Slashdot Mirror


Most of Woolly Mammoth Genome Reconstructed

geekmansworld writes "From the Washington Post, 'An international team of scientists has reconstructed more than three-quarters of the genome of the woolly mammoth using DNA extracted from balls of hair, the first time this has been accomplished for an extinct species.' Who wants a pet mammoth?"

52 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Just to get it over with quickly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one welcome the new hirsute elephantine overlords

    1. Re:Just to get it over with quickly by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, woolly mammoths reconstruct you!!!

  2. Not quite there yet by thermian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given that they have yet to work out how many chromosomes the woolly mammoth had, or which of the DNA features are genuine mutations, and which are artefacts caused by damage since the death of the creatures from whom DNA was extracted, there's a fair distance to go yet.

    Still, I don't doubt this is a seriously fun project to be working on. I'd love to get involved.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:Not quite there yet by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just download god's genome checker.

      [x] Automatically fix chromosome errors
      [x] Scan for and attempt to recover bad base pairs

    2. Re:Not quite there yet by UltimateRobotLover · · Score: 2, Funny

      I once saw a movie where they did this...what was it called...? MacArthur Park? No, that's not quite right ...

      You're thinking of Valley of the Cloneasaurus.

    3. Re:Not quite there yet by adamjaskie · · Score: 3, Funny

      We don't need them to melt in the dark when someone leaves them out in the rain.

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
    4. Re:Not quite there yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The mammoth mitochondrial genome was decoded a few years ago.

      Mito DNA is much easier to sequence from old samples due to the fact that for every cell which contains one copy of the nuclear genome, there are thousands of copies of the mitochondrial genome.

    5. Re:Not quite there yet by Alpha+Whisky · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your post advocates a

      (x) technical ( ) religious ( ) time travel

      approach to resurrecting extinct species. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws.)

      ( ) Possibility of creating mutant monsters
      ( ) We are defenceless against brute force attacks
      (x) People will not put up with giant stampy animals roaming about
      (x) The police will not put up with giant stampy animals roaming about
      ( ) Requires too much cooperation from organised religion
      (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from government regulators
      ( ) Time travel isn't possible
      ( ) Time travel into the past isn't possible without a wormhole which was (is) in the past already

      Specifically, your plan fails to account for

      (x) Laws expressly prohibiting it
      (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for mad scientists
      (x) We haven't even sequenced the whole genome
      (x) Being sued by Michael Crichton's estate
      ( ) Asshats
      ( ) Jurisdictional problems
      ( ) Unpopularity of weird old animals
      ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird old animals
      ( ) Huge existing animals occupying the evolutionary niche of the old ones
      (x) Susceptibility of DNA to damage
      (x) We don't even know how many chromosomes it should have
      ( ) Unavailability of any living relatives to carry the foetus to term

      and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

      (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
      been shown practical
      (x) Religions will argue about playing god
      (x) Pointlessness of an animal adapted for an ice age during a period of global warming
      ( ) What's dead should stay dead
      (x) There are better things to spend the money on

      Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

      (x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
      ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
      ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
      house down!

      --
      it's = it is

      its = belonging to it

    6. Re:Not quite there yet by vigour · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shouldn't something along the line of "we don't know whether they taste nice" be in there?

      There have been some reports of Russians eating frozen Mammoth, but I'm not sure how true that is (I read it somewhere, but I can't remember where).

      Here are some quick links I found on the topic:
      link 1
      link 2

    7. Re:Not quite there yet by ari_j · · Score: 2, Informative

      This form needs a section for mitigating factors. Here, at least one applies: (x) Mammoth burgers are delicious.

    8. Re:Not quite there yet by BluenoseJake · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the 1800s, members of the royal society had some Mammoth steaks from a frozen beast found in the permafrost in Siberia. They said it tasted like chicken.

    9. Re:Not quite there yet by w0mprat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would speculate that mammoth steak thousands of years old was not really edible, they were more likely duped as to what the meat really was.

