Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Ancient Cave Bear DNA Extracted and Decoded 130

Posted by Zonk from the i-still-want-velociraptors dept.
diamond writes "The BBC reports that 'scientists have extracted and decoded the DNA of a cave bear that died 40,000 years ago.' The sequencing technique could also work for Neanderthals. However, 'the idea of obtaining DNA from dinosaurs, depicted in the film Jurassic Park, remains science fiction.' Also reported by Nature Magazine."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ancient Cave Bear DNA Extracted and Decoded More

Ancient Cave Bear DNA Extracted and Decoded

Comments Filter:
  • Now we won't have too wait (perhaps) to find sentient non human intelligences, all we have to do is recreate them. Not that neanderthal would have much to say but hey hes non human! We could do those Flores tiny people too they were pretty recent. All sorts of possibilities
  • Man, i know it is friday afternoon... I read that as Ancient Cave Beer and got thirsty... sounds delicious!

  • What A Shame! (Score:3, Funny)

    by colonslashslash ( 762464 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:36PM (#12719181) Homepage
    However, 'the idea of obtaining DNA from dinosaurs, depicted in the film Jurassic Park, remains science fiction.'

    Yes, what a shame. Unfortunately because of limitations with current technology and scientific knowledge, we won't be able to reproduce a race of ancient evil uber bears bent on destroying humans and swiping pic-a-nic baskets.

    Cue the "I welcome our new Ancient Bear Overlords" comments.....

  • on trying to genetically engineer the perfect linebacker

  • How long... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Embedded Geek ( 532893 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:38PM (#12719192) Homepage
    ...until this becomes another SciFi [scifi.com] monster [scifi.com] movie of [scifi.com] the week [scifi.com]?
    • Battlestar Galactica: "The Cave Beer Planet"

      Starbuck crash lands on a mysterious planet and finds the lost tribe too busy making and drinking Cave Beer to ever care about ever reaching Earth. Starbuck must the fateful decision that will determine the fleet's survival: Drink it cold or warm?
  • I believe it's still a way to go from sequencing (parts) of the DNA of an ancient animal to recreating it

  • *evil villianous laugh* (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kesh ( 65890 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:41PM (#12719215)
    "The BBC reports that 'scientists have extracted and decoded the DNA of a cave bear that died 40,000 years ago.' The sequencing technique could also work for Neanderthals.

    Now, we just need to combine the two! Neanderthal bears!

    ... what?

    • > "The BBC reports that 'scientists have extracted and decoded the DNA of a cave bear that died 40,000 years ago.' The sequencing technique could also work for Neanderthals.
      >
      >Now, we just need to combine the two! Neanderthal bears!

      Og homo sapiens sapiens. Og not have to outrun homo sapiens neanderthalis. Og only have to outrun cave bear. Og wise. Great-great-gr[skipping a bit]eat-grandchildren Og now see just how wise.

    • Now, we just need to combine the two! Neanderthal bears!
      You got bear in my neanderthal!
      You got neanderthal in my bear!
      Two great tastes that go together.
  • the idea of obtaining DNA from dinosaurs, depicted in the film Jurassic Park, remains science fiction.

    Can someone explain this further? What exactly about obtaining DNA from dinosaurs as depicted in Jurasic Park is "science fiction"?

    I mean, for one thing, they didn't obtain the DNA from dinosaurs. They obtained (as I recall) dinosaur DNA from a mosquito that was preserved in amber. What exactly is science fiction about obtaining DNA from a very-well preserved creature encased in something like amber?

    Jus
    • The article in this story is mainly focused on the problem of DNA contamination. Microbes mostly, but also othe sources such as the palentoligists themselves. They used a dog DNA-map as a reference since they are closely related (we think).

      Now imagine trying the same thing on the dessicated remains of a misquito gut. Think their might be some comtamination in there? Putting aside the issue of a 40,000 year old sample versus a 180 million year old sample.
    • It's "science fiction" because it hasn't happened yet.

      Old fossils and the like do not always have DNA that is recoverable in any easy way. DNA degrades easily, breaks into bits, etc.

