×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Recover Wooly Mammoth Blood

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the wooly-mammoth-vampires-very-excited dept.

Biotech 190

westtxfun writes "'Russian scientists claimed Wednesday they have discovered blood in the carcass of a woolly mammoth, adding that the rare find could boost their chances of cloning the prehistoric animal.' As scientists unearthed the recent find, very dark blood flowed out from beneath the mammoth, and the muscle tissue was red. This is the best-preserved specimen found so far and they are hopeful they can recover DNA and clone a mammoth. Semyon Grigoriev, one of the researchers, said, 'The approximate age of this animal is about 10,000 years old. It has been preserved thanks to the special conditions, due to the fact that it did not defrost and then freeze again. We suppose that the mammoth fell into water or got bogged down in a swamp, could not free herself and died. Due to this fact the lower part of the body, including the lower jaw, and tongue tissue, was preserved very well. The upper torso and two legs, which were in the soil, were gnawed by prehistoric and modern predators and almost did not survive.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

190 comments

Eat it, Charlie Sheen (5, Funny)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | about a year ago | (#43852417)

Tiger blood is just so passe now.

Re:Eat it, Charlie Sheen (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#43852429)

Can't wait for my mammoth burger and steak.

Re:Eat it, Charlie Sheen (2)

Loether (769074) | about a year ago | (#43852747)

Funny, it tastes an awful lot like a normal free range elephant.

Re:Eat it, Charlie Sheen (4, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | about a year ago | (#43853045)

Have you ever seen what it takes to get an elephant certified as "free range"? Seriously, if they have 5 feet to move in each direction, that qualifies. Regulation in the elephant farming industry is a joke.

I know it's wrong, but personally I like elephant veal. Yeah, I know. Some AC is going to point out that technically veal has to be made out of cows. But you know what I mean. There isn't an English word for "elephant veal."

Re:Eat it, Charlie Sheen (2)

Quasimodem (719423) | about a year ago | (#43853429)

The free range or caged elephant burgers will be marketed as Hortonburgers, and feral or wild elephant burgers will be marketed as Tantorburgers.

The cloned Wooly Mammoth, however, won't be raised for meat, they will be herded for their wool. And the annual spring wool clip will be a real sonuvabitch!

Photo Op (2, Interesting)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year ago | (#43852451)

"the muscle tissue was red" I can't wait for the photo op of Putin eating a mammoth steak, cooked rare. People could at least take that more seriously than his flight with the cranes [colbertnation.com] .

Re:Photo Op (-1, Troll)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#43852551)

Putin eating a mammoth steak, cooked rare

Eating meat nearly raw is mostly an American custom (ok, and some aboriginal groups'). So is drinking beer so cold you can't feel any taste.

Re:Photo Op (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852627)

Being a pretentious douche, however, is universal (ok, maybe not among those aboriginal groups).

Re:Photo Op (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43853579)

maybe not among those aboriginal groups

So all those tusk-pierced noses are essentially a display of their natural humility?

Re:Photo Op (5, Insightful)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year ago | (#43852705)

So is drinking beer so cold you can't feel any taste.

A custom that is dying a bit on account of the advent better small, local, and craft beers. Now if the smaller breweries can only avoid fratricide [westsixth.com] . But, seriously, would you want to drink American mega-brews at a temperature you could taste them?

Eating meat nearly raw is mostly an American custom

Carpaccio, mett, kifto, sakuraniku (or any sashimi like basashi with meat), and dare I look at Wikipedia to find more? In any case, I wouldn't suggest destroying the flavor of this carefully aged meat with the application of heat. Besides, think of all the jokes a person could make with this coming from a steppe country. Mammoth tartare, etc... actually, there's no etc. That's all I've got. And given that preparation isn't actually mongol, meh.

Re:Photo Op (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852759)

These are rare specialties, while rare steak is an American staple food.

Re:Photo Op (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852823)

I don't think I'd go so far as to call it a staple food. I know very few people who eat their steak rare. Steak in general is an American staple, sure, but not so rare it moos.

Re:Photo Op (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853725)

Buying a filet mignon and and having it cooked medium well to weldone is a staple of the American redneck.

Re:Photo Op (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853955)

I always find it offensive when people say things like that. I like a steak medium well because of the flavor and texture of medium well. It's simply a personal preference. You "rare" snobs can kiss my ass :)

Re:Photo Op (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853761)

Beer at over 40 degrees F (4.4 degrees C) tastes bad. It doesn't matter if it is swill like ButWiper or Coors. It can be a micro brew from a hole in the wall, a mini brew from a (growing) company like Deschutes, a small brewery like Mac-n-Jack's near Seattle or whatever. If it is warm, it tastes like crap.

