Slashdot Mirror


Hadrosaur Proteins Sequenced

jd writes "In a follow-up study to the one on proteins found in a T. Rex bone, the team responsible for the T. Rex study sequenced proteins found in an 80-million year old Hadrosaur fossil. According to the article, the proteins found confirm the results of the T. Rex study, proving that what was found in T. Rex was not a result of modern contamination, as had been claimed by skeptics, but was indeed the genuine thing: real dinosaur protein. Furthermore, despite the new fossil being 12 million years older, they claim they got more out — eight collagen peptides and 149 amino acids from four different samples. This, they say, places the Hadrosaur in the same family as T. Rex and Ostriches, but that not enough was recovered to say just how close or distant the relationship was."

81 comments

  1. Uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How close does this leap make us to cloning dinosaurs which then break loose in an orgy of violence and destruction a la Jurassic Park ?

    1. Re:Uh-oh by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not very, I'm afraid. On the plus side, it should allow the Large Hadrosaur Collider to produce an earth devouring black hole with gigantic teeth and a tough scaly hide.

    2. Re:Uh-oh by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you get two of them, put fake red noses on them and slam them together really hard, you might see the higgs-bozo particle.

      hmm. I know there is a shorter way to get to that punch line.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Uh-oh by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why waste money on the fake red noses rather than just use Bozosaurs to begin with?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Uh-oh by khallow · · Score: 1

      We haven't yet sequenced wormholes so that shorter route will have to wait for another generation.

  2. MMMM - Tastes like chicken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or do chicken taste like Hadrosaur / T-Rex?

    Can't wait for my McHadrosaur burger with a side of fries and coke.

    1. Re:MMMM - Tastes like chicken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually ostrich tastes and looks like beef.

      One of the best steaks I have had was medium rare ostrich.

    2. Re:MMMM - Tastes like chicken? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Actually ostrich tastes and looks like beef.

      Naturally lean and flavorful beef, no less.

      I miss Kroger; I'd have ostrich steak once a week when I lived near one.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:MMMM - Tastes like chicken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colbert on Ewok: "They're right, it does taste like Wookie!"

    4. Re:MMMM - Tastes like chicken? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It might taste meatier than chicken or turkey but it's doesn't taste like beef.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Great by tdp252 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe we should start using stimulus money to build some type of theme park, maybe on a remote island.

    1. Re:Great by xgr3gx · · Score: 0

      Yeah - and any missing DNA can just be taken from common frog species!

      --
      Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
    2. Re:Great by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah - and any missing DNA can just be taken from common frog species!

      Whatever it takes to get two of them. Once we have those, we can get to the REAL science. Large Hadrosaur Collider.

    3. Re:Great by Shinmizu · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sure there's something in Tesla's lab that we can scrounge up to make an instant cloning device for time savings.

    4. Re:Great by wisty · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they could be used to make genuine T. Rex protein shakes?

    5. Re:Great by SnarfQuest · · Score: 4, Funny

      Large Hadrosaur Collider.

      <blush> If you look close, I don't think they are actually fighting.</blush>

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    6. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuba?

    7. Re:Great by MoldySpore · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes. And I think they should also fund research into an awesome 3D operating system called "UNIX", in which it's primary function would be the unlocking/locking of building doors.

      --

      "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    8. Re:Great by gijoel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jurassic Park is frightning in the dark
      All the dinosaurs are running wild
      Someone shut the fence off in the rain
      I admit it's kinda eerie
      But this proves my chaos theory
      And I don't think I'll be coming back again
      On no

    9. Re:Great by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I need that as a T-shirt, like, yesterday.

      *bold*MOTHERFUCKING LARGE HADROSAUR COLLIDER*bold*

      And then pictures of a motherfucking large hadrosaur collider.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    10. Re:Great by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, that will TOTALLY attract the chicks!

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    11. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best user interface EVER.

    12. Re:Great by goltzc · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should start using stimulus money to build some type of theme park, maybe on a remote island.

      We'll call it Billy and the Clonasaurus Park!

      --
      Our bugs are smarter than your test scripts.
    13. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones it does attract though you will know are just the right type of goofy.

    14. Re:Great by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      If you fill in the currently missing information about Hadrosaur DNA with frog DNA, the only thing you will get will be a nasty frog with several Hadrosaur proteins.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Great by camperdave · · Score: 1

      To be fair, it is also used for projecting DNA base pair mappings onto any raptors that happen to make it into the room.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    16. Re:Great by tj2 · · Score: 1

      Jurassic Park is frightning in the dark
      All the dinosaurs are running wild
      Someone shut the fence off in the rain
      I admit it's kinda eerie
      But this proves my chaos theory
      And I don't think I'll be coming back again
      On no


      Well done, sir.