      Cave Bears existed alongside modern (genetically speaking) man. Dinosaurs are much, much older and therefore that much harder to get DNA from.

      • It's just a matter of time (to gather more data, find more specimens, build greater databases of known creatures/maps) before we do, though. I don't think it's so much "science fiction" in the vain that it is insinuated.

        Okay, properly sequencing dinosaur DNA might be science fiction in that vain, for some time in the future, but sequencing is different than obtaining.
    • They have found DNA within fossils. i.e. the bone marrow still contains cells.

    • Re:Jurassic Park (Score:2, Informative)

      by emtilt ( 618098 )
      DNA is not the most stable of molecules, and actually breaks down rather easily. After periods as long as the time between the dinosaurs and now, the DNA has degraded a great deal and all that would remain are small fragments of DNA. Currently, there is no way to combine these fragments even if we were somehow able to obtain enough to creat a whol strand of DNA. Thus it is science fiction still.
      • No, that's not true. You don't have to combine fragments; we can already build custom DNA strands for any arbitrary sequence of base pairs (and anyone can order it online, with prices as low as 1-2$ per bp). You just need to know the sequence that you want.

        With a large enough fragment database - absolutely huge if your DNA is very fragmented and contaminated - it should be possible to statistically correlate to rebuild a full set of genes for anything. Accumulating enough DNA from dinosaurs, however, ma
  • The team determined that nearly 6% of the sequences analysed from one of their animal samples belonged to ancient bear: an unexpectedly large amount. The rest of the DNA probably came from soil microbes or the palaeontologists handling the bones, the team says.

    So six percent of the sample was cave bear. How much of the entire cave bear DAN-map was recovered? This sounds much less impressive than at first blush. Can anyone with access to the whole study and the abilty to comprehend it tell us how usef

    • Re:6% of what? (Score:3, Informative)

      by dragons_flight ( 515217 )
      The researchers retrieved very many fragments of DNA from their fossils. By comparing the fragments to references for bears and dogs (which are 93% bear, apparently), and excluding human and bacterial sequences, they were able to identify a number of distinctly cave bear fragments. In total this amounts to 26,861 base pairs which was enough to place it within its proper lineage with respect to other bears.

      Of course, compared to the 2.3 billion base pairs in a human, they have a rather long way to go befo
    • It sounds to me like 6% of the DNA they analyzed was cave-bear DNA, and the rest was other DNA. That's not to be confused with 6% of a single DNA strand was cave bear, but 6% of the total number of samples.

  • Anything is possible (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Capt'n Hector ( 650760 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:43PM (#12719233)
    Never say we won't get DNA from dinosaurs. Just recently some scientists uncoverered a dinosaur bone that wasn't completely fossilized: it was so big that they couldn't transport it, so they cut it in half and found actual flesh in the center! I couldn't find it on google news in 5 seconds, but does anybody else remember this? I think there was a reason they couldn't extract any DNA from this guy, but stranger things have happened. Of course, DNA an entire being does not make, so we won't be able to actually make a living breathing dinosaur but we all know what would happen if we did!
  • Neanderthals... Ancient Cave bears...

    These people need to stop reading old books and get back to science.

    Unless they're willing to put both groups in a room and lock the door.
  • Scientists have extracted and decoded the DNA of a cave bear that died 40,000 years ago . . .

    . . . and found it to be Winnie the Pooh's ancient ancestor.

  • Role of mitochondria and cytoplasm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:46PM (#12719258)
    If this is going to work, scientists will need copies of both the DNA in the nucleus AND mitochondria (and ways to synthesize the nucleus and mitochondria of the target organism). Implanting a neanderthal nucleus in a human (or any other) kind of egg will not necessarily create a pure neanderthal clone (we might even need to clone the cytoplasmic contents). A study of cloning fish across species boundaries showed that some very basic physical characteristics (e.g., the number of vertebra in the backbone) were controlled by the mitochondria or cytoplasm of the egg, not by the genes in the nucleus.

    It's amazing that they can reconstruct the DNA of long-dead creatures but its also clear that nuclear DNA is not the only information-carrying object in biological organisms.
    • If this is going to work, scientists will need copies of both the DNA in the nucleus AND mitochondria (and ways to synthesize the nucleus and mitochondria of the target organism).

