Slashdot Mirror
Authentic Viking DNA From 1,000-Year-Old Skeletons
FiReaNGeL writes "Scientists were able to extract authentic DNA from ancient Viking skeletons, avoiding many of the problems of contamination faced by past researchers. Analysis of DNA from the remains of ancient humans provides valuable insights into such important questions as the origin of genetic diseases, migration patterns of our forefathers and tribal and family patterns. Using freshly sampled material from ten Viking skeletons from around AD 1,000, from a non-Christian burial site on the Danish island of Funen, Dissing and colleagues showed that it is indeed possible to retrieve authentic DNA from ancient humans."
Sure, contamination is a big problem, but it isn't like this hasn't been done before.
The problem is that you're trying to take very small traces of human DNA and greatly amplify it. Even a very small amount of contamination from the researchers or lab environment can introduce as much or more modern DNA than the ancient DNA being studied - so you end up sequencing the lab's janitor instead of the viking.
For example, here is a list of ancient humans who have had mitochondrial DNA sequences taken. (There are also Neandertal sequences not listed here.)
So I'd say this is a good job, and good science, but not at all a first.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
A christian themed burial site would indicate a greater likelihood of intermingling with non-viking cultures from Southern Europe. This could be an indicator of genetic intermingling as well.
A non-christian burial site would not preclude intermingling, but probably be an indicator of lower likelihood.
Besides, TFA said they already did a christian site from around the same time, so this would give them a separate set of data points.
I know its hard to believe the concept of people who profess different religious affiliations being less likely to associate and intermarry. That kind of thing is so middle ages, all the major religions live in such peace and harmony in the enlightened 21st Century!
He's talking about a method of tracing ancestry through the female line. Current person whether male or female, their mother, their mother's mother etc. This doesn't correspond to genes with any visible phenotypes (two people in haplogroup T2 aren't necessarily going to share any traits), but it can tell you something about which populations mixed in the past and how recently. Also since 20% of the samples contain mutations not found in current populations, we can conclude that a number of the maternal lines for the vikings died out. (I don't know much population genetics, so I don't know if 20% loss over 1000 years is high or low, or what you'd expect).
Clones are identical twins of the original person, not the original person. So, yes it was still a dumb idea.
more safe
Yes, this seems a strong hypothesis.
Quote
"Helga
Hägar's demanding wife. Dressed always in her horned helmet, she is a true Valkyrie, besting the beleaguered Hägar in battles on the home front. She always wants Hägar to take a bath, but he won't. While Hägar may instill terror in the outside world, it's Helga who "wears the skins" in the family. Although she is more than a match for her sword-bearing ruffian husband, she also has a tender side. Helga is a devoted wife and mother, often doing what's best for her family whether they want it or not."
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
If they get the first sentence completely wrong, I'm not going to bother with the rest of the article.
(Viking literally means a person who comes from a bay or similar.)
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Incorrect, Harold and his army managed to get past the lone sentry when two of his men thrust their spears up through spaces in the bridge and pierced the sentry's groin. The English swarmed over the Vikings while they slept, and slaughtered them all. It ended the Viking age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge
Too bad for them they couldn't repeat their success against the Normans 10 days later. But good for me, since one of my ancestors came over with William and fought at Hastings (he's mentioned in the Domesday book as having done so).
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I'm assuming that the majority of Slashdotters are proscience and not pro-Creationism. In the interest of maintaining scientific temper on this forum, may I request Slashdotters to employ the more secular 'CE' -- Common Era -- rather than the forthrightly Christian 'AD' -- Anno Domini, meaning, 'In the Year of Our Lord'. I think most here, including myself, have utmost respect for Jesus and his followers even we don't necessarily consider him to be 'Our Lord'. The usual response is, 'Who cares? Nobody knows exactly what AD means, anyway. And it's become established so why change it.' I would there are many perfectly rational individuals who might object to the above response. The corresponding term for 'BC' is 'BCE' -- Before Common Era. Thanks. No flames please!