Talk:Human chimera

Rarity and identification of human chimera

I am NOT an expert, so do not wish to edit the actual article.

This statement is almost certainly incorrect "Non-artificial chimerism is so rare that there have only been 100 confirmed cases in humans.[citation needed]"

Various levels of human chimera have been found. 1) Human mothers get stem cells from their children

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633676/

2) Twins exchange cells

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902707/

3) Children gets cells from their mothers

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24719-z

4) Children even get cells from their grandmothers.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(21)00537-5/fulltext

The conclusion is that almost every human is a chimera at least at a very low level.

Also this statement is probably not correct. "By simply undergoing a DNA test, which usually consists of either a swift cheek swab or a blood test, the discovery of the once unknown second genome is made, therefore identifying that individual as a chimera."

If the chimeric cells involve the blood or immune system, perhaps. But that's a tiny fraction of your body cells. For example, see what level of testing was needed in this case.

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/case-lydia-fairchild-and-her-chimerism-2002

Cheek, blood, hair all didn't show any sign of her chimerism. Only a sample from the cervex did. WetEV (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Scope of articles

See Talk:Human–animal hybrid#Scope of articles — Omegatron (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Support the April proposal to merge the new article, Human Chimerism, to here. Heavy overlap in scope, best merged to the existing article. Klbrain (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Support but count me out for actually implementing the merge as I don't have the required expertise to do so. Pichpich (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)