    17. Re:Great by xgr3gx · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It was a reference to Jurassic park - maybe I misquoted, but I think that was their solution for any parts of the DNA that could not be extracted from the mosquito encased in hardened amber.

      --
      Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
  4. Tastes like chicken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Burp

  5. Campaign for Real Semantic by oldhack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Respect to fossil biologists for tough work - it's like putting together jigsaw puzzle that's missing majority of its pieces. That being the case, I wish they choose their terminology, like the term "prove", bit more judiciously, lest us plebs gets misled.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Campaign for Real Semantic by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      mod -1 clueless.

      perhaps -1 WTF are you talking about?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Campaign for Real Semantic by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Could you elaborate?

      Bitter archeologist/ex-archeologist? Science cynic? Earth couldn't possibly be more than 6,000 years old? Lab tech coerced by grant-hungry archeologists?

    3. Re:Campaign for Real Semantic by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That being the case, I wish they choose their terminology, like the term "prove", bit more judiciously, lest us plebs gets misled.

      I'm impressed with the work they've done, but based on my own priors I'd like to see the work replicated by a different team before I'm willing to consider claims of proof as being very plausible.

      As it stands, this work means, "The same people did the same things with a different sample and got similar results." Well and good, but not nearly so convincing as "Different people did similar things with different samples and got similar results."

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:Campaign for Real Semantic by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      I do find the discussion interesting--but I also did a quick google search for "lab results skewed radio dating" (without the quotes) and found this: abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.pdf which would seem to indicate that there is error possible and even likely if it is not properly addressed in analyzing tests. Furthermore, I have also recently read (can't remember location though) that uranium half-lifes in quartz crystals point to a major volcanic upheaval in North America in the last 10,000 years but this apparently did not match prevailing opinions on the specific location. Sorry I don't have further info (a quick google search netted me a 1962 abstract from the IUCr but what I remembered was in the last ten years).

    5. Re:Campaign for Real Semantic by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      You say "bitter", I say "seasoned". It's an open secret that carbon dating is unreliable until it gives you the predetermined date, at which point it's conclusive.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  6. GLHV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is great news for our Large Hadrosaur Collider project!

  7. The egg is the key. by reporter · · Score: 1
    A while ago, my local supermarket was selling ostrich eggs. The size of the egg is amazing. It is about the size of a soccer ball.

    Then, upon seeing this Slashdot article, I finally understand. The ostrich is a very distant relative of the dinosaurs.

    One ostrich egg could probably provide 10 servings of scrambled eggs -- and enough cholesterol to kill a gorilla.

    1. Re:The egg is the key. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      > The size of the egg [wikimedia.org] is amazing.
      > It is about the size of a soccer ball.

      A very small soccer ball!

      A regulation soccer ball is 10 inches or 25 cm in diameter.

      Ostrich egg is 5-6 inches or 12-15 cm diameter.

    2. Re:The egg is the key. by mog007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every bird is a distant relative of the dinosaurs... not just the ostrich.

    3. Re:The egg is the key. by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dietary cholesterol actually doesn't affect the body the way once thought (google around if you like)

      Probably the only way cholesterol could kill a gorilla is if it were dropped into a vat of it :)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    4. Re:The egg is the key. by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

      Either that woman's frail little hands are just proportionally gigantic, or that egg is only softball sized.

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    5. Re:The egg is the key. by Talgrath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but children's soccer balls can be much smaller than regulation.

    6. Re:The egg is the key. by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

      You need to use the correct professional units, such as VW beetles, or Libraries of Congress. None of this soccer ball business.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    7. Re:The egg is the key. by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but children's soccer balls can be much smaller than regulation.

      Even a Size 3 soccer ball (typical for the youngest age groups) is about 7-1/4 to 7-1/2 inches in diameter, which is substantially larger than a 5-6 inch ostrich egg.

  8. But how does it taste? by effigiate · · Score: 0

    Mmmmm...collagen peptides. Does it make a tasty cake with mint frosting?

    1. Re:But how does it taste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but only if I can gnaw on counsellor Deanna Troi while I eat my cake

    2. Re:But how does it taste? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 0

      Why isn't there a +1, geeky reference mod?

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    3. Re:But how does it taste? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > But how does it taste?