      RTFA:

      "It has been very difficult thus far to get anything other than mitochondrial DNA from ancient material," he said.

      Recovering the mitochondrial DNA is not as big an issue.

    • What about the important role of mitochlorians? :)

      This is cool stuff, no doubt. I doubt that we'll be seeing cloned cave bears or clones of Daryl Hannah running amok. The DNA will still be useful for non-cloning applications.

    • This to me is the key point. 20 or 30 years ago we believed many things. We believed that if we put adequate sensors in enough places around the earth, we could perfectly predict weather. We believed that the universe was expanding or contracting at a constant rate, and would not accelerate. We believed that if we had a genertic sequence, we would be able to make an exact duplicate of the organism.

      As always in science, the universe mocks our simplifications. We have a gene map, and we discover, IIRC,

      • As always in science, the universe mocks our simplifications.

        Absolutely. This is what makes science so fascinating.

        In fact the cloning end is simply the hook to get people interested in these popular aritcles. It seems to me the real interesting thing is that we can clean up a sample enough to say with some certainty that the sequence is of the specified animal. Then it gets interesting.

        What bothers me is the tendency for scientists to promise vaporware. Instead of explaining the real and very i
  • When translated it said 'I'm smarter then the average neanderthal Boo-boo'
  • Could I give them DNA have them decode it, and then tell me what it was?

    They know what it is going into the decoding... but I'm just so fascinated by the technology that I wonder if they can extrapolate the species from just the DNA too.

    These guys are f'ing cool. This really is the frontier here on earth for me.

  • unless they're all thumbs... (Score:4, Funny)

    by moviepig.com ( 745183 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:49PM (#12719278)
    ...scientists have extracted and decoded the DNA of a cave bear that died 40,000 years ago.' The sequencing technique could also work for Neanderthals.

    Why would Neanderthals want to build a cave bear?

  • If they could only extract the DNA of my Uncle Gene and make a clone of him, I could get back that $200 he owed me. Come on brainiacs, lets get some science going on and make me some cash! Bling bling!
  • I'd like to have the sequence for that "rip peoples face off with massive claws" personality trait.
  • Further digging for bear fossils revealed a shovel, a forest ranger hat, and a partial parchement fragment with the words:

    "On.y y.. ca.. p.even. f.rest fir.s"

    Antropologists are currently looking for assistance in decoding the parchement.
  • But the scientists hope to be able to sequence the DNA of ancient humans, which lived at the same time as cave bears, raising the prospect of perhaps one day being able to "build" a Neanderthal from their genetic blueprint.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4602739.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    This makes me wonder if we could even "build" a modern Human from a genetic blueprint. Is it possible to physically predict something's appearance from its DNA?

    • i saw that once in Star Trek Voyager, so yes, its defiently possible.
    • With time probably, at least for many features. The problem is that the effect of environment is not perfectly known, and the womb may have substantial influence (this may be compensated for partially by using maternal dna to simulate those effects as well, either from the half donated by the mother or from the mother herself). It's better than in the past since the environment nowadays is mostly "nice" so it has less bad effects (ie: you're short because your genetics say so not because you were near starv

  • Not possible (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Don't we all know by now that this is impossible?

    The Earth is around 5000 years old.These guys are the devil's pawns and work only to Deceive you!

    Cave bears are tricks of the Devil to "test your faith"!
  • La-de-freaking-duh. Dinosaur DNA is more than three orders of magnitude older than neanderthal. A totally different probelm of acquisition and re-sequencing.
    Read The Science of Jurassic Park: And the Lost World Or, How to Build a Dinosaur by Rob Desalle, David Lindley. Excellent breakdown of the tasks involved. Two bucks on Amazon.
  • pauly shore discovered a frozen caveman back about 13 years ago and even dethawed him and brought him back to life! These guys only found cave bear DNA...lame.

