Slashdot Mirror


DNA of Woolly Mammoth Fully Sequenced

jd writes "Scientists have decoded the mitochondrial DNA of the Woolly Mammoth. According to the article: 'the Mammoth was most closely related to the Asian elephant rather than the African Elephant. The three groups split from a common ancestor about six million years ago, with Asian elephants and mammoths diverging about half a million years later.' This work is tied into efforts by researchers to use DNA to analyze other extinct species, such as the cave bear, the Haast eagle and the American lion. The novel aspect of this latest work is that it involved stitching together almost 50 fragments of mtDNA in order to obtain the sequence as a whole."

37 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Great... by }InFuZeD{ · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's always good to know that humans are second to mammoths in genetic research :)

  2. Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny


    DNA? Evolution? Never happened! Mammoths were on the Ark with Noah!

    ---

    For the ID kooks out there who are probably speaking in tongues and convulsing on the floor after today's spanking in court I offer an interesting letter to the editor.

    Some don't need vaccine

    Recent news about the avian flu virus has raised concerns from main street to the White House. There is the possibility, even likelihood, that the virus will mutate into a form that can more easily infect humans.

    As the president pointed out, a vaccine cannot be made until this evolution occurs.

    This raises the concern that it may be impossible to create enough vaccine fast enough to protect all our citizens. But there is hope.

    Gallup polls tell us that up to 45 percent of Americans don't believe in evolution. Since random mutation is the engine of evolution, these same people must believe that the virus cannot mutate.

    Therefore, there is no need to waste vaccine on folks who believe there is no possible threat to themselves -- thus leaving a sufficient supply for the rest of us. Perhaps the president, given his doubts about evolution, may wish to demonstrate his leadership by foregoing vaccination.

    This approach has added benefits. Polls also tell us that disbelief in evolution is more pronounced among the less educated, the poor and conservatives. If the anti-evolutionists among these groups were to opt out of vaccination then, through immediate deaths and natural selection, we would reduce poverty, raise educational attainment and become a more progressive society.

    1. Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... by AlexMax2742 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A portion of the creationists (I use this henceforth to refer to everyone who beleives in some sort of ID nonsense) came up with "Micro" and "Macro" evolution to compensate for this. According to those who beleive it (It's hard to tie it into Creationism itself, because I dont think even two different Creationists agree on what happened), evolution DOES happen on a very small scale, like changing charactoristics in fruit flies, or a mutating virus, but that it's impossible for evolution to change things to the point of there being two totally different species. Of course, such a thing would take a long time to happen in real evolution, which is why their faulty logic is firmly cemented, they can't be proven wrong with a simple explination of "We've seen it happen".

      --
      I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
    2. Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... by LnxAddct · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The funny thing is, they have been proven wrong. Look at dogs and wolves. Or a much better example. If you take a certain species of squirrel from Pennsylvania and mate it with one in Ohio, fertile offspring will be produced. Take this same squirrel and mate it with one of the same species from California and no fertile offspring will be produced. This species is literally on the border of speciation and there are plenty of other species of animals to reference as well. Unfortunately I can't think of the squirrel's species name off the tope of my head, but if you google around you'll find examples.
      Regards,
      Steve

    3. Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... by pkphilip · · Score: 2, Informative

      Where did you get this idea that ID supporters do not believe in micro-evolution? What ID supporters do not believe is macro evolution such as reptiles gaining wings to become birds, ape becoming man etc.

      Micro-evolution, hybrids etc are all considered perfectly valid by IDers.

    4. Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... by Bertie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Erm, right.

      There are various criteria by which you can judge what constitutes a species, and to be honest it does get slightly woolly round the edges, but one good rule of thumb is that if two animals can mate to produce fertile offspring, they're both of the same species. A horse and a donkey can produce a mule, which is infertile. Likewise, these two squirrels cannot produce fertile offspring. Therefore it could be argued that by this measure, they are two different species, even though at first glance they look exactly the same. Come back in, I dunno, fifty thousand years, and they might look or behave very different from one another, which presumably would make it easier for the more simple-minded to claim that they're two different species (and doubtless that they always were).

      Of course, if they've no reason to chance appearance, why should they? on the other hand, things can happen the other way - some external factor puts enough pressure on a local group of animals to cause a significant change in a short space of time. I remember seeing in a documentary some mice who lived in and around freezers, and had developed shaggy coats and stronger teeth to bite through the frozen food. Natural selection in action, baby. Now, this has to have happened very quickly indeed, and it may follow that they will eventually become a separate species. Who knows?

      Anyway, point is, this stuff happens in different ways, the definition of a species is sometimes a slightly subjective thing, and idiot creationists will use this fuzziness to try to claim that it what they call macroevolution doesn't happen at all, and that science has got it all wrong, and so on. It's just sophistry aimed at simpletons.

