Human cells transfer DNA via nanotubes

A paper published in *Cell* in 2026 reported that human cells can pass fragments of genomic DNA directly into neighboring human cells through nanotube-like connections, and that some of that DNA can later function inside the recipient cell. The work offers a documented case of DNA moving between mammalian cells in a way that resembles horizontal gene transfer, a process long associated mainly with bacteria. The study was led by Elizabeth G. Maurais and colleagues at Children’s Medical Center Research Institute at UT Southwestern and related institutions. The central observation was not just that DNA moved, but that it persisted. The *Cell* paper said donor DNA mislocalized to the cytoplasm could transfer through contact-dependent, cytoskeleton-based nanotube structures, intermingle with the recipient genome, and remain genetically stable across multiple cell generations. The authors also reported that transferred fragments could encode functional genes that gave recipient cells new traits. (cell.com) ### Where did this claim come from? A social-media post that circulated on September 7, 2026, pointed to the finding without linking the underlying experiment. The underlying study is a peer-reviewed paper in *Cell* titled “Genome instability triggers intercellular DNA transfer between human cells,” and it is indexed in PubMed under Maurais, Mazzagatti, Lin and co-authors. UT Southwestern also published a research summary in May describing the same work. (cell.com) A separate *Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology* research highlight described the finding as “a horizontal gene-transfer-like mechanism in mammalian cells.” That commentary framed the paper as evidence that fragmented genomic DNA in the cytoplasm can move between mammalian cells, integrate into recipient genomes and support gene expression. ### What exactly moved between cells? The *Cell* study focused on nuclear DNA fragments that had escaped into the cytoplasm after genome instability events. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) According to the paper, those cytoplasmic DNA fragments then traveled through nanotube-like structures linking adjacent human cells. The transfer was contact-dependent, which means the cells had to be physically connected rather than exchanging DNA at a distance through bulk fluid alone. (nature.com) Nanotube-like structures are not new in cell biology. Prior reviews describe tunneling nanotubes as thin, actin-based membrane bridges that can connect cells and allow passage of cargo such as organelles, proteins and nucleic acids. What is new here is the evidence that fragmented genomic DNA itself can cross that bridge and later become part of the recipient cell’s genome. ### Did the transferred DNA actually do anything? (cell.com) The authors said yes. The *Cell* paper reported that transferred DNA fragments were not merely transient debris; some became stable elements inherited across cell divisions and encoded functional genes. UT Southwestern’s summary said the imported DNA could alter recipient-cell behavior. That point is the most important distinction between “DNA was detected” and “genes were functionally transferred.” The paper’s claim is that at least some transferred fragments became biologically active after entering recipient cells, rather than remaining inert passengers. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) ### Why are researchers comparing this to horizontal gene transfer? Horizontal gene transfer usually refers to genes moving between organisms outside ordinary inheritance from parent to offspring. (cell.com) The *Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology* highlight said the Maurais study showed a “horizontal gene-transfer-like mechanism in mammalian cells,” while emphasizing that the work involved neighboring human cells under conditions of genomic instability. The comparison does not mean human cells swap DNA routinely in normal tissue the way bacteria can exchange genes. It means the study documented a mechanistic parallel: DNA left one cell, entered another, integrated and in some cases became functional. The paper and commentary both connect that process to genome surveillance, intercellular communication and cancer evolution. ### What are the main caveats? (nature.com) The study does not show that all human cells commonly exchange DNA in everyday physiology. The reported transfer was linked to genome instability, DNA mislocalization into the cytoplasm and direct cell-cell contact through nanotube-like structures. The strongest implications in the paper and commentaries concern settings such as cancer, where chromosomal instability is common. The next place to look is the full *Cell* paper and follow-up studies testing how often this happens in living tissues, which cell types do it most readily, and whether the process can be blocked or exploited in cancer research. (cell.com 1) (cell.com 2)