DNA Fingerprinting in Human Health and Society

Written by David F. Betsch, Ph.D., Biotechnology Training Programs, Inc. Edited by

Glenda D. Webber, Iowa State University Office of Biotechnology.

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of Congress of May 8 and

June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Cooperative
Extension Services of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. June, 1994

Like the fingerprints that came into use by detectives and police labs during the 1930s,
each person has a unique DNA fingerprint. Unlike a conventional fingerprint that occurs
only on the fingertips and can be altered by surgery, a DNA fingerprint is the same for
every cell, tissue, and organ of a person. It cannot be altered by any known treatment.
Consequently, DNA fingerprinting is rapidly becoming the primary method for identifying
and distinguishing among individual human beings.

An additional application of DNA fingerprint technology is the diagnosis of inherited

disorders in adults, children, and unborn babies. The technology is so powerful that, for
example, even the blood-stained clothing of Abraham Lincoln could be analyzed for
evidence of a genetic disorder called Marfan's Syndrome.

The Structure of DNA

The characteristics of all living organisms, including humans, are essentially determined
by information contained within DNA that they inherit from their parents. The molecular
structure of DNA can be imagined as a zipper with each tooth represented by one of
four letters (A, C, G, or T), and with opposite teeth forming one of two pairs, either A-T
or G-C. The letters A, C, G, and T stand for adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine,
the basic building blocks of DNA.

The information contained in DNA is determined primarily by the sequence of letters

along the zipper. For example, the sequence ACGCT represents different information
than the sequence AGTCC in the same way that the word "POST" has a different
meaning from "STOP" or "POTS," even though they use the same letters. The traits of a
human being are the result of information contained in the DNA code.

Living organisms that look different or have different characteristics also have different
DNA sequences. The more varied the organisms, the more varied the DNA sequences.
DNA fingerprinting is a very quick way to compare the DNA sequences of any two living
organisms.

Making DNA Fingerprints

DNA fingerprinting is a laboratory procedure that requires six steps:

1: Isolation of DNA.
DNA must be recovered from the cells or tissues of the body. Only a small
amount of tissue - like blood, hair, or skin - is needed. For example, the amount
of DNA found at the root of one hair is usually sufficient.
2: Cutting, sizing, and sorting.
Special enzymes called restriction enzymes are used to cut the DNA at specific
places. For example, an enzyme called EcoR1, found in bacteria, will cut DNA
only when the sequence GAATTC occurs. The DNA pieces are sorted according
to size by a sieving technique called electrophoresis. The DNA pieces are
passed through a gel made from seaweed agarose (a jelly-like product made
from seaweed). This technique is the biotechnology equivalent of screening sand
through progressively finer mesh screens to determine particle sizes.
 3: Transfer of DNA to nylon.
The distribution of DNA pieces is transferred to a nylon sheet by placing the
sheet on the gel and soaking them overnight.
4-5: Probing.
Adding radioactive or colored probes to the nylon sheet produces a pattern called
the DNA fingerprint. Each probe typically sticks in only one or two specific places
on the nylon sheet.
6: DNA fingerprint.
The final DNA fingerprint is built by using several probes (5-10 or more)
simultaneously. It resembles the bar codes used by grocery store scanners.

Uses of DNA Fingerprints

DNA fingerprints are useful in several applications of human health care research, as
well as in the justice system.

Diagnosis of Inherited Disorders

DNA fingerprinting is used to diagnose inherited disorders in both prenatal and newborn
babies in hospitals around the world. These disorders may include cystic fibrosis,
hemophilia, Huntington's disease, familial Alzheimer's, sickle cell anemia, thalassemia,
and many others.

Early detection of such disorders enables the medical staff to prepare themselves and
the parents for proper treatment of the child. In some programs, genetic counselors use
DNA fingerprint information to help prospective parents understand the risk of having an
affected child. In other programs, prospective parents use DNA fingerprint information in
their decisions concerning affected pregnancies.

Developing Cures for Inherited Disorders

Research programs to locate inherited disorders on the chromosomes depend on the

information contained in DNA fingerprints. By studying the DNA fingerprints of relatives
who have a history of some particular disorder, or by comparing large groups of people
with and without the disorder, it is possible to identify DNA patterns associated with the
disease in question. This work is a necessary first step in designing an eventual genetic
cure for these disorders.