    5. Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... by aug24 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sadly nobody but IDers claim a difference between micro and macro evolution. In fact, they are the only people who use those words.

      Apparently for them, a journey of a thousand miles does not start with a single step. It can only be achieved by some kind of magician with a pair of seven-league boots.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    6. Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... by jc42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you take a certain species of squirrel from Pennsylvania and mate it with one in Ohio, fertile offspring will be produced. Take this same squirrel and mate it with one of the same species from California and no fertile offspring will be produced.

      Actually, this might not be a transitional state. It could be a long-term stable state. If conditions vary continuously across a species' range, local populations could all be well adapted to local conditions. Widely-separated populations could be very different, while they are all very similar to adjacent populations.

      There isn't really a standard name for this phenomenon, though I've seen the term "range species" coined to describe it. Most of the known examples live along a seashore, or have a range that is long and narrow for some other reason.

      There are also special cases, such as the domestic dog, which can interbreed with gray wolves and jackals, but the wolves and jackals produce either infertile or no offspring. But such cases are more likely incomplete speciation events.

      Another confusing example is typified by lions and tigers. They can interbreed, but usually male offspring are sterile while female offspring are fertile. They are separate in the wild mostly because their ranges don't overlap. Google for "tion" and "liger" for more information.

      Anyway, biologists generally accept that "species" can't really be defined precisely, and all sorts of borderline cases are seen in nature. The creationist/ID crowd makes a fuss over it, but it's not much of a problem for anyone else. You just have to accept that nature doesn't need to obey the human desire for terminology or dichotomies.

      The term "species" is useful for scientific purposes, but it's not an exact match for what happens in nature. Breeding happens between individuals, while "species" is an emergent property of populations.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  3. Mitochondrial DNA! by BWJones · · Score: 5, Informative

    The title is somewhat misleading as it should be noted that mitochondrial DNA is not genomic DNA from a cells nucleus. It is a much smaller genome from the mitochondrion that evolutionarily is thought to be descended from bacteria and is much easier to sequence from a total work perspective. Although the information that can be extracted from the analysis of mitochondrial DNA can be more informative as to lineage and evolutionary cladistics.

    Come on folks, this is junior high biology.....

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Mitochondrial DNA! by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Informative
      yes. Although it should be noted that the mtDNA comes solely from the mother (like Y chromosome comes solely from the father) so it is much better than regular DNA for comparing lineage.

      I think I saw an article a couple days ago postulating on resurrecting a Wolly Mammoth based on the mtDNA sequencing...

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Mitochondrial DNA! by value_added · · Score: 2, Funny

      Although the information that can be extracted from the analysis of mitochondrial DNA can be more informative as to lineage and evolutionary cladistics.

      Sentence fragment.

      Come on folks, this is junior high biology.....

      And that was grade school English. ;-)

  4. Incorrect title (again) by FalconZero · · Score: 5, Informative

    Contrary to the title, the Wooly Mammoth DNA has not been fully sequenced. The Mitochondrial DNA has, but that's nowhere near the amount of DNA in the neucleus. So don't worry, we won't be seeing Jurasic park any time soon.

    --
    Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
    1. Re:Incorrect title (again) by FalconZero · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For comparison (in humans) the mitochondrial DNA comprises approximatly 16,500 base pairs to the Neucler DNA's 3 billion. At that rate the Mitochondrial DNA is equal to ~0.00055% the ammount of Neuclear DNA.

      --
      Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
    2. Re:Incorrect title (again) by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      we won't be seeing Jurasic park any time soon.

      In this case, that would be Pleistocene Park.

    3. Re:Incorrect title (again) by Tatarize · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which raises an odd problem... can mammoths eat lawyers? If not, why bother?

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  5. Embryos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not sure if mammuth sperm would be capable to fertilise elephants.. but could they produce embryos from the dna, and ultimately make those sweet hairy babies with asian elephants?

    I wanna have my Furry Park!

    1. Re:Embryos by Caydel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was reading about that this morning. It would take apparently nearly 50 years to get an 88% mammoth if they could do this. Problem is, they have not found any wolly mammoth sperm from which they could obtain the needed DNA.

  6. Re:I for one... by lahvak · · Score: 2, Funny

    In Korea, only old people clone mammoths.

    --
    AccountKiller
  7. Can Jurrasic Park be a reality... by majjj · · Score: 2, Funny

    Remember the plot... somehow they used the DNA sequence of existing lizards and filled in the new sequence to fertilize Dianosaur egg.
    :-) I think the scientists must be trying to regenerate a Mammoth out of a current age elephant.

    1. Re:Can Jurrasic Park be a reality... by Eightyford · · Score: 2, Informative

      Remember the plot... somehow they used the DNA sequence of existing lizards and filled in the new sequence to fertilize Dianosaur egg. :-) I think the scientists must be trying to regenerate a Mammoth out of a current age elephant.