      Even though it is frozen, it has been frozen for 10k years, and not necessarily constantly below optimal deep freeze temperatures. I'm not to clear on exactly what happens to flesh over time when frozen, it's certainly safe from microorganisms if constantly below -18C but closer to freezing point flesh does decompose somewhat as all available water in tissue is not entirely frozen due to the presences of minerals. I would believe it if they said it was unpalatable mush. I recently had meat from the bottom of a -25 C deep freeze that was at least 20-25 years old, it was far from fine, it was tasteless and crumbly once cooked, completely inedible.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  3. apparently... by owlnation · · Score: 2, Funny

    the numbers of woolly mammoths has tripled in the past six months...

    1. Re:apparently... by genner · · Score: 2, Funny

      the numbers of woolly mammoths has tripled in the past six months...

      They're breeding.....nature finds a way.

      Ummm....where's that helicoptor.

  4. When did they die out? by squoozer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a kid I always thought that Wooly Mammoths died out aroud the same time as the dinosaurs but I heard a while back that they might have been around until a couple of thousand years ago. I now know that man hunted them to the dinosaur date is wrong but when did the last one shed it's mortal coil?

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    1. Re:When did they die out? by Roland+Piquepaille · · Score: 3, Informative

      My understanding is that the woolly mammoth is one of the first casualty of the infestation Earth by the human species : they went extinct partly because of the warming climate, partly because of overhunting.

    2. Re:When did they die out? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are no stupid questions. But there are stupid places to ask them. Try elsewhere, for better sources of information.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:When did they die out? by Comboman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Mammoths became extinct about 10,000 years ago, though some scientists believe that there were still pockets of mammoth populations on isolated islands as late as 3500 years ago.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    4. Re:When did they die out? by owlnation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are no stupid questions. But there are stupid places to ask them. Try elsewhere, for better sources of information.

      Really? Considering the amount of SEO spam that's corrupted Google search results, considering the cabals, corruption and low quality of most wikipedia results, and considering that many of the world's experts on most science and technology fields ARE regularly reading slashdot, then I seriously doubt there IS ANY better place to ask a science related question than on this site.

      Of course, the downside is that there are some grumpy, elitist pedants here.

    5. Re:When did they die out? by Whiteox · · Score: 3, Informative

      They were quite recent: They survived on Wrangle Island (Artic) and St Paul Island (Bearing Sea) as dwarfs until 1700 BCE.
      They were also found on the Channel Islands off California and disappeared around 40,000 BCE. They are still digging them up, preserved, in the permafrost of Siberia.
      Humans did hunt mammoths, sabre-tooths etc.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    6. Re:When did they die out? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      They surely must have had genetics to survive warm-ages?

      Genetics, no. Gillettes, yes.

      Sadly, things were a bit primitive back then. Instead of the 97 steel blades we have now there was only one - and made of flint at that. By the time the poor creatures had even one leg shaved, they'd died of heat exhaustion.

      And that, children, is why mammoths are extinct.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:When did they die out? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Neanderthals would make a good servant race, like in Planet of the Apes. What could possibly go wrong.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:When did they die out? by Randle_Revar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Repenomamus was a Triconodont, which is its own category, not a modern marsupial or placental.

  5. Mammoth hairballs? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 5, Funny

    And I thought cats were disgusting...

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    1. Re:Mammoth hairballs? by Norwell+Bob · · Score: 5, Funny

      Better than mammoth ball hairs.

    2. Re:Mammoth hairballs? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just give me an elephant, a hot glue gun, and shitload of brown wigs and I'll recreate the wholly mammoth for a lot cheaper than these scientists.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Mammoth hairballs? by Kentari · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or get a very funny Darwin Award...

  6. Just fill in the remaining genes by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

    with those from the Tasmanian Devil ala Jurassic Park. What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Just fill in the remaining genes by theaveng · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um.... I thought they used frog DNA to fill-in the missing sequences. Which is how supposedly "sterile" dinosaurs were able to give birth.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    2. Re:Just fill in the remaining genes by 3waygeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      the tasmanian devil is still alive and well

      I don't think "well" is the right word to describe the Tasmanian devil's status.

  7. This is huge! by wytten · · Score: 5, Funny

    It could be the solution of how how to maintain legacy systems in generations to come. They just need to start mapping the genes of a COBOL programmer.

    1. Re:This is huge! by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Funny

      > They just need to start mapping the genes of a COBOL programmer.

