doctor who injects stem cells after every hit... of a hitman who does it without the help of a doctor. The guy could leave different DNA at each crime scene with almost no worries of being linked to each murder.


      Or, rather, he could leave multiple sets of DNA at each crime scene, and the only common one would be the original one.

    19. Re:Beginning of the end? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Informative

      The magic words when you have to go to court are as follows:

      Reasonable Doubt.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    20. Re:Beginning of the end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You find saliva, you test saliva. You find blood, you test blood.

      What if you find sperm?

    21. Re:Beginning of the end? by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Yes, the moral of that story is "if you're going to commit a gruesome crime, donate early, donate often"

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    22. Re:Beginning of the end? by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      The flaw in your plan is that you will be a positive match for the DNA at the crime scene.
      ...unless you insert some other DNA, like your original DNA, afterwards. I thought that part was pretty easy to figure out so I didn't bother to explicitly state it.

      If the fact that it would be skin instead of blood was what was bothering you since the summary talks about how the blood is changed but the skin remains the same, then the guy could cut himself and leave a few drops there. Either way, the point is that this could lead to some interesting scenarios.
    23. Re:Beginning of the end? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      not necessarily true. All that is necessary is reasonable doubt. "Sure, my client's DNA was found at the scene, but knowing as you know do that at least one other person shares that DNA, the choice before you is no choice at all."...

    24. Re:Beginning of the end? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      In the UK, they're apparently making DNA sampling mandatory, and organizing the police databases now to store it.

    25. Re:Beginning of the end? by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      A conviction based entirely on DNA evidence would almost certainly be overturned on appeal in most jurisdictions, because DNA evidence can only conclusively prove that the DNA did NOT come from somebody. At best, it can only suggest that it "might" have come from one of many related individuals. Forget CSI: Miami. It doesn't work like that at all. "DNA Evidence" is basically 3 or 4 steps more sophisticated than refuting paternity based on blood type.

      That doesn't mean detectives can't, or don't, rely on DNA evidence to find LEADS in a case. If all the DNA present at a crime scene seems to match, it probably means the victim and perpetrator were both family members. It might possibly be argued by an expert witness at such a trial to support the prosecution's claim that the crime was committed by a relative of the victim. But a prosecutor who tried to argue that DNA irrefutably established a defendant's guilt would be eaten alive by any halfway competent defense attorney, with the judge's enthusiastic support.

    26. Re:Beginning of the end? by StrongAxe · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Sure, my client's DNA was found at the scene, but knowing as you know do that at least one other person shares that DNA, the choice before you is no choice at all."...

      "After all, there is no way of knowing for sure whether this cold-blooded murder was committed by my client, a 50 year old man from Portland, or by a 3-year old toddler from Orlando".

    27. Re:Beginning of the end? by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      Haha, yes it's true. In the U.S. we have strict privacy rules on medical matters but we have no right to privacy at all when it comes to everything else. Someone I know just recently forwarded me the URL of a website where they collect private data and they had all the addresses I have lived at in the past 10 years including the current one. That pisses me off majorly.

    28. Re:Beginning of the end? by Hathor's+Dad · · Score: 0

      So you are suggesting that only people who have nearly died without medical intervention are going to murder people...?

    29. Re:Beginning of the end? by Daniel+K.+Attling · · Score: 1

      Chimera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)) humans would have two sets of DNA in them would they not? Sure they'd be quite easily connected as they'd be "siblings", but still.

    30. Re:Beginning of the end? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      "Sure, my client's DNA was found at the scene, but knowing as you know do that at least one other person shares that DNA, the choice before you is no choice at all."...

      "After all, there is no way of knowing for sure whether this cold-blooded murder was committed by my client, a 50 year old man from Portland, or by a 3-year old toddler from Orlando". Or the 50 year old man has donated , and his marrow has been used by several recipients in the same geographic area...
    31. Re:Beginning of the end? by StrongAxe · · Score: 1

      Or the 50 year old man has donated , and his marrow has been used by several recipients in the same geographic area...

      Well, the original items were about stem cells from umbilical cords, but I suppose the same issue would also apply to any other bone marrow transplants.

    32. Re:Beginning of the end? by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if DNA can narrow things down to say an handful of people and the prosecution can rule out all of them except one then reasonable doubt is satisfied.

      It can also still help figure out likely suspects AND provide further evidence for the prosecution (or defense).

      Heck Eye-Witness testimony has been proven unreliable by douzens if not hundreds of cases and studies. Yet it is still one of the main sources of evidence in cases today.

      Reasonable Doubt is a reasonably doubtful proposition.

    33. Re:Beginning of the end? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Or the 50 year old man has donated , and his marrow has been used by several recipients in the same geographic area...

      Well, the original items were about stem cells from umbilical cords, but I suppose the same issue would also apply to any other bone marrow transplants. Hm, forgot about that - it's what happens when I wait a day between replies. Still, it would (theoretically) be the same for other marrow transplants as you say.
    34. Re:Beginning of the end? by stry_cat · · Score: 1

      At least in the US we have very strict privacy rules governing medical information...we can't just make someone where a bracelet saying "I have two DNA profiles!!!". Since it's in his medical records it's sealed and someone would either have to remember his name from a news story, or he would need to volunteer the info. (And yes, they can subpoena the medical records, but they would have no cause for doing so unless they already knew)
      You obviously haven't seen what HIPPA actually does. They don't need a subpoena. According to http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/privacy/NeedToKnow.html

      Who will have access to patients' electronic medical records--including genetic information--without obtaining patients' consent?

