De-extinction - is looking like a duck and quacking like a duck enough to be a duck?

[IvanV]

Some people say they have brought back the dire wolf from extinction, and some other people say no they haven't (BBC).

They have taken some of the DNA fragments from dire wolf fossil material, and inserted it into grey wolf DNA, the closest relative of the dire wolf. They say the outcome looks like a duck and quacks like a duck dire wolf in sufficiently many ways, and dire wolves and grey wolves are sufficiently close relatives, so that it is a dire wolf to all intents and purposes.

The nay-sayers, who say nay, say it is not a dire wolf, but a hybrid grey wolf which just looks rather like a dire wolf. I wonder if this is a bit like German Shepherd dogs, which are domestic dogs which have been bred to look like grey wolves. But they are plainly domestic dogs, not grey wolves, even if they look sufficiently alike that it can be hard to tell them apart just by looking at them.

[science_fox]

Given that even the definition of "species" is are what the Victorians thought they ought to be, sometimes modified by DNA/observational data and sometimes not... these puppies are probably simultaneously Dire Wolves/ GreyWolves/ Unique all at the same time.

Perhaps in a decade or so if they live that long we'll see if they have Dire behaviours, or are just lab curiosities.

[Imrael]

The company in question say they want to de-extinct a whole load of mega fauna. It does seem to me that Dire Wolf might be the easiest case by quite a long way.

[IvanV]

The company in question say they want to de-extinct a whole load of mega fauna. It does seem to me that Dire Wolf might be the easiest case by quite a long way.

I can see that the physical similarity of dire wolves and grey wolves and their habits and habitats can make it much easier to get something looking apparently like a dire wolf and behaving like a dire wolf, if we are happy with the duck test. Though I'm surprised to read quite how early dire wolves did diverge from modern canids, around the same order as mammoths from Asian elephants, 6-9 milllion years.

We should have much better DNA of mammoths, as it is rather more recently extinct and frozen material from permafrost is available. A strong test of whether we had made a "mammoth" would be its suitability to live in cold places. Since the parent animal we'd have to give it, the Asian elephant, has no such tolerance, it presents a conundrum for breeding one. As does the fact that even the smaller mammoths, the woolly mammoths, are rather larger than Asian elephants, though not so different from African elephants. Would one have to proceed in stages? Can one proceed in stages? And that would take a long time with elephants.

Modern domestic cattle diverge from aurochs really very recently in comparison to the above, only a few thousand years. Though the aurochs was extinct by about 3000 years ago, too long ago for Obelix to have had it for dinner. Again the DNA material from aurochs ought to be pretty good in comparison to dire wolf, as we have subfossils from only a little more than 3000 years ago. So why isn't aurochs the really easy one? Though previous aurochs restoration projects, by selective breeding rather than DNA transfer, are more like German Shepherd dogs, which aren't wolves, they are just selectively bred to look like them.

[Grumble]

The company in question say they want to de-extinct a whole load of mega fauna. It does seem to me that Dire Wolf might be the easiest case by quite a long way.

I can see that the physical similarity of dire wolves and grey wolves and their habits and habitats can make it much easier to get something looking apparently like a dire wolf and behaving like a dire wolf, if we are happy with the duck test. Though I'm surprised to read quite how early dire wolves did diverge from modern canids, around the same order as mammoths from Asian elephants, 6-9 milllion years.

We should have much better DNA of mammoths, as it is rather more recently extinct and frozen material from permafrost is available. A strong test of whether we had made a "mammoth" would be its suitability to live in cold places. Since the parent animal we'd have to give it, the Asian elephant, has no such tolerance, it presents a conundrum for breeding one. As does the fact that even the smaller mammoths, the woolly mammoths, are rather larger than Asian elephants, though not so different from African elephants. Would one have to proceed in stages? Can one proceed in stages? And that would take a long time with elephants.

Modern domestic cattle diverge from aurochs really very recently in comparison to the above, only a few thousand years. Though the aurochs was extinct by about 3000 years ago, too long ago for Obelix to have had it for dinner. Again the DNA material from aurochs ought to be pretty good in comparison to dire wolf, as we have subfossils from only a little more than 3000 years ago. So why isn't aurochs the really easy one? Though previous aurochs restoration projects, by selective breeding rather than DNA transfer, are more like German Shepherd dogs, which aren't wolves, they are just selectively bred to look like them.