Biological Evidence

FBI and police labs around the U.S. have begun to use DNA fingerprints to link
suspects to biological evidence - blood or semen stains, hair, or items of clothing -
found at the scene of a crime. Since 1987, hundreds of cases have been decided with
the assistance of DNA fingerprint evidence.

Another important use of DNA fingerprints in the court system is to establish paternity in
custody and child support litigation. In these applications, DNA fingerprints bring an
unprecedented, nearly perfect accuracy to the determination.

Personal Identification

Because every organ or tissue of an individual contains the same DNA fingerprint, the
U.S. armed services have just begun a program to collect DNA fingerprints from all
personnel for use later, in case they are needed to identify casualties or persons
missing in action. The DNA method will be far superior to the dogtags, dental records,
and blood typing strategies currently in use.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BA/DNA_Fingerprinting_Basics.php
DNA fingerprinting has become an indelible part of society, helping to prove innocence
or guilt in criminal cases, resolving immigration arguments and clarifying paternity. Its
inventor, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, University of Leicester, looks back at how it began.

With highly automated and sophisticated equipment, the modern-day DNA fingerprinter
can process hundreds of samples a day. Back in the late 1970s, however, molecular
biology was in its infancy and was just beginning to be applied to human genetics.

"I'd been working in Amsterdam with Dick Flavell," says Professor Jeffreys. "We'd got to
the point where we could detect single copies of human genes – which led to one of the
first observations of introns [non-coding sections of DNA that split up genes]. But when I
came to Leicester in 1977, I wanted to move away from the study of split genes, and to
marry the new techniques of molecular biology with human genetics."

Professor Jeffreys's plan was to use the primitive gene detection methods of the time to
look at the structures of genes and understand inherited variation – the variation
between people. An early outcome of this research was one of the first descriptions of a
restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). (DNA-cutting enzymes target short
DNA sequences, and chop the genome into pieces. Some people have a small DNA
change – a single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] – in a target site, preventing the
enzymes cutting the DNA at that site.)

"We got our first SNP in 1978," says Professor Jeffreys. "Before that we knew about
heritable variation in gene products, such as blood groups, but here we had examples
of inherited variation in DNA, the most fundamental level of all.

While RFLPs were proof of inherited variation at the DNA level, they were difficult to find
and to assay, and did not tell you much about variation between people – you either had
the change or you didn't." So Professor Jeffreys started looking for pieces of DNA that
would be more variable than SNPs.

A prime candidate was tandem repeat DNA – where a short sequence of DNA was
repeated many times in a row. "Intuitively it seemed that regions of tandemly repeated
DNA would be open to mutation processes such as duplication and recombination,"
says Professor Jeffreys. "They could be highly variable, informative genetic markers."

The first fingerprint

Tandem repeat DNA in the human genome remained elusive at first, and the research
went down several blind routes. The answer came from a totally different project in
Professor Jeffreys's lab which was searching for the human copy of the myoglobin
gene, which produces the oxygen carrying protein in muscle. The group decided to look
for the myoglobin gene first in grey seals (as seals produce lots of myoglobin, and have
high levels of myoglobin mRNA, which makes it easy to clone a cDNA), then use the
seal gene to isolate its human counterpart.

"The true story of DNA fingerprinting starts at the headquarters of the British Antarctic
Survey in Cambridge," says Professor Jeffreys. "I collected a big lump of seal meat from
their lock-up freezer and, to cut a long story short, we got the seal myoglobin gene, had
a look at human myoglobin gene and there, inside an intron in that gene was tandem
repeat DNA – a minisatellite."

This minisatellite was to prove the key to the rest of the genome, for while it was not
variable itself, its sequence was similar to the very few minisatellites that had been
described previously. Using the myoglobin minisatellite as a 'hook', the team could then
identify more minisatellites and to their surprise discovered a core sequence - a piece of
DNA that is similar in many different minisatellites. "Using the core sequence, we made
a probe that should latch onto lots of these minisatellites at the same time," says
Professor Jeffreys, "and, to test out the system, we hybridised the probe to a blot with
DNA from several different people."

On a Monday morning in September 1984, the X-ray of the blot was developed in the
Leicester University darkroom. "I took one look, thought 'what a complicated mess', then
suddenly realised we had patterns," says Professor Jeffreys. "There was a level of
individual specificity that was light years beyond anything that had been seen before.

"It was a 'eureka!' moment. Standing in front of this picture in the darkroom, my life took
a complete turn. We could immediately see the potential for forensic investigations and
paternity, and my wife pointed out that very evening that it could be used to resolve
immigration disputes by clarifying family relationships."

The potential of DNA fingerprinting was clear, but could the technology be improved?
Two to three months later, the grubby mess of the first fingerprint had been refined into
clean patterns where DNA fingerprints, unique to an individual, could be deciphered
clearly.

DNA fingerprinting was ready for prime time.

http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_wtd020877.html

What is DNA Fingerprinting?

The chemical structure of everyone's DNA is the same. The only difference between
people (or any animal) is the order of the base pairs. There are so many millions of
base pairs in each person's DNA that every person has a different sequence.

Using these sequences, every person could be identified solely by the sequence of their
base pairs. However, because there are so many millions of base pairs, the task would
be very time-consuming. Instead, scientists are able to use a shorter method, because
of repeating patterns in DNA.

These patterns do not, however, give an individual "fingerprint," but they are able to
determine whether two DNA samples are from the same person, related people, or non-
related people. Scientists use a small number of sequences of DNA that are known to
vary among individuals a great deal, and analyze those to get a certain probability of a
match.

How is DNA Fingerprinting Done?

Southern Blot

The Southern Blot is one way to analyze the genetic patterns which appear in a
person's DNA. Performing a Southern Blot involves:

1. Isolating the DNA in question from the rest of the cellular material in the nucleus. This
can be done either chemically, by using a detergent to wash the extra material from the
DNA,or mechanically, by applying a large amount of pressure in order to "squeeze out"
the DNA.

2. Cutting the DNA into several pieces of different sizes. This is done using one or more
restriction enzymes.
3. Sorting the DNA pieces by size. The process by which the size separation, "size
fractionation," is done is called gel electrophoresis. The DNA is poured into a gel, such
as agarose, and an electrical charge is applied to the gel, with the positive charge at the
bottom and the negative charge at the top. Because DNA has a slightly negative
charge, the pieces of DNA will be attracted towards the bottom of the gel; the smaller
pieces, however, will be able to move more quickly and thus further towards the bottom
than the larger pieces. The different-sized pieces of DNA will therefore be separated by
size, with the smaller pieces towards the bottom and the larger pieces towards the top.

4. Denaturing the DNA, so that all of the DNA is rendered single-stranded. This can be
done either by heating or chemically treating the DNA in the gel.

5. Blotting the DNA. The gel with the size-fractionated DNA is applied to a sheet of
nitrocellulose paper, and then baked to permanently attach the DNA to the sheet. The
Southern Blot is now ready to be analyzed.

In order to analyze a Southern Blot, a radioactive genetic probe is used in a

hybridization reaction with the DNA in question (see next topics for more information). If
an X-ray is taken of the Southern Blot after a radioactive probe has been allowed to
bond with the denatured DNA on the paper, only the areas where the radioactive probe
binds [red] will show up on the film. This allows researchers to identify, in a particular
person's DNA, the occurrence and frequency of the particular genetic pattern contained
in the probe.

Practical Applications of DNA Fingerprinting

1. Paternity and Maternity

Because a person inherits his or her VNTRs from his or her parents, VNTR patterns can
be used to establish paternity and maternity. The patterns are so specific that a parental
VNTR pattern can be reconstructed even if only the children's VNTR patterns are known
(the more children produced, the more reliable the reconstruction). Parent-child VNTR
pattern analysis has been used to solve standard father-identification cases as well as
more complicated cases of confirming legal nationality and, in instances of adoption,
biological parenthood.

2. Criminal Identification and Forensics

DNA isolated from blood, hair, skin cells, or other genetic evidence left at the scene of a
crime can be compared, through VNTR patterns, with the DNA of a criminal suspect to
determine guilt or innocence. VNTR patterns are also useful in establishing the identity
of a homicide victim, either from DNA found as evidence or from the body itself.

3. Personal Identification
The notion of using DNA fingerprints as a sort of genetic bar code to identify individuals
has been discussed, but this is not likely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
The technology required to isolate, keep on file, and then analyze millions of very
specified VNTR patterns is both expensive and impractical. Social security numbers,
picture ID, and other more mundane methods are much more likely to remain the
prevalent ways to establish personal identification.

Problems With DNA Fingerprinting

Like nearly everything else in the scientific world, nothing about DNA fingerprinting is
100% assured. The term DNA fingerprint is, in one sense, a misnomer: it implies that,
like a fingerprint, the VNTR pattern for a given person is utterly and completely unique
to that person. Actually, all that a VNTR pattern can do is present a probability that the
person in question is indeed the person to whom the VNTR pattern (of the child, the
criminal evidence, or whatever else) belongs. Given, that probability might be 1 in 20
billion, which would indicate that the person can be reasonably matched with the DNA
fingerprint; then again, that probability might only be 1 in 20, leaving a large amount of
doubt regarding the specific identity of the VNTR pattern's owner.

1. Generating a High Probability

The probability of a DNA fingerprint belonging to a specific person needs to be
reasonably high--especially in criminal cases, where the association helps establish a
suspect's guilt or innocence. Using certain rare VNTRs or combinations of VNTRs to
create the VNTR pattern increases the probability that the two DNA samples do indeed
match (as opposed to look alike, but not actually come from the same person) or
correlate (in the case of parents and children).

2. Problems with Determining Probability

A. Population Genetics
VNTRs, because they are results of genetic inheritance, are not distributed evenly
across all of human population. A given VNTR cannot, therefore, have a stable
probability of occurrence; it will vary depending on an individual's genetic background.
The difference in probabilities is particularly visible across racial lines. Some VNTRs
that occur very frequently among Hispanics will occur very rarely among Caucasians or
African-Americans. Currently, not enough is known about the VNTR frequency
distributions among ethnic groups to determine accurate probabilities for individuals
within those groups; the heterogeneous genetic composition of interracial individuals,
who are growing in number, presents an entirely new set of questions. Further
experimentation in this area, known as population genetics, has been surrounded with
and hindered by controversy, because the idea of identifying people through genetic
anomalies along racial lines comes alarmingly close to the eugenics and ethnic
purification movements of the recent past, and, some argue, could provide a scientific
basis for racial discrimination.

B. Technical Difficulties
Errors in the hybridization and probing process must also be figured into the probability,
and often the idea of error is simply not acceptable. Most people will agree that an
innocent person should not be sent to jail, a guilty person allowed to walk free, or a
biological mother denied her legal right to custody of her children, simply because a lab
technician did not conduct an experiment accurately. When the DNA sample available is
minuscule, this is an important consideration, because there is not much room for error,
especially if the analysis of the DNA sample involves amplification of the sample
(creating a much larger sample of genetically identical DNA from what little material is
available), because if the wrong DNA is amplified (i.e. a skin cell from the lab
technician) the consequences can be profoundly detrimental. Until recently, the
standards for determining DNA fingerprinting matches, and for laboratory security and
accuracy which would minimize error, were neither stringent nor universally codified,
causing a great deal of public outcry.
http://protist.biology.washington.edu/fingerprint/whatis.html

From high-profile trials to popular TV shows, numerous events have imprinted on our
collective psyche the fact that DNA evidence can be used to solve crimes. But the
technique has extensive uses that go far beyond forensic science. You may even owe
tonight’s dinner, in part, to DNA fingerprinting.

My curiosity about this subject was piqued when I came across a recent newspaper
report that talked about how DNA fingerprinting is being used in India to identify different
varieties of basmati rice. The report mentioned a hotel that buys around 200 tons of
basmati rice per year. The hotel’s chefs found it difficult to cook the rice properly
because each type of basmati rice has different soaking times and cooking properties. A
visual inspection is of limited use because all the varieties look nearly the same. They
decided to solve this problem by working with the rice’s producer to certify each bag of
rice using DNA fingerprinting; the chefs then use the information to help them determine
the proper cooking parameters.

How Does It Work?

DNA sequences are extremely long, and comparing an entire DNA sequence with
another would be hard to do. Fortunately, though, about 99% of human DNA is identical
from one person to the next. The 1% that’s different includes several frequently
repeating sequences; the number of repeating sequences in any given position on a
chromosome is different for each person.

Therefore, in DNA fingerprinting, fragments of DNA are extracted and a collection is

created that is unique for each person. There are several techniques for doing so; they
differ mainly in how the fragments are extracted and how they are converted into a form
that can be analyzed for identification.

While human DNA fingerprinting has numerous uses in law and forensics—from
verifying paternity to identifying murder suspects—this technique also applies to other
organisms. Plants, animals, and even bacteria have unique DNA fingerprints. An
increasing range of applications makes use of this fact. For example:

• Fighting Disease: The big problem in treating bacterial infections using

antibiotics is the fact that, over time, bacteria become resistant to the antibiotics,
thereby making the treatment ineffective. DNA fingerprinting is being used to
identify antibiotic-resistant strains. This helps doctors to select an antibiotic other
than the one to which the bacteria are resistant, or consider a different type of
treatment altogether. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has been using
DNA fingerprinting successfully for controlling the spread of tuberculosis (caused
by Mycobacterium tuberculosis) for the past few years.

http://itotd.com/articles/572/dna-fingerprinting/

DNA Fingerprinting - The Capture Of A Murderer

Apr 16, 1999 - © Elizabeth Batt

In 1984, Professor Alec Jeffreys of Leicester University invented a technique that
seemed to turn the tables against any person with a desire to commit murder. Criminal
forensic procedures took a huge step forward with the introduction of DNA
Fingerprinting - a unique weapon they could to use in their fight against crime. With the
ability to record DNA segments (bar-codes unique to every individual) , DNA
fingerprinting enabled the hunter to become the hunted.

But when was DNA first implemented and what initiated it's first introduction to the crime
scene? Who was the first criminal to be betrayed by his own blood? The criminal and
the case both herald from within Leicestershire's borders.

Narborough is a small quiet town situated not far from the city of Leicester. It has always
been considered a moderately safe area to live and actually accommodates the
headquarters of the Leicestershire Police Constabulary, a perfect deterrent to crime -
until one day in 1983.

On the 22nd November, a local girl was found murdered just a few miles from her
home. Lynda Mann, just fifteen years old, was discovered along a shady footpath,
savagely raped and strangled. The murder rocked the town of Narborough and although
a huge 150-man dragnet was launched, it remained unclear as to who had committed
the crime. The police failed to unearth any leads except for the killer leaving behind a
tiny piece of evidence - a minute sample of semen. The case was to go unsolved for
four years.

On July 31 1987, a body of yet another girl was discovered. Like Lynda, Dawn Ashforth,
also 15 years old, had been brutally raped and strangled. The similarity between the two
cases was too evident to ignore and the police realised they were looking for the same
man.

A massive manhunt began in an effort to locate the murderer, but it appeared that none
of the people investigated could possibly be suspects. However, the police received a
break when they were tipped off about a possible suspect. Richard John Buckland, a 17
year old dishwasher was apprehended and taken into police custody. He was subjected
to a lengthy interview, where he initially denied any association with the crimes. After
extensive questioning however, and with a testimony that was muddled and often
contradictory, he admitted to the murder of Dawn, but refused to admit to Linda's
murder.

The police knew that one person was responsible for both murders and it was at this
point that they had an inspiration. One of the policemen had read an article about a new
forensic technique called DNA Fingerprinting. It had never been used to solve a crime,
but it just might prove Buckland's guilt.

Alec Jeffreys invention enabled investigators to compare Buckland's DNA with the DNA
of the semen found at the crime scene. In a miraculous twist of events, amazed police
discovered that the DNA results proved Buckland innocent of both murders.

The police turned in a different direction. They realised that if this technique could prove
one man's innocence, then it could also prove another man's guilt. But where to begin?

The police focused on three local villages. Every male between 13 and 30 years of age
was tested. Blood samples were drawn from over 5,000 people and analysed. Months
passed, and none of them matched the semen found at the crime scene. The case by
this point had extensively hit the media. With the introduction of a new technique and
with the extent of the testing, the case had been placed at the forefront of everybody's
mind. This is where the breakthrough came from.
A young woman who managed a local bakery overheard a man bragging to his friend
that he had paid someone else to go in his place and be tested in his name. The woman
reported the man to police who picked him up and took him into custody.

Colin Pitchfork already possessed a record for indecent exposure, and convinced that
the DNA testing would be a match, Pitchfork confessed to both crimes. Pitchfork's
worries were confirmed, the test did indeed prove to be a positive match.

Since its invention, DNA Fingerprinting has gained worldwide recognition. Thousands of
people have been convicted by DNA testing. It produced the ability to search out
suspects across time and space, and hundreds have been proved innocent, some just
short of the death chamber.

Colin Pitchfork will remain the first man ever to be convicted by DNA procedures and
Richard John Buckland the first man to ever be proved innocent.

On a personal note, I recall reading a book on the murders written after the case was
solved. I remember with alarming clarity how much that book scared me. I too, was just
fifteen years old at the time of Linda's murder - a startling thought. Even more startling
was the discovery that Pitchfork stalked areas in search of a potential victim, one of
these "stalking routes" took him directly past my house. It is the closest to a killer, that I
ever wish to get!

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/leicestershire/17877

Can Getting a Blood Transfusion Change my DNA?

The good news is that getting a standard blood transfusion cannot and will not change
your DNA. Most people only receive red cells or blood plasma during medical
procedures, and neither one of those blood components contain any DNA material.
Transfused blood still needs to be a match to the recipient's ABO blood type, but it does
not contain any DNA coding from the donor. A blood test performed after a standard
blood transfusion would still reveal only the patient's DNA profile.

This isn't to say that human blood does not contain any DNA, however. White blood
cells, which are usually removed from donated blood by a centrifuge, do contain DNA. If
someone were to require a whole blood transfusion, the donor's white cells would enter
the recipient's bloodstream and remain there until they expire, generally within 4 to 8
days. Such whole blood transfers are very rare, however, and the donor's DNA would
not survive long enough to have an effect on the recipient's DNA. Conceivably, a blood
test taken shortly after a whole blood transfusion could show a mix of DNA coding, but
not strictly the DNA of the donor.

An episode of the television series M*A*S*H dealt with a racist white soldier who
specifically asked the doctors not to give him any blood from a black donor. In an effort
to show the patient the error of his ways, the doctors used iodine to darken his skin.
When the patient awoke, he discovered he had turned "black" as a result of a blood
transfusion. The doctors revealed their ruse only after lecturing the patient on the
realities of blood donations. Receiving a blood transfusion from a donor of a different
race would not change the recipient's own genetics.

Another television series, Law and Order, presented an episode in which the prime
suspect was initially exonerated by a DNA blood test. Blood drawn from the suspect's
arm did not match the blood found at the scene of the crime. Only after the suspect died
did the detectives discover what really occurred. The suspect had implanted a plastic
tube containing another person's blood into his arm, and that foreign blood was used in
the original DNA test. Had the blood entered the suspect's own bloodstream, the test
would have revealed the true killer's DNA. The foreign blood had to be kept separate
from the killer's own bloodstream.

There are some transfusion procedures which can change the recipient's DNA,
however. Bone marrow transfusions, for example, often require that the recipient's own
blood and marrow be destroyed in order to reduce the chances of rejection. Once the
donated marrow begins producing red blood cells again, the white blood cells would
most likely contain the DNA of the donor, not the recipient. This is why finding a close
genetic match for bone marrow donation can be so vital.

In short, receiving a standard platelet, plasma or red cell blood transfusion will not
change the recipient's DNA at all. Receiving a whole blood transfusion might skew the
results of a DNA test for a few days, but eventually the recipient's own blood cells
should overwhelm those of the donor. Only a systemic process such as bone marrow
transfusion could actually change the DNA profile of a recipient.

http://www.wisegeek.com/can-getting-a-blood-transfusion-change-my-dna.htm

Blood may be thicker than water, but it cannot alter your children's DNA. A person's
DNA is inherited from her/his parents via their gametes (sex cells). In other words, the
sperm and egg of ones biological parents determine the DNA of a child, rather than
blood. Having new blood introduced to your system will not affect your future children's
DNA because it will not alter your sex cells.

Did the transfusion already occur? If so, how long ago did you have it? If you have not
already done so, you may want to consider getting tested for Hepatitis B and C and
other infections transmitted by contact with blood because screening of donors for some
types of pathogens was not routine before 1992.

Interestingly, if you have received a blood transfusion, you will carry the DNA of the
donor in your blood stream for a time, depending on how much blood you received.
Most of the new blood is composed of red blood cells, which do not contain genetic
information. However, a few of the transfused cells will also be white blood cells, (the
ones that fight off infection) and these cells do have a nucleus that carries DNA.
Eventually, as a person recovers from whatever caused them to need a transfusion,
they will begin to produce their own red and white blood cells again and the DNA from
the donor will eventually disappear as the cells from the transfusion die off.

If a person receives a transfusion just before or during pregnancy, some of the new
blood will be shared with the fetus via the uterus. However, even if the donor blood is
present in the bloodstream of a fetus or baby for a time, the children's DNA would not
be altered and, as with the adult, the blood cells containing the donor DNA would
eventually disappear. http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/7497.html