      Many people and organizations--including health plans, providers, hospitals, researchers, medical students, government agents, law enforcement officials, and others--will have access to patients' medical records without obtaining their consent. Individual authorization is not required for sharing information related to medical treatment, payment, or "health care operations." In addition, the regulations state:

      "After balancing privacy and other social values, we are proposing rules that would permit use or disclosure of health information without individual authorization [emphasis added] for the following national priority activities and activities that allow the health care system to operate smoothly:

      * Oversight of the health care system
      * Public health functions
      * Research
      * Judicial and administrative proceedings
      * Law enforcement [emphasis added]
      * Emergency circumstances
      * To provide information to next-of-kin
      * For identification of the body of a deceased person, or the cause of death
      * For government health data systems
      * For facility patient directories
      * To banks, to process health care payments and premiums
      * For management of active duty military and other special classes of individuals
      * Where other law requires such disclosure and no other category of permissible disclosures would allow the disclosure."7,8

    35. Re:Beginning of the end? by paldhous · · Score: 1

      Bone marrow transplants have already caused some confusion in criminal cases, see e.g. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825234.600-bone-marrow-donors-risk-dna-identity-mixup.html

  2. That reminds me of someone by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mary from the trailor park once had 12 different sets of DNA inside her.

    The football team won that night, everybody scored.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:That reminds me of someone by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmm, Geeks don't play football, so I guess you were spared the STD...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:That reminds me of someone by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It doesn't stop you from spanking the monkey yourself.

    3. Re:That reminds me of someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the STD... ERROR: You're presuming there was only one...in a trailer park.
    4. Re:That reminds me of someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Anonymous Coward cammed it! =D

    5. Re:That reminds me of someone by Scaba · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nothing stops me from that. Nothing.

    6. Re:That reminds me of someone by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Uh, mods, I don't consider some other geek masturbating "interesting".

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:That reminds me of someone by Smurf · · Score: 1

      Unless the monkey has telekinetic powers, how is your DNA going to end in Mary from the trailer park that way?

  3. first man-made chimera? by pohl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does this mean Mr. Graves is the world's first man-made chimera?

    --

    The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    1. Re:first man-made chimera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this counts as a chimera, why wouldn't transplant patients count too?

    2. Re:first man-made chimera? by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      No because we've been doing solid organ transplants for about 40 years. And unless your organ donor is your identical twin, you're going to come out of the operation as a chimera.

    3. Re:first man-made chimera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, isn't this just what usually happens with successful bone marrow transplants? I think the new feature is the use of stem cells from a baby's umbilical cord blood, rather than stem cells from an adult's blood or bone marrow.

    4. Re:first man-made chimera? by Ped+Xing · · Score: 5, Informative

      No he is not, for several reasons.

      First, he is not the first to have two sets of DNA due to a bone marrow transplant (although he might be one of the first with 3 sets). Anyone who has had an allogeneic (as opposed to autologous) bone marrow transplant like his has that, as do any other transplant recipients.

      In fact, the differences between those DNA is both one of the best things and one of the worst things about alloBMTs to treat blood cancers. The new blood system sets itself up and sees the cancer cells as "foreign" and attacks them, what would be called "rejecting" them in a solid organ transplant. This is called "Graft Versus Leukemic Effect" in leukemia patients, for example. That's the good part. The bad part is that the new blood system looks at the rest of the body and sees it as foreign as well. "All this has to go" is the reaction, also called "Graft Versus Host Effect", or GVHD. That can kill you. Cord blood stem cells make this less likely to happen, because the cord blood cells are not quite sure what the other cells are supposed to look like yet.

      The second reason he is not the first man-made chimera is that he is not a chimera. A chimera is when the second set of DNA comes from another species. That has been done before (organ transplants from pigs, for example), but is not the case in this story.

      The real story here is that he had a stem cell transplant using cord blood from two different donors.

    5. Re:first man-made chimera? by LocalFire · · Score: 1

      This is the first I realized I could get away with something. I am a chimera (my thumbs look different)

    6. Re:first man-made chimera? by oenone.ablaze · · Score: 1

      Another reason he's not the world's first man-made chimera is because there's already been one, even going by the interspecies definition: the geep.

    7. Re:first man-made chimera? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Informative

      A chimera is when the second set of DNA comes from another species

      This is not true. Chimera is often used, outside of biology, to mean a creature made up of multiple species (a reference to Greek mythology) but in that instance you're not talking about biological chimerism, but some fiction where DNA is either not mentioned, or often is "merged" (cf Dark Angel.)

      However, when you're talking genetics, which is what we're talking about here, you're talking about a being that is the product of two zygotes (which is generally difficult, if not impossible, if they're of different species.)

      Chimeras using the biological definition are, if not common, certainly abundant, and there have been court cases involving people whose DNA tests didn't work because they were chimeras. Chimeras are particularly common if the person was conceived via IVF.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:first man-made chimera? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      If he develops a phage, he'll wonder if he's going to become a Vidiian.

      All I know is "I'm in no mood to donate organs today," as Janeway said.

      http://www.trekmania.net/diplomatic/others.htm

      Search for "vidiians" in the site...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    9. Re:first man-made chimera? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      http://www.trekmania.net/diplomatic/others.htm

      Chimera, or Malon or Vidiian? Depending on how it's handled, he may even become a Mimera, Chalon. Or, a Chidiian, or whatever.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  4. what about DNA forensics? by big_paul76 · · Score: 1

    OK, maybe I've been watching too much CSI these days, but I wonder how this would affect DNA forensics? If a blood sample gives DNA that is identical to my brother or uncle or whatever, and my skin gives "my" DNA, how would the courts handle that?

    It certainly demonstrates a case where DNA evidence does not, in fact, always point to the perpetrator.

    --
    The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
    1. Re:what about DNA forensics? by SavedLinuXgeeK · · Score: 1, Redundant

      There was actually a CSI episode about this. I can't remember the episode, but after a blood transfusion (i think), the man has one set of DNA for his blood, and another for his tissue. This is how we upheld his alibi until a blood DNA test was taken.

      --
      je suis parce que j'aime
    2. Re:what about DNA forensics? by mendax · · Score: 2, Informative

      You haven't been watching enough Law and Order! There was an episode that dealt with something like this. The man had a bone marrow transfusion. The DNA from his blood had one set of DNA and the rest of his body had another. Thus he could rape with impunity.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    3. Re:what about DNA forensics? by SavedLinuXgeeK · · Score: 1

      How in the world is this redundant? I mean, it may not be really relevant to the article, I'll give you that, but redundant? People keep using this mod on Slashdot, but I don't think everyone has the same idea on what it means.

      --
      je suis parce que j'aime
  5. So much for DNA evidence... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

    1. Commit a crime
    2. Shoot yourself up with stem cells
    3. Don't get thrown in jail because the DNA from the crime scene doesn't match
    4. Waitaminute... Profit belongs in step 1 in this case!

    1. Re: So much for DNA evidence... by corsec67 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Fairchild

      Summary: Woman is a Chimera (two sets of DNA), and gets a paternity test, first one fails, second succeds because they take from another part of her body.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    2. Re: So much for DNA evidence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or you could just NOT bleed all over the crime scene...

    3. Re: So much for DNA evidence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said crime doesn't PROFIT ?

    4. Re: So much for DNA evidence... by MyrddinBach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Watch the Documentary from Discovery channel titled "I am my own Twin"

      This happens naturally in lots of people.

      It even touches on the subject of pigmentation - where babies of interracial couples are born with "checkberboard" skin.

    5. Re: So much for DNA evidence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Shrug*

      It's not all that uncommon. I am intersexed and a blood test in 1994 returned two sets of DNA. It made NO sense to me, nor to my doctor. It wasn't until I saw a Discovery show on Lydia Fairchild that it made sense to me.

    6. Re: So much for DNA evidence... by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      It's understood that it happens, but yes, it is still uncommon.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  6. rebuild by mastershake_phd · · Score: 1

    Now Britain is going to have to rebuild their DNA database.

  7. Cool, but by datadigger · · Score: 1

    Cool, but (with all due respect) I'm sure this money could be spent better. On malaria prevention for example.

    --
    Aphorisms don't fix code. (Bart Smaalders)
    1. Re:Cool, but by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      >>> Cool, but (with all due respect) I'm sure this money could be spent better. On malaria prevention for example

      I first read that as "marijuana"

    2. Re:Cool, but by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm sure this money could be spent better. On malaria prevention for example

      Well, yeah. Except, what if they guy who's about to invent a viable preventative for malaria has non-Hodgkins lymphoma?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Cool, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we're certainly such a poor people, that we can only afford to cure one life-threatening illness.

      Jackass.

    4. Re:Cool, but by fullmetal55 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I think trying to find a cure for Non-Hodkins Lymphoma is a very good use of research money. Finding a cure for it could also help advance research in solving other cancers.

    5. Re:Cool, but by burndive · · Score: 1

      I'm getting pretty sick of this particular line of reasoning. By this logic, we ought to spend 100% of our research efforts on the one problem that is arbitrarily decided to be the worst problem for humanity. Never mind how achievable it is: all other causes are a waste of resources.

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    6. Re:Cool, but by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

      Good point; I like the way you think. But to tame malaria and preserve the lives of 300,000 dead Africans, you don't need to raise money, only awareness. The EU doesn't want to bring in DDT. Nevermind that the problematic part of it's history is 40 years old, the French have mosquito nets to sell, man!

      (This is among the cruelest things I know of, by the way.) And notice the 'evil Americans' isn't doing it. :)

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    7. Re:Cool, but by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Never mind how achievable it is... It's not. There's no cure for 'stupid.'
  8. Hope they tell the donor! by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

    The story said that the stem cells were from an anonymous boy's birth. Hope somebody has the foresight to tell him and his parents, otherwise, things could get interesting if his DNA is found somewhere else (like a crime scene)

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  9. Let me explain how DNA works, Bob... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Bob the Angry Flower: Breakfast Treat

  10. My wife watches too many spy moveis... by Starteck81 · · Score: 1

    ...because all I can think is how well this would work for spies and other undercover types.

    --
    "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
    1. Re:My wife watches too many spy moveis... by User+956 · · Score: 1

      My wife watches too many spy movies because all I can think is how well this would work for spies and other undercover types.

      Having a wife with a heavy interest in spy movies must make it really difficult for you to keep a girlfriend.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    2. Re:My wife watches too many spy moveis... by Starteck81 · · Score: 1

      Having a wife with a heavy interest in spy movies must make it really difficult for you to keep a girlfriend.

      You have no idea...
      --
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
  11. This scares the hell out of me. by Kazrath · · Score: 0

    Like the title says. While this is an amazing break-through what will happen if this guy has offspring? Two completely different sets of DNA which will be dominant? Or will this cause some very "odd" cival cases when a two white people have for example a little asian baby?

    What other possible side effects could happen?

    Not to sound like a bible thumper but should we really be playing god with something we barely understand.

    1. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nothing would happen to his offspring. It's his bone marrow that has been replaced, not his testes.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Kazrath · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I really wish we could edit our own posts :(

    3. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Xonstantine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to sound like a bible thumper but should we really be playing god with something we barely understand. Well, since it's pretty clear you don't understand it, it's probably a good idea that you don't go off and play around with it.

