Question for the scientificly minded.



This is somthing I have wondered about for a while , dont ask why because its an odd one.


If a man had an accident and lost both testicals, and they were destroyed would it be possible to transplant?

And if it was and the said transplanted organs worked successfully , whos DNA would any child concieved using said organ would the child have, the new owners or the old owners?

(told you it was an odd one)

I would have thought that, assuming a transplant were possible, the DNA would be the donor's, as the sperm are produced from there.

Any medics amongst us?

Joe

Here's a better one - Who would be a donor? :hihi: :suspect: :hihi:

Originally posted by Strix
Here's a better one - Who would be a donor? :hihi: :suspect: :hihi:

Good point, arent most donor parts from the dead? so you'd have some 80 year old man's testicles... hmmm... don't old people get problems with erections and sperm producing as they get older anyways?

Anyways, I highly doubt that the transplant would be successful and the persons body would reject them, and a man's pride probably would too :P but IF it did work, then the sperm would be of the original owners I would assume, I'm not entirely 100% sure though

sperm consists off half the chromosomes of the man correct? but does it take existing DNA and split it randomly (we know its random of the half, thats how theres variation), or does it base it off the cell structure of the testicle?

thats the only way you'd find a true answer... how does a testicle truely work...

excuse me whilst I unzip and ask mine... lol

Originally posted by Strix
Here's a better one - Who would be a donor? :hihi: :suspect: :hihi:

Soon to become, :hihi: :suspect: and :suspect: :hihi:

Originally posted by xafier
Good point, arent most donor parts from the dead? so you'd have some 80 year old man's testicles... hmmm... don't old people get problems with erections and sperm producing as they get older anyways?

Anyways, I highly doubt that the transplant would be successful and the persons body would reject them, and a man's pride probably would too :P but IF it did work, then the sperm would be of the original owners I would assume, I'm not entirely 100% sure though

sperm consists off half the chromosomes of the man correct? but does it take existing DNA and split it randomly (we know its random of the half, thats how theres variation), or does it base it off the cell structure of the testicle?

thats the only way you'd find a true answer... how does a testicle truely work...

excuse me whilst I unzip and ask mine... lol

I don't think many transplants are carried out with 80 year old organs. Your average transplant comes from fatal RTAs of relatively young people.

As to how the sperm is produced, I'm not really qualified to comment, but I think I would hazard a guess that producing sperm would be impossible, as producing sperm probably involves more than just the testes, and the DNA mismatch would prevent sperm being produced.

The reason heart transplants and the like is possible is (I think) because the DNA code for building heart tissue is sufficiently similar in humans who's blood group is the same.

But thats just educated guesswork really.

I don't know how a guy would ever get himself in a position to accidentally lose his balls!? The mind boggles...

Perhaps he doesn't deserve to breed. Survival of the fittest and all that.

What happens with normal transplants? Is the DNA inside the cells of (say) a transplanted heart the DNA of the donor or the reciepient?? DNA reproduces by replication, so I would guess that the DNA contained in the cells of the new organ would be that of the donor. Theoretically, this would mean that a child concieved with transplanted testes would be that of the donor. Weird! This is just my 2p worth... I'm not a biologist! :D To echo an earlier post though, I'd guess that a transplant would be just for cosmestic reasons, I don't think those bad boys would work as such ;)

Well at least if the donor is an RTA victim, he's unlikely to incurr the wrath of the CSA..... On second thoughts...... :huh:

Originally posted by TracieJC
What happens with normal transplants? Is the DNA inside the cells of (say) a transplanted heart the DNA of the donor or the reciepient?? DNA reproduces by replication, so I would guess that the DNA contained in the cells of the new organ would be that of the donor. Theoretically, this would mean that a child concieved with transplanted testes would be that of the donor. Weird! This is just my 2p worth... I'm not a biologist! :D To echo an earlier post though, I'd guess that a transplant would be just for cosmestic reasons, I don't think those bad boys would work as such ;)

Hmmm on second thoughts, I think they would be that of the donor. Creation of gametes (eggs and sperm) is a special case to the rest of the body, as they only contain half as many chromosomes as the other cells.

I think (without wanting to be too grapic) it would depend on which exact bits you had lost.