    Encino Man [imdb.com]

    Summary:
    Stoney and Dave find a caveman (Link) trapped in ice, thaw him out, and show him around town. Although Link is slow to catch on to basic concepts of 20th century life, he has no trouble impressing all the girls and helping Stoney and Dave find the coolness they've been searching for.
  • http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03dinosa ur.html [nytimes.com]

    now if you tell me that dna will degrade over 70 million years and be unrecoverable, then i will believe you

    but if you also tell me that they can recover soft tissue with capillaries and cells visible from 70 million years ago, i wouldn't believe you

    but that's what they did

    so now i don't know what to believe... isn't some sort of t. rex dna recovery possible after all then? granted, it would be fragmented, but if we are talking dessicated soft tissue, can't the fragments be recovered in some sort of context that might make reconstruction possible?

    • Re:didn't they find t. rex soft tissue recently? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @10:04PM (#12720105) Homepage
      There may be hundreds of thousands of types of biomolecules in your average cell. DNA is one of the less stable among them. Finding the more stable molecules isn't that big of a deal; it's the less stable ones that we want.

    • It is also worth remembering that when molecules decay, they do so randomly. You only need one intact example from each point in the chain, you do NOT need an entire chain that is complete, you do NOT even need all the points in the chain from the same animal.

      Let's say that there are a million unstable points along the DNA chain that are horribly unstable, and that you'll lose one such molecule on average once a day, in a given cell. Can you recover enough to rebuild an animal, after 200 million years?

    • now if you tell me that dna will degrade over 70 million years and be unrecoverable, then i will believe you

      but if you also tell me that they can recover soft tissue with capillaries and cells visible from 70 million years ago, i wouldn't believe you

      but that's what they did

      Did they really?

      so now i don't know what to believe

      It starts to make sense if you allow yourself to question the extreme age that this tissue is claimed to have.

  • I find it funny that the last sent. was about repudiating Jurassic Park. In recent time, they have found sequencable DNA in fossils.
  • If you can get enough whole DNA, you could at least seriously think about putting it into an egg and gestating another animal. But in the current climate of hysteria over cloning, you can't say that out loud or the whackos will be all over you.

    If it isn't at least thinkable, why are they denying it is possible? Because they know it is a conclusion people will jump to. The creation process may be difficult and error-prone, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility, as Dolly the shppe would tell you i

  • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • If cave men start getting cloned and then raised to be (somewhat) productive members of society, I fear the gene pool of the human race would be set back should he/she deside to have children. Evolution decided those genes are not worthy, why inject obsolete DNA into our race?

      Set back how? Are you absolutely certain that our DNA is any better than theirs? And aside from that, it's not even certain that humans could ever really mate with neanderthals or other hominids. Earlier homo sapiens is a possib
  • One of the tenets of dismissing evolution is that cavemen are just retarded humans, or guys that were based in a few too many times. If thier DNA is shown to be different, won't that proove they are a different species, thus showing that there are in fact multiple branches of humans? What does the bible say about cave men, I wonder? Actually, I guess it doesn't matter. You can't fight creationism with science. Someone will come right back with "those were bad humans, Satan twisted their DNA, and they a
  • Will they also clone a few hundred Daryl Hannah's to go along with these bears if they manage to recreate them?
  • i thought it said 'care bear' instead of cave bear. I didnt know they could extract dna from fluff filled bears full of love...
  • I'd rather get some DNA from Daryl Hannah in that one cave bear movie and clone her for my own naughty purposes...
  • or else we can inject ancient cave bear dna into an ancient cave bear egg.
  • From TFA:

    scientists have extracted and decoded the DNA of a cave bear that died 40,000 years ago.

    or does Crichton have to write the book first?

  • Mitochondria (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by taskforce ( 866056 )
    If this bear had so many "Mitochondria" then what's the possibility that someone might consider genetically recreating them and training them as Jedi?
  • FTFA:

    "In hundreds or thousands of years from now, we may have advanced our technology so we can create creatures from DNA sequence information," Dr Eddy Rubin, director of the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, California, told the BBC News website.

    This is remarkably short-sighted for someone in his position. I'd say a few decades at most, given our current rate of advancement in understanding genetics. IIRC the human genome was sequenced in less than half the time originally
  • A followup expedition to the site passed a sign saying "Bear Left", so they went home.

    --Rob

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close