      In answer to your question "While this is an amazing break-through what will happen if this guy has offspring?", the answer is nothing. At least, nothing different than if he hadn't had stem cells implanted. For there to be any difference, there would've had to have replaced the spermatogonia.
    4. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Kazrath · · Score: 1

      Obviously, Because skin and blood have nothing to do with your testies or your ability to reproduce cells, repair damage, heal.

    5. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by GuyverX · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's ok. Calm down. Deep breath. This is actually not a terribly uncommon event when bone marrow transplants are used. The news seems to be that instead of transplanted bone marrow, he had stem cells from two different donors infused, and for a while both were found in his blood, but after a period of time only one of the lines seemed to survive. The "news" seems to be that this used stem cells which differentiated into new bone marrow for the patient.

      If it had been a "traditional" bone marrow transplant, he would STILL have had a second set of DNA found in his blood. This is becasue for this therapy to work, all of his native bone marrow is destroyed, completely. He will be physically incapable of making his own red, white, and platelet cells. The donor donated marrow is then given to him in the hopes that it will "take root" where his now-ablated marrow once was, and will take that function. It's just like a kidney or heart transplant, just much wetter.

      As for offspring due to the implanted cells, not gonna happen. The Gonads are very well protected from things like this, and just like with a transplanted solid organ, this only affects the somatic cells, not the germ cells created in his testes.

      So, just remember, think of the bone marrow and blood as another organ, and this is just another organ transplant. His biggest concern would be the effects of his chemo and radiation on his gonads, not the transplanted cells. Make sense?

    6. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in this sense. The production of gametes is not changed by this procedure. Physical contact with gonads is irrelevant.

    7. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      While this is an amazing break-through what will happen if this guy has offspring?


      Absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. He has different DNA in different cells (and the non-original DNA is in blood cells.)

      If he has offspring, each will be produced by exactly one of his cells, which will have one set of (half of) his original DNA.

    8. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by ePhil_One · · Score: 1
      Absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.

      So long as there was no Rose DNA in the mix...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    9. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by SilverBlade2k · · Score: 0

      The guy has a very rare chance of having children. They use some pretty power chemotherapy drugs before the bone marrow transplant, which destroys the cancer, bone marrow, immune system AND..unfortunately, the ability to produce sperm as well. If he were to regain the ability to produce sperm again, it wouldn't be for many many years.

    10. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Kazrath · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation... Reading the article made it seem quite a bit scarier.

    11. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Ztream · · Score: 1

      That would be something though - a testicle transplant. Anyone care to donate? You've got two!

    12. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      replaced...spermatogonia

      I hear Spermanistan is the new Spermatogonia.

      wow...did I just submit that? Thank jebus it was anonymous

    13. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      why, how many do you want?

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    14. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a tough question, then : if someone's having a bone marrow transplant, sure, after some short time, his testicles/ovaries will still produce original DNA
      But what happens after, say, 15 years ? Still original DNA, or donor's, or no one wondered/knows ???

    15. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by GuyverX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the article was more of a "warm fuzzy" piece about his life being saved by a donor, with confusing and poorly explained biology littered throughout. As has been noted several times before in this thread, there is nothing particularly world-shattering about this. It's great he survived, and it's interesting that it looked like both donor lines were present for a while before the female line disapeared (and given the small amount of cord blood that can be harvested each time, darned lucky of him that the male line was established enough to complete repopulation), but that's about it.

    16. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by Wimmie · · Score: 1

      As a result of this procedure your bloodtype (A,B,O) can also change. I had such a transplantation three years ago and kept my bloodtype (the donor had the same as me)

      As offspring is concerned, Don't worry about the DNA, the initial treatment will not
      be a BMT and my 20+ chemo treatments before took pretty well care of that.
      If I ever wanted any it would imply a trip to the freezer and an IVF procedure.

    17. Re:This scares the hell out of me. by SoTuA · · Score: 1

      Still the original. The only part with the different DNA will be the bone marrow and blood cells. Rest of the body works as usual.

  12. Tax Implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think the IRS has ruled this would require filing 3 income tax forms.

  13. chimera by wizardforce · · Score: 1

    doesn't a bone marrow transplant do a similar thing? in that case, your bone marrow has different DNA than the rest of your body, or really any transplant would be considered a man-made chimera...

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  14. Allow me by the+dark+hero · · Score: 1
    1. Commit Crime

    2. Profit!
    3. Inject Stem Cells
    4. ????
    5. Home Free

    --
    You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.

    Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies

  15. And this is news because...??? by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Informative

    We've been doing bone marrow stem-cell transplants for years on people with hematopoietic neoplasms. In fact, we've been doing solid organ transplants for about 40 years. Of course they will have different DNA! In fact, even a normal person has different sets of DNA right now. This is most evident in germ cells, which undergo meiosis, and antibody-producing hematopoietic cells, which change their DNA to be able to make different antibodies to different antigens. So I don't see why this is news.

    1. Re:And this is news because...??? by TheLostSamurai · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I had a bone marrow transplant 5 years ago to treat ALL Leukemia. My doctor had told me then that I would have different DNA in my blood than in other cells such as skin and hair. IIRC, he also mentioned this would be short lived, but I can't quite remember why. However, since I didn't have any prior homicidal tendencies, this didn't really affect me much.

      --
      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
    2. Re:And this is news because...??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's news because he got two different sets of cord material. Each with different DNA sets and it worked. All the cells specialized and starting doing what they were suppose to.

      Pretty cool considering that normal marrow transplants require careful screening to prevent rejection by the body and even then sometimes the body rejects it anyway. In his case he got two completely different sets and neither was rejected.

  16. This is nothing new. by wiggles · · Score: 4, Informative

    The procedure is called an Allogenic Stem Cell Transplant. The procedure has been in use for well over a decade, and it replaced the old Bone Marrow Transplant techniques that used to be used for conditions such as leukemia, various cancers, lymphoma, and other immune system disorders.

    The only thing remarkable about this is the fact that the stem cells the man received were from cord blood instead of adult stem cells from a matched donor.

    Wikipedia has an excellent article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_transplantation
    The applicable section to this article reads as such:
    "Umbilical cord blood is obtained when a mother donates her infant's umbilical cord and placenta after birth. Cord blood has a higher concentration of HSC (hematopoietic stem cells --ed.) than is normally found in adult blood. However, the small quantity of blood obtained from an umbilical cord (typically about 50 mL) makes it more suitable for transplantation into small children than into adults. Newer techniques using ex-vivo expansion of cord blood units or the use of two cord blood units from different donors are being explored to allow cord blood transplants to be used in adults."

    I spent six months in Seattle as a caregiver for a patient undergoing this procedure. The work they do at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center there is second to none.

  17. Sorta like BM transplant by Seakip18 · · Score: 1

    This is pretty much like a bone marrow transplant. The precursor cells that stay, win pretty much. In this case, your taking those precursor cells

    --
    import system.cool.Sig;
    1. Re:Sorta like BM transplant by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      BM transplants.. uh, huh... Oh, wait. BONE MARROW.... Whew...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  18. 2 sets of DNA? by JayDot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lawyer: "This is not the DNA you are looking for."

    --
    Meh, a real sig would take too long, and I have an MMORPG to play with....
    1. Re:2 sets of DNA? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Lawyer: "You don't need to take another sample..."

      Prosecutor: "We don't need to take another sample."

      Lawyer: "The case is dismissed, you're free to go..."

  19. I see what he did there by Das+Modell · · Score: 2, Funny

    Stem cells change man's DNA? Someone should ask him if he's recently visited a secret underwater city.

    1. Re:I see what he did there by raygundan · · Score: 1

      I wonder if he's as good as my daddy?

  20. as recalled by the csi tag by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    in that episode, there was a man who cleverly attempted to avoid culpability in a murder because his blood was a different genotype than the rest of him, because he was a chimera. the csi team spends much time in vain trying to pin the murder on the murderer's brothers, because genetic tests indicate he is related to the "real" murderer

    real but extremely rare, it developmentally consists of nonidentical twins in the womb whose embryos fuse very early on, when that is still possible (when they are only a couple of hundred cells, for example)

    then the organism consists of one individual, but one organ system might be a completely different genetic makeup than another organism. so sombody's nervous system could be genetic code A, while his spleen could be genetic code B. chimeras can go through life having no idea what they are, but sometimes, you can see it on their skin (a subtle zebra striping)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:as recalled by the csi tag by KidKadaver · · Score: 1

      Lydia Fairchild was pregnant with her third child, when she and the father of her children, Jamie Townsend, separated. When Fairchild applied for welfare support in 2002, she was requested to provide DNA evidence that Townsend was the father of her children. While the results showed Townsend was certainly the father of the children, the DNA tests indicated that she was not their mother. This resulted in Fairchild being taken to court for fraud for claiming benefit for other people's children or taking part in a surrogacy scam. Hospital records of her prior births were disregarded. Prosecutors called for her two children to be taken into care. As time came for her to give birth to her third child, the judge ordered a witness be present at the birth. This witness was to ensure that blood samples were immediately taken from both the child and Fairchild. Two weeks later, DNA tests indicated that she was not the mother of that child either.

      Interesting stuff, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Fairchild
  21. Change or add? by pembo13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems to me that the stem cells added new DNA material, it didn't mutate his existing DNA material.. so why use the word change?

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    1. Re:Change or add? by Sique · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because the new stemcells replaced the old in the bone marrow. So his blood DNA slowly changed from his own to that of the new stem cells. First there were only blood cells from his DNA, and very few of the new one. Later one the blood cells with his own DNA got replaced by those produced from the new stem cells.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  22. Multple names and numbers by Nymz · · Score: 1

    If your file can contain your name, along with all aliases that you used,
    and your social security number, along with all the stolen numbers you've used,
    then I'm sure they can find room, for a second set of DNA to be tied to you as well.

  23. Sounds like a plot from a bad murder mystery..... by HeavyDevelopment · · Score: 1

    His blood has a different DNA makeup than other cell in his body--like his skin and hair. Which introduces a whole monkey wrench in indisputable DNA evidence. From the sounds of it a "bad" guy could change his genetic signature with the same sort of procedure. Not unlike that completely asinine movie "Faceoff" (which completely ignored that half of your face is your bone structure), but instead of how you look its how you DNA looks

    This also begs the question of constitutes life. Are we just a mass of cells and who we are comes from those cells? If that were true then where does someone with two sets of DNA fit in the equation? Or is our body just a container for a life force that is immutable no matter how many sets of DNA your body has? Additionally, do you think that may Greg Graves' personality may change because of this additional DNA? I mean it's one thing to have someone else's organs in you, and whole other thing that your body starts pumping out new cells with different DNA. This is fantastic moral discussion and wonderful fodder for fiction. I've already developed a couple movie and book plots.

    --
    Badges!?! We don't need no stinking badges!
  24. Crime adapts, science adapts by hellfire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First of all, a bone marrow transplant is not currently something Joey Pants can do for you in his brooklyn apartment in 30 minutes just to change your DNA. And the cost and time in the procedure is far greater than simply shaving your body hair, washing down throughly to get dead skin off your body, and wearing thick tight clothes to keep you from shedding any DNA.

    Second, there are plenty of documented cases of someone being a "Chimera" where they contain two sets of DNA in their body. It's usually when an embryo absorbs a twin in the womb. I don't know if there are any true cases out there in the books where a Chimera was tried for a case, but it's known. Science is well aware that DNA is not 100% foolproof, which is why you have probability matches when testing DNA normally. These will simply be bumps in the road and science will adapt. This is nothing new to DNA research. Most likely forensics labs will begin to require taking multiple samples from multiple areas depending on the DNA evidence found. If you left blood at the scene of the crime, why take DNA from your cheek if there's a chance the criminal is a Chimera or a bone marrow transplantee.

    Third, the law will catch up with this. Defense attorneys will use this to create reasonable doubt, and prosecutors will counter to learn about this, while forensics keeps up with the latest scientific trends.

    On the other hand, DNA identification methods for businesses will be completely fucked if someone gets a marrow transplant or is a Chimera and doesn't know it.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Crime adapts, science adapts by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      Most likely forensics labs will begin to require taking multiple samples from multiple areas depending on the DNA evidence found. If you left blood at the scene of the crime, why take DNA from your cheek if there's a chance the criminal is a Chimera or a bone marrow transplantee. The problem isn't false negatives for the reason you said. Suppose stem cells are harvested and the same batch is used on a dozen different people. The blood you find at scene doesn't identify a single person. Forensics will label it as a match with 99.99% confidence, however that model is based on conventional ideas of people not sharing the same DNA.

      Though the defense should know enough to bring up this in trial since the defendant should know he's had a marrow transplant.
  25. Biometric Identity Theft HURTS!!!! by jameskojiro · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah someone stole my identity, they jammed a large metal needle in my arm and stole some bone marrow, four months later i see all these charges on my bank statement saying i spend 30,000 QUID on Mars last tuesday... WTF!!!!

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  26. Transfusions by volpe · · Score: 1

    'If you were to do a DNA test of my blood and one from my skin, they'd be different

    Isn't this true of anyone who's had a transfusion?

    1. Re:Transfusions by UltraOne · · Score: 1

      It is not. Red blood cells in humans don't have nuclei or DNA. The small number of white blood cells (which do have DNA) that are transferred in a transfusion are rapidly recognized as foreign by the recipient's immune system and destroyed. You might be able to pick up a trace amount of the donor's white blood cell DNA if you did the test very soon after the transfusion, but it would be gone within hours.

    2. Re:Transfusions by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      Which in turn brings up an interesting point... how is this guys blood DNA different when the red blood cells that are affected by this have no DNA?

      Did he get chicken stem cells or something?

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    3. Re:Transfusions by UltraOne · · Score: 1

      In the most common type of hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT; the catchall term that includes bone marrow transplant, peripheral blood stem cell transplant, and umbilical cord blood transplant) all lineages of blood cells (white, red, platelets (which bud off of megakaryocyte cells) ) are replaced by cells of donor origin. Of those 3, only the white cells have DNA, so that's what you are measuring if you do a DNA test for chimerism. But if you look at proteins or carbohydrates (e.g. ABO blood type), you can show that the red blood cells have the phenotype specified by the donor genotype and are thus also donor derived.

  27. Holds Envelope To Forehead... by Marko+DeBeeste · · Score: 1

    .. and predicts radical law enforcement involvement in organ/tissue transplants, including logging, tracking, etc of donors and recipients. Organ Donor card? That's a sampling. Diagnosed with disease treatable with gene doping? Ditto. And that's just what I come up with in under five minutes. Imagine what a professional fascist could concoct. Cue the anti-tinfoil rants, but if even five percent of this comes about were screwed, screwed, screwed.

    --
    Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
  28. What can change the nature of a man? by GrievousMistake · · Score: 1

    Ah, well. I guess now we know.

    --
    In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
  29. Genetic chimeras and tranplants by UltraOne · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am a pediatric blood and marrow transplant physician. After every successful bone marrow transplant (BMT), peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT), or umbilical cord blood transplant (UCBT) in which the donor is not the patient or an identical twin, the recipient becomes genetic chimera. The DNA in cells derived from the bone marrow stem cells is different from the DNA in the rest of the recipient's body.

    As others have pointed out, this isn't anything new. Significant clinical use of BMT dates back to the 1970's. PBSCT and UCBT came into widespread use in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

    My group performed a BMT on a patient with relapsed leukemia a few years ago. The patient unfortunately suffered liver and kidney damage as a result of the BMT. He had a liver transplanted from one donor and later a kidney from another donor. Fortunately, he recovered and has remained leukemia free. He is essentially back to being a normal kid, although he will need to take immunosuppressive mediations to prevent rejection indefinitely. That patient permanently has DNA from 4 different sources (bone marrow, liver, kidney, and his original genotype in all other parts of his body).

    1. Re:Genetic chimeras and tranplants by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      what happens if you get DNA from a different gender as your cells die and regenerate?

    2. Re:Genetic chimeras and tranplants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a pediatric blood and marrow transplant physician
      Thank you, you're working medical miracles and us unwashed masses appreciate it.
    3. Re:Genetic chimeras and tranplants by UltraOne · · Score: 1

      For BMT / PBSCT / UCBT, you have transplanted the bone marrow stem cells, which by definition are those that have the capability to self-renew. So even though the more differentiated (i.e. specialized) cells that are produced from the stem cells have a limited lifespan, the bone marrow stem cells will keep producing blood cells with donor genetic characteristics indefinitely. Note that this doesn't effect the non-blood cells in your body, so those retain the recipient's original genetic characteristics. So although there have been reports of allergies (which are white blood cell mediated) being transferred from donor to recipient, a recipient will not convert to the donor's gender, no matter how much time elapses after the transplant.

    4. Re:Genetic chimeras and tranplants by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      I didn't figure it would mess with that, but I did wonder if you'd new "alien" cells in other organs and what that ultimately would do since XX and XY yield fairly different end structures in certain areas- wondered if things would get confused and just die off or osmething.

  30. You're missing his point. by KingSkippus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the responses so far are missing the OP's point.

    I didn't read his post thinking, "OMG, no more DNA evidence within a few years!" I'm guessing he meant that eventually through the use of various technologies for various reasons, it will be possible for criminals to be genetically altered in such a way that making identifying them using DNA will be difficult. It may be 50 years, 100 years, or 200 years, but as we get better and better at munging up our DNA, it is possible.

    Also, that totally neglects that at some point in the future, when the technology behind this kind of stuff becomes pervasive enough, high tech criminals may deliberately have their DNA altered for the specific purpose of thwarting identification.

  31. Re:first man-made Tetragametic Chimera by Psykechan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, he would be a chimera at least for the time being. He has multiple DNA sources in his body and since both types of DNA can be obtained through blood, he could show up as two separate individuals if DNA testing were performed.

    The Lydia Fairchild story is an interesting read. It's rare but it does happen.

  32. The really amazing thing by edwardpickman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What this shows is that a true Chimera is possible mixing human and foreign DNAs. It's amazing that multiple DNA sequences can be supported by the body. Rejection becomes an issue but I'm curious if the body would be more accepting for foreign tissue if it's producing the tissue. The immune system obviously isn't designed to detect foreign DNA but the tissue the DNA is producing is foreign. I'm just curious how far this process can be taken before rejection becomes an problem?

    1. Re:The really amazing thing by Aberdonian · · Score: 1

      Here's another haematologist answering. I will echo what has been said in a thread above that having two forms of DNA inside you is no big deal now - this is true for almost everyone with a transplant and actually is also true, to a more minor extent, in ex-pregant women who continue to carry trace amounts of foetal cells for the rest of their lives. You are right to say that immune systems don't generally detect foreign DNA - although it is able to detect specific forms of DNA, such as unmethylated CpG motifs that occur in bacteria but not humans or dsRNA that occur in viruses. However, it is set up to detect proteins in the form of peptides 'presented' on the surface of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) proteins, which are what gives us our 'tissue type'. This is why different MHC proteins ie different tissue types provoke such strong immune responses=rejection. Even if the tissue types are shared between donor and recipient, there will be numerous differences between two individuals ( about 0.1% of amino acids). However, most of these differences don't provoke strong reactions. It is now recognised that both self and non-self proteins are recognised. Self proteins provoke active tolerance. Non-self ones don't initially, but will do so if recognised for a sufficient length of time without causing any trouble or 'danger'. Only a small minority of differences cause rejection from the off, but these minor histocompatibility antigens are the cause of many of the rejection episodes. Obviously, the more the differences the higher the likelihood of these differenes occurring. For instance, trans-racial transplants are often disastrous. I think I'll finish there - this is a very complex topic.

  33. 3 different strands of DNA? Big whoop! by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    So he has 3 different people's DNA in him, big whoop? I wonder how many people's DNA Anna Nichole Smith had in her at any given time.

  34. most criminals are not smart. So we catch them. by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    Unlike T.V., in the real world most violent criminals are not terribly bright and are caught through far more stupid actions than those required on CSI.

    If malware writers were really all that good, you'd never know you were infected. Its the same thing.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  35. This has already been used as a plot by BuhDuh · · Score: 1

    in an episode of CSI Miami, IIRC. The perp volunteered a DNA swab of his cheek, knowing that a transplant had altered his blood, and there would therefore be no match to the crime scene evidence.

    --
    Enlightenment? It's just a flush in the pan.
  36. Re:Sounds like a plot from a bad murder mystery... by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

    This is fantastic moral discussion and wonderful fodder for fiction. I've already developed a couple movie and book plots. Let me know when those movies come out, so that I can not see them.

    You're really stretching for moral controversies, aren't you?

    It's cute.
    --
    "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
  37. Re:most criminals are not smart. So we catch them. by timmarhy · · Score: 1
    ain't that the truth.

    TV has unfortunately glorified criminals to a certain extent. in the real world they are just stupid thugs without 2 brain cells to rub together, hence why our jails are so full.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  38. I chose the impossible... by Daltin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I chose...Slashdot...

  39. Chiba City Blues by freshmayka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How long before I can go into a black market clinic and get a DNA swap or rather some DNA camo???

  40. Not a new phenomenom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, don't have time to create an account. However, this is something that is seen fairly regularly in medical circles. When someone receives a bone marrow transplant, for example, the DNA of their blood is altered. Additionally, organs that are transplanted into people do not spontaneously change their DNA to match their new owner's. And while it sounds horrible and spooky, it really is not a disturbing or new phenomenom - despite its ties to stem cell research.

    Basically, what I'm saying here is take a deep breath, people. Inhale the good air, exhale the paranoia.

  41. Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe in doing everything scientifically possible to save a human being. However, consider the life-threatening genetic conditions that are passed on through offspring. Science has effectively stopped natural selection. The weak and dumb prevail. Soon we will be a human race depending on science rather then benefiting from it.

    I am a young, naive and childless human. My views may one day change.

  42. You mean nerd pickup lines don't work?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey baby! If I could be any enzyme, I'd choose RNA polymerase and unzip your genes.

  43. How the hell did this make slashdot?!? by Nice_Day · · Score: 0, Troll

    I had 3 types of blood in me. So did a friend of mine. I think I know of about 20 people who had that happen. How is this news?

  44. When does he start to transform... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...into a fly?

  45. Re:most criminals are not smart. So we catch them. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Just because the stupid criminals are in jail doesn't mean that all criminals are stupid.