SPERM PRODUCTION

In the male, pituitary hormones are responsible for mediating the sperm production process. The hormones that control production of sperm are the gonadotropins:
o FSH
o LH
These hormones are released by the pituitary gland in the brain. The gonadotropins stimulate the production of both sperm and testosterone in the testicles. The testicles typically produce 50,000 new sperm every minute of every day beginning at puberty until the man is seventy years old or older. Following ejaculation, the sperm reserves are quickly replenished to stabilized levels. Frequent ejaculations can deplete reserves, however forty-eight hour abstinence periods are typically sufficient to restore sperm reserves.
Sperm are produced by the testes and mature in the epididymis. The epididymis is an oval shaped structure within the scrotal sac that stores and nourishes the sperm to maturity. Upon ejaculation, glandular secretions are added which nourish, sustain, and transport the sperm. This resulting mixture consists of 2% sperm and 98% fluid, and is called semen.
Hope this helps!:smile:

I don't have the time to read this now (I have an experiment on in the lab that needs to be turned off.. uh.. five mins ago) but have a look, its about the fate of DNA in transplanted organs...

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar2000/953449368.Me.r.html

what a good question.

Off the cuff I would say that the testicle would retain the real owner's chromosomes in its germ cells, and would give rise to interesting paternity suits.

"Well, we conceived in the normal way, but I'm not the father. The childs father died in a RTA on the M1 and they snatched his testicles and gave them to me."

Aren't testicles endocrine glands as well as sperm repositories?

Originally posted by Strix
Here's a better one - Who would be a donor? :hihi: :suspect: :hihi:
John Bobbit ????

The guy could just adopt a child, there are plenty of kids without parents.

Originally posted by TracieJC
I don't have the time to read this now (I have an experiment on in the lab that needs to be turned off.. uh.. five mins ago) but have a look, its about the fate of DNA in transplanted organs...

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar2000/953449368.Me.r.html

Checked out your lead Tracie, very interesting but no banana, so I have posted a question to madsci and wait and see whether my question is worthy of being answered by them, apparently they are picky about the questions they answer but this ones a brain teaser so may be I will get an answer :)

I would have thought that a man who has lost his testicles, would have more success in reproducing using his extracted dna and a modern test-tube therapy method. I don't know if it is technically possible, but more likely to be successful than a bizzare knacker replacement procedure.

Got an answer to my question and it is yes for the transplant, but the children would be geneticaly related to the testical and not the father, if you know what I mean.

Check it out at

http://www.madsci.org/posts/1105718225.Me.q.html

Cant say I am surprised but am glad to know just the same.

Originally posted by jonsastar
Got an answer to my question and it is yes for the transplant, but the children would be geneticaly related to the testical and not the father, if you know what I mean.

Check it out at

http://www.madsci.org/posts/1105718225.Me.q.html

Cant say I am surprised but am glad to know just the same.

Blimey they were quick in replying to your question. I will print this out and take it into work on Monday - best debate my office has had in ages!

PS. Just read your sig and in light of this post couldn't help but snigger :D

Originally posted by TracieJC
Blimey they were quick in replying to your question. I will print this out and take it into work on Monday - best debate my office has had in ages!

PS. Just read your sig and in light of this post couldn't help but snigger :D

Glad to give you sothing to talk about Tracie. :thumbsup:

Spotted the sig my self, unintentional blunder I guess. :hihi:

Originally posted by jonsastar
Got an answer to my question and it is yes for the transplant, but the children would be geneticaly related to the testical and not the father, if you know what I mean.

Check it out at

http://www.madsci.org/posts/1105718225.Me.q.html

Cant say I am surprised but am glad to know just the same.

Just as I thought.

It is also now possible to irradiate a mans testicles so that he is infertile (as frequently happens in radiotherapy) and implant previously harvested "germ tissue" which immediately starts producing sperm and soon recolonises the sterilised testis.

In the future this may be a more effective method than freezing sperm for IVF purposes when fathers are rendered infertile from medical intervention.

I don't think it would be the 'Who's kids are they?' question that would bother me, so much as the 'Who's going to wash them when I shower?' dilemma.

It has to be said, and I thought I'd get in & say it before Kirky


You are all talking Bo//eux!

:clap:

gosh, that was mass debate!!
:lol: