Thread: Dumb question about Fallopian tubes/eggs

My wife and I were talking about her hormone replacement (or lack of it) and it got me wondering about Fallopian tube transplants. I've never heard of it so is it even on the radar or never attempted/funded etc? BUT, it really brought me to this question.
If, a fallopian tube transplant were done. Would the DNA of the egg reflect the donors DNA or would the organ still be directed by the new owners brain/system to produce the new owners DNA structure? Would the baby produced have the characteristics of the father and the new owner or the father and the original donor? Does the organ produce an egg to the original recipe or will it change to the new one?? Probably a really stupid question but I really started thinking about it and it brings up an interesting scenario. Thanks for listening.

Originally Posted by Schrodingersothercat

My wife and I were talking about her hormone replacement (or lack of it) and it got me wondering about Fallopian tube transplants. I've never heard of it so is it even on the radar or never attempted/funded etc? BUT, it really brought me to this question.
If, a fallopian tube transplant were done. Would the DNA of the egg reflect the donors DNA or would the organ still be directed by the new owners brain/system to produce the new owners DNA structure? Would the baby produced have the characteristics of the father and the new owner or the father and the original donor? Does the organ produce an egg to the original recipe or will it change to the new one?? Probably a really stupid question but I really started thinking about it and it brings up an interesting scenario. Thanks for listening.

I think you have confused fallopian tubes with ovaries and I've never heard of any plans for ovary transplants. However, if such a transplant were possible, the ovary would produce eggs with the donors DNA.

I just mentioned to my wife that I posted that question and realized I used fallopian tubes instead of overies. But you beat me back to the post. Thank you for the reply. What you are saying is, the overies, although an organ unto itself, still would get all its building instruction from the new host. My wife just made an interesting comment, and one that I remember always hearing. That you are born with all the eggs you'll ever have. If that is true then the overies are a storehouse for the eggs, and no more will be made by the organ, just doled out. If that is true ( and I don't know the answer to that), if a transplant were done, the eggs inside of the overies would indeed be built off of the original donors DNA sequences. Still an interesting scenerio. Forgive my naiveté on this matter. Just doing some mind excersizes.

Originally Posted by Schrodingersothercat

What you are saying is, the ovaries, although an organ unto itself, still would get all its building instruction from the new host.

No, I thought I was clear that the donor of the ovaries would also provide the DNA. Your wife is correct on that matter. So is she going to get her own ID or just use yours? Also, if you search on Schrodinger's cat I'm sure you can come up with a great avatar, if you want one. This forum software should resize it to avatar size. I believe the aspect ratio of the avatars are a perfect square, so the closer you can make it to a square the larger it will be.

Sorry maybe you like the jailhouse mug shot.

I'm very sorry arKane, I read your reply but I took the answer completely wrong. Not sure where my head was. So the new owner is not adding DNA to the mix with the father. Interesting. As far as the avatar, it is deffinitely as ugly as yours, heh. I just think it is funny. Will have to look into a replacement. Thanks for your patience with my oft misplaced brain action.

I presume you are postulating ovarian transplants as an aid to infertility?

Firstly, transplant patients will likely receive life-long immunosuppression. This does not rule out pregnancy at all, but does make it higher risk (Immunosuppressant therapy in pregnant organ ... [Semin Perinatol. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI)

Second, this is interesting academically but practically speaking there are many efficient and safer ways of dealing with infertility that are widely available.

Finally, the eggs/DNA would only be the host’s (receiving the transplant) if it was an autotransplant see (Live birth after transplantation of*frozen-tha... [Fertil Steril. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI) (let me know if you would like the pdfs)

(Also, I always like to hear stupid questions. I certainly ask them all day everyday)

Originally Posted by Schrodingersothercat

I'm very sorry arKane, I read your reply but I took the answer completely wrong. Not sure where my head was. So the new owner is not adding DNA to the mix with the father. Interesting. As far as the avatar, it is definitely as ugly as yours, heh. I just think it is funny. Will have to look into a replacement. Thanks for your patience with my oft misplaced brain action.

Been there and done that. You do have a point about ugly avatars. In my case I found the avatar and then tried to match a name to it and arKane seemed to be a good fit.