    The smart criminals are sitting on the boards of large corporations, or holding office in D.C.

  46. scenario by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Or how about this... during your younger years you are a little stupid and commit a felony. "Borrowed" your uncle's car without asking and he was a prick about it, or something. Nothing really horrible, but you are convicted, and you live in a more fascistic state than some, where all felons must give DNA samples for a database.

    Fast forward 20 years - you have long since outgrown your reckless youth, are a responsible, caring member of society and as part of that you give blood and registered in the bone marrow database.
    You're called - there's someone in another state that needs marrow, and you're a match! You're actually thrilled at the idea of being a part of saving a life. A young teenager needs your help. You know what it's like to be a teen who needs help.

    Another 10 years pass and someone is murdered. Blood samples show not only the victim's blood, but the attacker's - she got in a few scratches before succumbing. They test the DNA, search the database, and BINGO - YOU'RE the match. You were on vacation in Barcelona, your wife swears its true. But hey, the expert says you have to be the guy, and so you get the death penalty for the vicious murder.

    You could have gotten off with life in prison, but since you are so cold, so uncaring, so unwilling to show remorse for your crime, protesting your innocence all along, they show no mercy.

    --
    This space available.
    1. Re:scenario by Yetihehe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If he was in Barcelona on vacations, then he have good alibi. He probably spend some time there, buyed something with his credit card, some people have seen him. He left too many traces of being there, so he have proof of being innocent. Then police would have to PROVE he was not in Barcelona when crime happened.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    2. Re:scenario by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      They have proved it - they have DNA evidence, which as every CSI viewer knows, is infallible!

      --
      This space available.
    3. Re:scenario by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      You know, I would hope that a good defense lawyer would stay up on these kinds of developments and would *ask* clients if they've ever donated (or received) stem cells. The dangerous part is when umbilical cells are used and no one ever tells the kid.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    4. Re:scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and you live in a more fascistic state than some, where all felons must give DNA samples for a database. And I hope you know that the US is currently one of those.

    5. Re:scenario by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      But did clothing discovered at the crime scene fit? Despite having DNA evidence, as every Court TV viewer knows, if the glove does not fit then you must acquit!

    6. Re:scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... buyed something with his credit card... Okay class, can someone correctly answer the following question? What's the past tense conjugation of "to buy"?
    7. Re:scenario by Hadley · · Score: 1

      They can prove it quite easily; they have his DNA at the crime scene.

      In law, proof has a different meaning than it does in mathematics. In law, proof is synonymous with evidence.

    8. Re:scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, there'd be 3 DNA samples: the victim's blood, the attacker's blood, and the attacker's skin cells.

      Still, good scenario.

  47. Re:most criminals are not smart. So we catch them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, and you're going to take them down with snide remarks on Slashdot. Fight the power, comrade.

  48. Re:most criminals are not smart. So we catch them. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Nah, they're going to take themselves down by refusing to educate themselves about that thing they want to legislate into usefulness (Teh Internetz) and keep getting caught fondling underage pages.

    All I have to do is laugh.

  49. Faceoff Correction by Cassander · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but as a fan of the movie Faceoff (what can I say, sometimes I like high-spectacle mindless action movies), I must report that they, in fact, did not ignore the issue of bone structure. When they mounted the badguy's face on the hero's skull, they did it on top of a plastic mold that they said was shaped like the badguy's bone structure.

    (Not saying that this would work in the real world, just correcting the statement that the movie did not address this issue).

    --
    Knowledge != Intelligence
  50. Oblig. Futurama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientist: I have combined the DNA of the world's most evil animals, to make the most evil creature of them all!

    [He pours the liquid into a machine and it crackles and a door in it opens. A man emerges from the smoke.]

    Man: It turns out it's Man.

    [From http://www.imsdb.com/transcripts/Futurama-Spanish-Fry.html ]

  51. Chimerism is old news but ignored by CustomDesigned · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Everyone has multiple sets of DNA. Some of your mothers stem cells migrate to your body before and during birth. There, they been documented to become immune cells, heart cells in the case of an infant with a weak heart, and other needed parts to help an infant survive. The average person has about 50 million of his mothers cells still alive in his or her body in adulthood. The chances of this affecting a standard DNA sample are infinitesimal, of course. However, 1 in a million adults is a chimera, with significant portions of alternate DNA. Sometimes, twin embryos merge instead of developing separately - the ultimate siamese twin.

    This leads to heartbreaking legal situations. A mother applied for welfare benefits. When they did DNA testing to make sure the kids were hers, DNA testing showed half were not, and they took half her kids away. Her obstetrician and her husband testified under oath that they had observed the kids birth, but to the bureaucracy, DNA was incontrovertible. Years later, a doctor interested in chimerism noticed her case, took multiple DNA samples from many locations, and showed that she had 2 major and one minor DNA profile. The minor was her mother, the 2 major profiles were her and her fraternal sister. The embryos had merged, and half her eggs were one DNA and half her sisters (or vice versa - it's hard to say if it's her or her sister).

    A winning athlete was accused of blood doping (blood transfusion before the competition to increase stamina) and lost his medal, despite medical testimony that he was a chimera, and had two types of bone marrow DNA, and hence two types of blood.

  52. Re:3 different strands of DNA? Big whoop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention all the recently outed gay GOP politicians

  53. Stem Cells Change Man's DNA...Sounds familiar... by Slashboo · · Score: 1

    Did anybody else read the headline and think of Bioshock?

    --
    Reality is the original Rorschach.
  54. MOD PARENT INFORMATIVE by volpe · · Score: 1

    I had no idea that red blood cells (or any cells, for that matter) did not nave nuclei. Thanks.