      Like chicken.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  9. Etc Etc by oodaloop · · Score: 2

    Hadrosaur collider...sigh...Jurassic Park...yawn...dinosaur burger...wake me up when someone makes an original joke.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Etc Etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hadrosaur collider...sigh...Jurassic Park...yawn...dinosaur burger...wake me up when someone makes an original joke.

      Good morning.

  10. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Oh ho ho.

    What they left out of the article was *why* the skepticism. Here it is.

    These tissue types can only last hundreds of thousands of years, tops. So ... either it's fake, or there's some unknown preservation process at work here, or -

    These specimens are not millions of years old.

    That would square with the many puzzling astronomical discoveries which indicate "too young" objects (such as active planets and young comets), but cause havoc with the popular concept of how old the solar system is.

    Heh heh. I love it!

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Things decay for a (chemical) reason. Very low temperatures, absence of oxygen, water, etc. can simply stop chemical processes. I have no idea of the circumstances of this find, but it seems entirely plausible that exceptional things can happen in rare situations.

      This isn't a defying-the-laws-of-physics thing, it's more "we don't know exactly".

    2. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh ho ho.

      What they left out of the article was *why* the skepticism. Here it is.

      These tissue types can only last hundreds of thousands of years, tops. So ... either it's fake, or there's some unknown preservation process at work here, or -

      These specimens are not millions of years old.

      That would square with the many puzzling astronomical discoveries which indicate "too young" objects (such as active planets and young comets), but cause havoc with the popular concept of how old the solar system is.

      Heh heh. I love it!

      You seem to have failed to grasp the concept of "proving a negative".

      The only way we "know" (to use your quaint term) that "[t]hese tissue types can only last hundreds of thousands of years, tops" is basically because we've never found older ones.

      Until we do.

      Which it looks like we've done.

    3. Re:Anonymous Coward by jc42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      These tissue types can only last hundreds of thousands of years, tops. So ... either it's fake, or there's some unknown preservation process at work here, or -

      Yeah, this is why there's so little known of the actual tissues of critters that old. But it's really an example of the "long tail" statistical phenomenon. Proteins, DNA, etc usually disappear pretty quickly, but there's no sharp cutoff age at which all samples instantly disintegrate into their constituent atoms. The decay is an exponential process, and no matter what age you pick, there's a small nonzero probability that there are fossils that old, until you get back to an age when there were no "tissues" on Earth. A very few fossils have been found that contain proteins that date to tens of millions of years. The story a couple of years ago about such a T. Rex fossil was an example that got lots of attention, mostly because it's such a popular dinosaur. But there aren't many people studying such fossils, because we haven't found very many of them.

      The T. Rex tissues survived because they were inside intact bones buried in a place that has been dry for some 70 million years. The overlying material was never heavy enough to crack the bones, and the internal humidity never got high enough for any embedded bacterial spores to come to life. This is highly unlikely, but in a few places it has happened. Nobody knows whether we'll find more, though. It's possible that we've found the only such fossils that exist on the planet. Or there may be more buried in Montana, where both of these fossils were found. That area has been dry for a rather long time.

      People are also considering the possibility of finding some very old frozen fossils under the Antarctic ice. But if they exist, they're in places that are sorta hard to get at. And the researchers want to be extra careful, because they expect that there will also be living spores (and maybe seeds) there, too. They don't want anyone doing the digging until they can be certain that the samples won't be contaminated by surface bacteria. But the digging (or more likely drilling) will probably be tried within the next decade or two.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, it's because the dinosaur is likely just a few thousand years old, tops. Noah's flood covers 'em all good. They've even found unfossilized dinosaur bone in the arctic regions.

  11. Yow! by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

    Hadrosaur porn!

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    1. Re:Yow! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      As per book - one of them a transsexual?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Yow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardosaur!

    3. Re:Yow! by myrrdyn · · Score: 1

      sorry, wrong mod

      --
      Elen sìla lùmenn' omentielvo
  12. 149 amino acids? by jc42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wow! Human DNA contains only 20 amino acids. (Actually, there is a 21st, but it's extremely rare.) I wonder what the Hadrosaur was doing with so many of them.

    It sounds like our world really lost a lot at the K-T impact event.

    (And isn't it wonderful how ambiguous the English language can be, especially in the hands of journalists. ;-)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    1. Re:149 amino acids? by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

      Human DNA contains only 20 amino acids.

      DNA contains amino acids?

      Now come on...

      I have been helping my kid in high school biology lately and you are messing with what little understanding I have.