If you want a topic that get's more posts to it, find a question with many possibilities.

I don't know if ovarie transplants are possible, or even legal. In my opinion, it is like stealing a dead guys sperm and inseminating someone with it. But this is obviously from the female point of view, but still, your using parts from a dead woman to reproduce....

All the eggs will be from the donor, nothing that comes from it will ever be yours. But i think, because the child you carry has none of your dna, some medicine must be taken to make it safe. To prevent it being excreted. Though the hormones it produces may increase fertility, even in the other ovarie that may still be yours, i would strongly disadvice you to chose this for an option. A better option is to simply adopt, or try to deal with the fact that you can't have children. (Harder for some then for others)

@arKane; Your avatar is indeed ugly, but the name doesn't quite fit. It seems like an elderly clockwork kind of mechanic, not a wizard. Hmm..

I don't think they would have to take meds. surrogate mothers don't take meds. Also, in standard pregnancies the DNA is not the same in the fetus and mother, there is no rejection.

(also, I'm sure you know full well that 'has none of your DNA' is wrong. There is a huge amount of conserved DNA across homo saps, and with other species)

Originally Posted by Zwolver

@arKane; Your avatar is indeed ugly, but the name doesn't quite fit. It seems like an elderly clockwork kind of mechanic, not a wizard. Hmm..

I'll drink to that, make it a cold one.

Thanks for all the replies everyone. My wife and I were actually discussing another subject when my addled mind presented this scenario. I just turned 60 so no way am I contemplating, or anything else, adding a little one to my stable, lol. It was just a curiousity I thought I'd ask about and I thought it might be interesting. I had not even thought of the legel aspect of the transplant.
By the way. The damage to the eye in my avatar was self inlficted in one of my more less intelligent moments, which is why I thought it was funny. I have absolutely not problem making fun of myself.

"Insane" would be a better name to fit that avatar. Or "raving lunatic". Or any word that matches the insanity of those staring eyes. Adopting a name like that will not induce us (or not many of us) to assume you are a screw loose.

That avatar reminds me a little of the big guy in "Goonies".

Originally Posted by skeptic

"Insane" would be a better name to fit that avatar. Or "raving lunatic". Or any word that matches the insanity of those staring eyes. Adopting a name like that will not induce us (or not many of us) to assume you are a screw loose.

I had to look at yours for awhile, before I realized it's a fish. What's with that?

Maybe we should start a thread about how people chose their avatars.

Reflects my three great loves. All starting with sc.

Scepticism, scuba, and science. (With the British spelling of skeptic)

The fish is a groper, which I photographed under the Exmouth navy pier in Western Australia some years ago while scuba diving. I have been thinking of changing it to a shark photo, since I am very fond of sharks. What do you think?

Originally Posted by skeptic

Reflects my three great loves. All starting with sc.

Scepticism, scuba, and science. (With the British spelling of skeptic)

The fish is a groper, which I photographed under the Exmouth navy pier in Western Australia some years ago while scuba diving. I have been thinking of changing it to a shark photo, since I am very fond of sharks. What do you think?

It should be a very angry Shark with lots of teeth. Sharks are cool as long as they aren't taking a bit out of you.

This is a bull shark, widely regarded as the worst "man-eater" in the ocean. I am cheating here, since a friend took this photo, but I was right next to him as he did so. Do you like its teeth?

Or how about this (my photo this time)?



I have plenty more.

Very difficult problem in the nature.

Originally Posted by skeptic

This is a bull shark, widely regarded as the worst "man-eater" in the ocean. I am cheating here, since a friend took this photo, but I was right next to him as he did so. Do you like its teeth?

That certainly looks up close and personal. I'd say it could be trimmed into a very nice avatar.

Originally Posted by arKane

Originally Posted by Zwolver

@arKane; Your avatar is indeed ugly, but the name doesn't quite fit. It seems like an elderly clockwork kind of mechanic, not a wizard. Hmm..

I'll drink to that, make it a cold one.

How did you guess i like beer?

And over the other avatars...

Fishy.jpg

This shark looks aggressive.. Don't you think.. It's stripes are almost eating me alive (trololol)