      Why would you do that? They are evil!

      Little green scaly evil punks. Always with their traps and their "I'm dragon subtype I can reach godhood before level 6". Bah!

      Mark my words. You'll regret not having cloned griffins first.

  8. Re:oh great by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny

    and I just spent 20000g on my new mammoth mount

    In Soviet Russia, mammoth mount YOU!

    aka "Fatal Attraction 2".

  9. Not to mention... by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not to mention, didn't we also have this story about how the proteins affect the transcription too, and the same piece of DNA can be transcribed in a dozen different ways or not at all, depending on how those proteins regulate it? It seems to me like in that case it's like saying they decoded half of it.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Not to mention... by freddy_dreddy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      transcription is the process of producing things from DNA, in sequencing like they did you're reading the (static) strains of DNA - not its products. Proteins regulate the expression of DNA, i.e. its products like RNA and proteins - you're confusing the two. To make a comparison: transcription is like running a program to see which data is produced. The data in itself regulates in most software the control-flow of the program and this is your feedback loop. The DNA however is stored on disk, it degrades but isn't affected by transcription since it's not being read and executed.

      The big achievement here is the defragmentation of all that DNA. DNA sequencing typically produces small fragments instead of huge sequences as is often suggested in popular literature. They piece this together with rules of thumb and overlap detection. FYI: the faster the technique for sequencing, the smaller the fragments. Newest techniques these days often produce fragments in the order of a few dozen to a hundred bases.

      --
      "Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
    2. Re:Not to mention... by thepotoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The big achievement here is the defragmentation of all that DNA

      The folks at 454 Life Sciences made reconstructing a genome from lots of little pieces pretty simple by using an algorithm that looks for common fragments (ex AAGGCTTCTA and CTTCTATCTGG probably go together to form AAGGCTTCTATCTGG).

      They also pretty much pioneered modern sequencing techniques.

      The news here (IMHO) is that we've been able to read the genome of an extinct animal. That is an impressive achievement, a few BP errors notwithstanding. If we have multiple copies of the genome (multiple cells), we should be able to figure out what the correct sequence is (mutations are random, and no two cells will have the same mutations). Hair is not exactly the prime target for sequencing due to its exposure to UV light (UV light wreaks havoc on DNA), but with a little work we should be able to the actual sequence.

      So at the end of the day, the Nobel prize goes to the guy who can figure out how many chromosomes a mammoth had. I'd like to say "just use the number that elephants have" but 7 million years (last common ancester) is easily enough time for chromosome duplication to occur.

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    3. Re:Not to mention... by kmcarr · · Score: 5, Informative

      The folks at 454 Life Sciences made reconstructing a genome from lots of little pieces pretty simple by using an algorithm that looks for common fragments (ex AAGGCTTCTA and CTTCTATCTGG probably go together to form AAGGCTTCTATCTGG).

      Spoken like one who has never actually tried to assemble a genome sequence. Trust me, there is absolutely nothing simple about it. And while 454 Life Sciences (now a division of Roche Diagnostics) pioneered a new technology for generating raw DNA sequence data they did not pioneer the assembly process. Sequence assembly algorithms are a long and well studied problem.

      They also pretty much pioneered modern sequencing techniques.

      While 454 was first to the market with a next-generation sequencing platform they are currently in heavy competition with the Illumina/Solexa platform. And then there is Pacific Bioscience due to release a platform in 2010 which could eat both their lunches.

    4. Re:Not to mention... by thepotoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, kmcarr, I bow before your expertise. I've never sequenced a genome, let alone the type of massively parallel sequencing you've done (you're the guy that worked on Arabidopsis sequencing, right?)

      In my defense, however, I only said that 454 had made life a lot easier for people doing sequencing, not that the algorithm itself was simple. I also note that you yourself used their pyrophosphate technique - to say that it's anything but a huge technological leap forward is to undercredit it. I repeat, 454 pioneered the sequencing techniques we use today.

      Wish you'd post more often to Slashdot, we could do with more biology types around here.

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    5. Re:Not to mention... by kmcarr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are right that 454 made a tremendous contribution; I certainly did not mean to imply that they did not. As you correctly stated they pioneered the pyrophosphorylase coupled sequencing by synthesis technology. And this is the technology used for the Mammoth sequencing.

      I just wanted to give credit to some others which have made (or will make) significant contributions. Illumina/Solexa uses a different chemistry, based on reversibly blocked, dye tagged nucleotides. Pacific Biosciences is working on a single molecule sequencing technology which could potentially achieve the $1000 human genome.

      [Yes, I was involved in the arabidopsis transcriptome sequencing by 454.]

  10. Re:Now that we maybe can make a mammoth by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Funny

    You want us all to read a book/anthology just to get one joke? /Shakes head/ Only on slashdot...

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  11. pricetag: $10 million, right now by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/science/20mammoth.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

    right NOW, we can do this

    apparently it would be tedious, but a number of technical hurdles have been overcome lately to the point where this is really conceivable to do, and the talk about doing it isnot theoretical, but practical

    1. most recent modern genome decoders don't care that the dna is shredded into pieces
    2. encapsulated in keratin (hair), the dna is not so tainted by bacterial dna like it is in bone
    3. a new technique allows modifying modern elephant dna 50,000 genomic sites at a time, rather than one by one, so the proper egg can be arrived at after a few generations of reconstruction, implanted in a female elephant, and voila

    this can be done, right NOW!

    amazing

    even more freaky: we can do the same, right now, with neanderthal!

    using chimpanzee as a starting point for ethical considerations, we can also, right NOW, bring a neanderthal back to life

    that's pretty freaky. these guys wouldn't be dumb. someone would have to explain to the guy that he is not the last of his species, he's an artifically reconstructed clone of a guy who died 50,000 years ago. no one of his kind exists anymore

    but we revived a wooly old friend of yours too. here's a spear, happy hunting

    just don't eat the dodo
    or the quagga
    or the irish elk
    or the auroch
    or the sabretooth though

    really really freaky and amazing

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:pricetag: $10 million, right now by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but smaller frontal lobes, which are what really matter.

      Yeah, well, that's a bit of a grey area.

      [ducks, runs]

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  12. Insensitive Topic by Hasney · · Score: 2, Funny

    My g/f was looking over my shoulder and proclaimed she already had a pet wooly mammoth and looked at me :(

  13. The only important question by eclectro · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do they taste good??

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:The only important question by Whiteox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No. Mammoth meat probably smells and tastes like limburger cheese.

      University of Michigan paleontologist Daniel Fisher had a theory that early Americans of 10,000 years ago used frozen lakes as refrigerators to store mastodon and mammoth meat. He tested his theory when a friend's horse died of old age. Fisher dropped chunks of horse meat of up to 170 pounds below the ice in a nearby pond. He anchored some pieces to the bottom. Every week or so he cooked and chewed a piece of meat, and eventually swallowed each bite. The meat remained safe to eat well into the summer. The theory is that as the water warmed in the spring, lactobacilli (the bacteria found in yogurt & cheese) colonized the meat, rendering it inhospitable to other pathogens. So despite the smell and taste (similar to Limburger cheese), the meat remained safe to eat.
      http://www.foodreference.com/html/f-mammoth-meat.html

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    2. Re:The only important question by insanecarbonbasedlif · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, you think mammoth meat probably smelled and tasted like Limburger cheese because a guy stuck horsemeat in a pond for months, and then it smelled and tasted like Limburger? A couple of clues as to where you might have gone wrong - fresh horsemeat does not taste or smell like Limburger, and mammoth meat probably did not require long term pond storage before it could be eaten.

      --
      Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
  14. Crocodiles!=dinos, and mammal coexisted w/ dinos by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 3, Informative

    Crocodilians do not come from dinosaurs, although they are related, i.e. their earliest common ancestor was neither a dinosaur nor a crocodilian. On the other hand, the earliest common ancestor of birds was a dinosaur.

    Also, mammals existed at least 125Mya:

    The oldest known marsupial is Sinodelphys, found in 125M-year old early Cretaceous shale in China's northeastern Liaoning Province. The fossil is nearly complete and includes tufts of fur and imprints of soft tissues.

  15. Re:No pet mammoth for me by Whiteox · · Score: 2, Funny

    How about a furby?

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  16. Re:Now that we maybe can make a mammoth by irtza · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't think you understand. The internet and slashdot was an elaborate ploy by Nivens to get more fans. He planted the ideas for the internet a long time ago and nurtured it until the web was born. He then planted the idea to create a forum for nerds. Once this was done he waited for critical mass and posted this line. Now people like me who stopped reading fiction some time ago, will see this name and investigate on the very same internet! Its rather brilliant. The only thing is that if we comply and read, then he will no longer have a use for the internet and will likely have it taken down (his purpose being completed). To prevent the destruction of this invaluable tool, I will boycott reading any further.

    and with my first paranoid rant done, I am ready to start my day!

    --
    When all else fails, try.
  17. Do we really want to? by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do we really want to do this to a sentient and intelligent species?

    For a start, the Neanderthal will be a circus freak for all his life. Whatever his other achievements or shortcomings would be, he'll still be that reconstructed Neanderthal. I doubt that he could have a normal job or relationship or interact normally with new people, without getting back to that aspect that he's the only Neanderthal in the world. Even assuming that all people he'll meet are nice and tactful, it's still that curiosity aspect. It sounds like a recipe for getting depressed later.

    But the more realistic aspect is that most people just aren't that nice. There are plenty of people for which it's nearly impossible to say "black" without an "N", if you know what I mean, and for whom it's a human rights issue if you even ask them to be nice. Can you imagine what these guys would be like, to a different _species_.

    I mean, whatever job he'll ever get, and for whatever personal skills or achievements, there'll _always_ be some idiot trying to make one of the following points:

    - he only got it because he's a Neanderthal, or

    - Earth for humans, you freaks don't belong here, or

    - here's a long list of bullshit and fallacies as to why your kind is biologically too stupid for this job, and we don't want your kind around,

    etc.

    Can you imagine a Neanderthal going through high-school without a trauma, for that matter? High school "society" nowadays is based on _extreme_ conformism. (Even if, ironically, it usually means conforming to the image of being a non-conformist rebel.) To belong there, you must look like everyone else, listen to the same music as everyone else, say the same ideas and memes as everyone else, etc. Probably half the RIAA labels' income comes from teenagers who just have to buy the same albums as everyone else in their peer group, for example. And being different in any way, is a recipe for being at best ostracized and at worst bullied constantly. How do you think they'll behave towards our hypothetical reconstructed Neanderthal, which looks different from the rest, speaks very differently too (if recent research about their larynx and hearing system are right), maybe even has different aptitudes (Neanderthals never seem to have invented or used or made missile weapons, so maybe this guy will just not be wired to have any skill in any ball game), and possibly have the brain wired differently enough to think differently?

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  18. Re:Crocodiles!=dinos, and mammal coexisted w/ dino by Randle_Revar · · Score: 3, Informative

    >Well the placental mammals, like us and almost every other mammal, did not evolve until after the Asteroid event.

    Wrong. There were plenty of mammals in the Mesozoic. And according to the University of California Museum of Paleontology "Eutherians first became common in central Asia during the Upper Cretaceous." Eutherians being the technically correct name for placental mammals.

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/eutheriafr.html

  19. Acfually, there isn't by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, apparently there is exactly 0% Neanderthal in us, if you look at the DNA. You can see the differences between Neanderthals and the common ancestor (since that's what made them Neanderthals), and you can see the differences between humans and the common ancestor (since that's what makes us humans.) The two sets just don't overlap. All the genes that made Neanderthals be Neanderthals are not present in us.

    The easiest to look at is the mitochondrial DNA, since it's pretty small, and it's been mapped to death for both species. We just don't have any humans which show the unique Neanderthal mutations there. So at least there was no _female_ neanderthal in anyone's ancestry.

    Now I'd be surprised if they didn't at least try to have sex with each other, given that in some places they lived in the same cave for tens of thousands of years. I mean, so it was short and stout women with sloped foreheads. Some people would still try to screw one, if one was available. And viceversa.

    The more probable explanation is that, like any other combination of different species, the offspring was either non-viable (if the species are not that related) or sterile (if they're closely related.) E.g., see mules, or either combination of lion and tiger.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.