    2. Re:149 amino acids? by rnaiguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      As noted, the correct statement is that DNA (of all known organisms) directly encodes exactly 20 different amino acids. There can be a few more, but they are not directly encoded, but added/modified later.
      Also, I don't see the ambiguity. If someone found a new manuscript of Shakespeare's that consisted of 10,000 letters, would you complain that the English language only has 26 letters?

    3. Re:149 amino acids? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      In other words, these 20 amino acids today replace a system of 149? Basically, the modern set is more refined and require less complexity to achieve the same level of functionality. Am I getting that right???

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:149 amino acids? by rnaiguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      nope, same 20 amino acids now as then, they were just able to identify a sequence that was 149 amino acids long. however, you bring up a good point. I wonder if their experiment was designed to detect amino acids that no longer exist in modern animals. However, the fact that the same amino acids are shared across all living organisms known today (which diverged billions of years ago) makes it unlikely that there were different amino acids in animals 65 million years ago.

    5. Re:149 amino acids? by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, well, most people would accept the phrase "This CD contains music." More precisely it contains a binary encoding of sound wave samples, which, when put together with the proper device, will form music. And more precisely for DNA, it contains base4 encodings of amino acids, which, when put together with the proper device, will form a protein. But, I still don't like saying that DNA contains amino acids or proteins. Since music isn't a physical thing, it's not the same thing. Amino acids are real things, so saying 20 of them are contained in DNA implies that they're physically in there! A more apt analogy than my music CD would be a data CD with car blueprints. Nobody would ever say the CD contains a car, though theoretically if put in the proper machine it would create a car. It's extra-inexcusable from somebody being critical over a perceived imprecise wording!

      And as for the moaning about imprecise language: "Firefox just said it downloaded 57 Kb, but that's impossible, there are only 256 values a byte can hold, how could it download 57 (binary)thousand of them??"

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    6. Re:149 amino acids? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      It sounds like our world really lost a lot at the K-T impact event.

      I thought it was because of the Deccan Traps this week.

  13. Not likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This president believes in Science. OTH, W and reagan were your best bet for such an idea.

  14. Proof? by saforrest · · Score: 1

    According to the article, the proteins found confirm the results of the T. Rex study, proving that what was found in T. Rex was not a result of modern contamination, as had been claimed by skeptics, but was indeed the genuine thing: real dinosaur protein.

    "Prove" is pretty strong word. What evidence is there that these hadrosaur proteins are just not _more_ modern contamination?

    1. Re:Proof? by saforrest · · Score: 1

      Quoting myself:

      "Prove" is pretty strong word. What evidence is there that these hadrosaur proteins are just not _more_ modern contamination?

      Quoting the article (emphasis mine):

      The authors hope the findings [...] prove that their T. rex discovery "was not a unique occurrence," co-author John Asara, director of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Mass Spectrometry Core and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, said in a statement.

      To submitter: "proof" and "hope of proof" are rather different things. If you don't agree, I'm offering an aspirational proof of the Riemann Hypothesis for a very good price!

    2. Re:Proof? by ianare · · Score: 1

      It's not proven until indepently confirmed multiple times. The researchers themselves don't use the 'p' word.

      co-author John Asara said : "This is the second dinosaur species we've examined and helps verify that our first discovery was not just a one-hit wonder."

    3. Re:Proof? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      To submitter: "proof" and "hope of proof" are rather different things.

      But, really, "hope of proof", even if it is what is in TFA, is an understatement. The results clearly do prove "that their T. rex discovery 'was not a unique occurence'," even if it is less clear that they prove that the T. rex findings were not modern contamination.

      After all, if it is repeated in a different context, whether or not it is meaningful, it is not "unique".

  15. Deniers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how the dinosaur deniers will take this. If they think God put fossils in the ground to test their faith, then they really must not like this new evidence

    1. Re:Deniers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't deny dinosaurs... they deny the timeline.

  16. Google by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    When can google use these to mow their grass. `Goats are Ok, but these should taste like chicken.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  17. hadrosaurs were discovered in new jersey by ifeelswine · · Score: 1

    the whole species went extinct when they were all asked, simultaneously, "what exit?"

  18. You think that's bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine being a great dinosaur, passing away, waiting in the mud for 40 million years, and the descendants of proto-marmots dug you out of the ground to play with your fluids.

    Be nice to the lesser critters.

  19. with faith, by nietsch · · Score: 1

    You can believe anything. So you don't need to make up your own plausible explanation (or better: implausible), you just declare you don't believe that yet, and when some other nutjob has come up with a far-right field explanantion, you start to believe that one, because the guy goes to the same church as you do. In the end, your peer group/tribe is more important thzat reason, especially for unreasonable people.
    Akkatjoemabh!

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you