Permafrost is really bad for DNA.

[Imrael]

I guess the relevant conditions are well preserved DNA and a extant species close enough to serve as a host mother and departure point. So (without having looked it up or anything) Tasmanian Tiger is recently extinct, there might be DNA in preserved speciments but its hard to identify a suitable host/donor?

[bob sterman]

Permafrost is really bad for DNA.

Probably not as bad as notperma (intermittent) frost - or tropical heat.

[Grumble]

Permafrost is really bad for DNA.

Probably not as bad as notperma (intermittent) frost - or tropical heat.

I think you want nice anaerobic conditions but not cold enough to burst all the cells

[JQH]

Though the aurochs was extinct by about 3000 years ago, too long ago for Obelix to have had it for dinner.

400 years ago. Last known auroch died in 1627.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/from-aur ... rgers.html

[Gfamily]

Though the aurochs was extinct by about 3000 years ago, too long ago for Obelix to have had it for dinner.

400 years ago. Last known auroch died in 1627.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/from-aur ... rgers.html

That does surprise me. ThaQHs

[IvanV]

Though the aurochs was extinct by about 3000 years ago, too long ago for Obelix to have had it for dinner.

400 years ago. Last known auroch died in 1627.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/from-aur ... rgers.html

Sorry, that 3000 years ago date was for Britain, which I had recently seen and misremembered as being world-wide.

Private Eye has a report of this dire wolf stuff, in the Colour Section, ie the part of the magazine which is satirical. Let me present a couple of extracts.

...
"We have created this species (Balonensis Maximus) by splicing some old DNA into an existing wolf," explained one scientist, leafing through endless uncritical promotional "news" articles about the "discovery".
"Is it an actual dire wolf? No. its 99.97% normal wolf. But, crucially, we have given life to the idea that we might have made one, and that will makes lots of money, and that's the most important thing."
The scientist continued, "What an animal like this needs is a habitat, and the ideal habitat for this species is in the pages of thousands of credulous newspapers...
"We have also enriched this environment by providing tonne upon tonne of horseshit, which has been eaten up with no scrutiny whatsoever."

[Allo V Psycho]

A much more promising approach to my mind is the reactivation of dormant genes. Often these are not lost in evolution, just switched off, so snakes have pretty good limb buds in early embryos, but they fail to continue to develop. Back in my lab days. I was keen on the idea of getting hold of some snake embryos, and grafting, say, the Apical Ectodermal Ridge from a chick embryonic limb bud to a snake limb bud in the hope the limbs then continued to develop. (it's not as crazy as it sounds...). This is why you get occasional atavisms, such as whales with hind limbs. I had discussions with Edinburgh Zoo, but they weren't keen to part with their snake eggs.

I wrote an article called 'Bringing back Archeopteryx', in which I discussed taking a modern domestic hen and giving it back at least some key features of Archeopteryx which had been done separately - like teeth, long tails, and feathered legs. Claws on the wings hadn't/hasn't been done experimentally but hoatzins still have them, so it must be possible. Alas, no journal, not even New Scientist, would publish it.

At the time BP had a 'Blue Sky' research grant programme, where the essential criteria were that the planned research had to have absolutely no potential commercial application whatsoever (which is quite a clever idea for generating research which turns out to have commercial applications). I pitched various ideas to them, and had some great lunches at BP HQ, but alas there was a Board coup and the entire scheme was abandoned.

Ironically, years later one of my most brilliant PhD students was doing an experiment, and was downcast when it didn't appear to have worked (i.e., hadn't done what we expected). But when I looked at the outcomes, I told her she had actually reversed a bit of avian evolution. We did publish it but in quarter of a century it has been cited by just 8 other papers, so not exactly setting biology on fire. Maybe we just lacked a good agent...

And even today, if I win the Euromillions, I'm buying an isolated island and building a laboratory....

[Imrael]

And even today, if I win the Euromillions, I'm buying an isolated island and building a laboratory....

Give or take the isolated island Peter Mitchell did that, and won the 1978 Nobel Prize.