I like my questions simple and to the point. Well?
I’m pretty sure that skin grafts are taken from one’s own body. I’m not aware of any procedure being performed where skin grafts were taken from a donor.
Maybe you’re talking about cadaver grafts. They are used for temporary “skin patches.”
Mail call!
Mr. B has nailed it. The link he cites explains it nicely. Cadaver or pig skin can be used as a temporary skin ‘patch’ to help minimize infection and reduce fluid losses to burn victims, but these aren’t viable living tissue. They eventually shrivel up and are removed.
I used to assist with skin grafting years ago as a resident. It was neat. An ultrathin slice of skin up to 4 x 8 cm in rectangular shape would be shaved off of say, the thigh, then honeycombed so it could be spread to cover an even larger area. Then splat onto the damaged area, and attached at the edges with sutures or staples.
Burn victims often don’t have enough of their own skin to do all their grafting at once. Donor skin is used to hold them together until their old sites heal. They eventually reject it. They use pig skin in the same way. So yes, it retains its own DNA
Ok, well what about transplants? From what I’ve read, everyone’s DNA is unique except for identitical twins and bone marrow recipients (and their donors). I’d have to assume that a hand that gets transplanted will retain the donor’s DNA. As would the proposed face transplants that have been in the news.
What would happen if someone whose fingerprints are on file somewhere dies?
Does a notation go on their file?
Or are cops everywhere surprised when a dead man’s fingerprints mysteriously appears in a crime scene years after death?
Or is a notation made that the fingerprint no longer belongs to the dead man?
Say if a criminal gets a hand transplant, are they fingerprinted immediately after the procedure to get it out of the way?
Same thing with DNA, would a criminal’s file have a notation “Hey, check his right hand for DNA too…it’s not really his”?
Um, I meant that bone marrow transplantees share blood DNA, not say, DNA from semen, or other fluids.
Interestingly enough – Matthew Scott, the world’s first successful hand transplant recipient, got his new limb from a dead prisoner. I imagine that’s noted in his medical file somewhere. 
Bone marrow transplants don’t contain DNA at all, since marrow is created from old red blood cells, which have no nucleus (and therefore no DNA molecules.)
That’s completely incorrect, I’m afraid. Bone marrow is the birthplace of new blood cells, both red and white, not “created from old red blood cells”. As such, it’s chock full of DNA-containing nucleated cells.
Bone marrow donor DNA hangs around in the recipient for quite a while. In fact, in our lab we do a test for transplant recipients that tells what percentage of the bone marrow DNA comes from the donor and what percentage comes from the recipient. As we monitor this over time, it helps the doctor track how well the transplanted bone marrow is doing.
Additionally, for some of our other genetic tests, we won’t accept blood from people who have even had a transfusion within the last six months (which seems a bit long to me, but hey - I’m not in charge).