      Actually, I'm pretty sure they used frogs for some stupid reason.

    2. Re:Can Jurrasic Park be a reality... by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because otherwise the dinosaurs wouldnt have been able to grow dicks, the chaos maths guy would have been wrong and the whole point of the story would suddenly vanish.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  8. Easily explained by jd · · Score: 3, Funny

    Human DNA is a mammoth problem, right? Which means mammoth DNA must be a human problem.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  9. What nerdy kids will want for Christmas... by bluethundr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Instead of the word pony, you'll hear the whiney phrase "Mommy, Daddy, can I have a fully sequenced Woolly Mammoth for Christmas?"

    --
    Quod scripsi, scripsi.
  10. Re:I plead innocent by BWJones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps I am a little slow on the uptake, but I just realized that we are all simple pawns in the evil scheme of the Slashdot editors. We submit articles for publication on Slashdot, the editors screw with our submission to get all of us all fired about how crummy the editing is, or how stupid we think the submitters are or merely to pontificate on how smart we think we happen to be. But here is the deal.....it all drives traffic . Sometimes I feel so stupid......why did I not see this before? :-)

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  11. Re:I for one... by MasterPi · · Score: 2, Funny

    In communist Russia, the mammoths clone you.

    --
    ( I
  12. The woolly mammoth... by sulli · · Score: 3, Funny

    as intelligently designed by an intelligent designer, according to the Kansas School Board.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  13. Mitochondrial Count by wizardguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    How much is the Mitochondrial Count ? Is it higher than Yoda ? Is it higher than Anakin ?

    So the force is strong in him but I sense great fear in the Woolly Mammoth , and fear leads to extinction.

  14. Relief by eniu!uine · · Score: 4, Funny

    What a relief. This will bring us one step closer to our goal of identifying mammoth diseases before we lose any treatment options. My prediction: Due to this new research not a single mammoth will die in 2006.

  15. How many bytes... by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 2, Funny

    would it take to store a human genome's worth of DNA? Are we talking sub-gig if we use SVCD or divx-like encoding?

    1. Re:How many bytes... by indrax · · Score: 2, Informative

      The human genome will fit on a CD.
      You can download The human genome project files from project gutenberg and see for yourself.

  16. Ted Turner is going to make out like a bandit! by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 2, Funny

    Original Recipe Flintstones(TM) Wooly Mammoth ribs!

    Mmmmmmm........ ribs!

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  17. You missed 'arthritic'... by kale77in · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unless cloning has gotten better, that probably should have read: > "I for one, welcome our dodgy, arthritic mammoth overlords." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1741559.stm

  18. Re:bogus: diverging about half a million years lat by deaddrunk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nope that's Elton John

    --
    Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
  19. Re:When can we bring them back from extinction? by core+plexus · · Score: 2, Informative
    Mastodons are not mammoths. Related, "but the mastodons were shorter in height, longer in length and more heavily built."

    It would be nice, however, to let maggie go someplace warmer, and have something more suitable to our colder Alaskan climate. They might be tasty, and one sure would fill the deep freeze with meat for the winter.

    Alaskan man dies of autoerotic asphyxiation among 1,000 marijuana plants worth $2,000,000

  20. Re:Well unfortunatly by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Informative
    And even Christians believe in Microevolution (evolution inside a Species ex. wolves -> dogs) but not in Macroevolution (Amoeba -> Human) theres a huge difference.

    Please do not associate creationism and ID with Christianity. Only a small fundamentalist sect of Christianity believes in such things. The vast majority of Christians throughout the world do not believe in such nonsense.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  21. Such a misleading headline ... by jc42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The headline shouted "DNA of Woolly Mammoth Fully Sequenced", but then we read "Scientists have decoded the mitochondrial DNA".

    So the headline was almost totally incorrect and misleading. The mtDNA is typically about 0.1% of a mammal's total DNA. Sequencing the mtDNA is only about 1000th of "fully sequenced". They have a long, long way to go before a "fully sequenced" claim can be made.

    Their achievement is newsworthy enough by itself. There's no reason to exaggerate it so wildly.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  22. Lives of the Cell by Tony · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is described beautifully by Lewis Thomas in his essay, "Lives of the Cell." In it, he points out that complex cells are like carriers for bacteria-- in plants, the chloroplasts; and in animals, the mitochondira. We're just a fancy car to tote around and protect billions of bacteria (not even including the free bacteria in our bellies). The energy they produce (chloroplasts) and release (mitochondria) drive all other life. It's like we're just evolutionary curliques to move forward the evolution of bacteria.

    Kinda cool thought, even if it's not perfect.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.