Re:Photo Op (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852745)

mostly an American custom

You need to get out more.

Re:Photo Op (4, Informative)

Unknown1337 (2697703) | about a year ago | (#43852763)

No, not really. Steak Tartar -for example- originated in Europe. France to be more specific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steak_tartare [wikipedia.org] Check out the History and Regional variations sections. Not too mention the Swedish 'Rabiff' version which usually resembles the Danish version pretty closely.

Re:Photo Op (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852875)

And Ethiopians are big on Kitfo, basically raw hamburger. I'm sure lots of people can chime in here...

Re:Photo Op (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#43853129)

Though at the local resteraunt, they will ask you how you want the kitfo cooked :) I have never ordered it cooked but, they do offer.

I find it interesting that dishes with actual raw beef taste a bit different than rare meat, I have eaten some pretty thick steaks that were undercooked for medium rare, more towards rare, and they still don't quite have the same flavor as dishes with raw meat.

Raw is not my favorite way to have beef (it is my favorite for salmon and some other fish) but, its a nice for a change, once in a while.

Re:Photo Op (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43854237)

No, not really. Steak Tartar -for example- originated in Europe. France to be more specific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steak_tartare [wikipedia.org] Check out the History and Regional variations sections. Not too mention the Swedish 'Rabiff' version which usually resembles the Danish version pretty closely.

Well the fucking cows the 'muricans are eating "rare" are from europe. and that rare is actually well-done in parisian terms.

Re:Photo Op (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852783)

US beer is designed to be cheap, light, and get you drunk while allowing you to drink all day. It gets stored in a cooler full of ice. It's not meant to be drank be presumptuous cocksuckers like KiloByte. We also have fancy beers when we want to be pretentious cocksuckers like you.

Re:Photo Op (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852791)

Sushi, ceviche, sashimi, kibbeh nayyeh, carpaccio, kitfo, kachila, hoe, hackepeter, gored gored...

Re:Photo Op (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852843)

Being blatantly ignorant of other cultures is another American custom.

Re:Photo Op (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853781)

Funny, I posted that list and am American.

Re:Photo Op (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852859)

Eating meat nearly raw is mostly an American custom (ok, and some aboriginal groups').

Bullshit.
Citation: Sushi, Sashimi, Carpaccio, Tartare, etc.
The only raw meat eaten in the US comes from dishes which are popular in other countries, it's not our custom.

As for the beer, we drink it cold because refrigeration became commonplace for even the poorest families over here. Back in Europe refrigeration is much less common and wasn't adopted as early or as widely, so people are still used to drinking piss-warm beer.

Re:Photo Op (1, Informative)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43852979)

to be fair a "good" beer is best served slightly above room temperature. no bud or coors or miller, they taste horrible at room temp but thats the kind of beer it is. many of the microbrews such as those from brooklyn , rogue , stone , lake placid breweries almost all taste better at a lower temp. In fact you can actually taste the difference between the time it comes out of the tap and the end of the beer. in my experience anyway, its usually at its best 1/2 way through the pint.

Re:Photo Op (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43853869)

What the fuck? Stop making rules for drinking beer... or anything else for that matter. It tastes best however the fuck I want to drink it. My aunt drinks hot tap water. Fucking weird shit, but I'm not pretentious enough to tell her how she's "doing it wrong"

Re:Photo Op (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852955)

With Bud and Miller, you don't want the taste.

Re:Photo Op (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853207)

Americans over cook everything. My sister took a trip to Ireland ordered salmon and balked at how undercooked it was.

Americans don't realize that if they raised their animals well that raw meat would be pretty safe. But we buy from Sysco and get it shipped in from overseas. Or our publix brand meat is full of antibiotic resistant bacteria. And people are so use to eating overcooked food. Their stomach pitches a fit.

Raw is not an American thing. It is more global than American. And as places become more industrialized raw disappears.

And to the comments below, American rare is medium well in other countries. It's damn near impossible to find a steak cook here.

But I do agree that Americans don't have a clue about drinking beer.

Re:Photo Op (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853245)

This most popular way to eat steak in the US (and pretty much everywhere) is medium rare, not rare.

Re:Photo Op (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853421)

Medium rare is still dangerously close to raw.

Re:Photo Op (2)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year ago | (#43853661)

Not dangerous by any sensible definition. The outside of the steak is hot enough to kill bacteria. The inside of the meat has no bacteria. The difference between medium rare and raw is the risk of foodborne illness.

Re:Photo Op (2)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | about a year ago | (#43853699)

Not dangerous by any sensible definition. The outside of the steak is hot enough to kill bacteria. The inside of the meat has no bacteria. The difference between medium rare and raw is the risk of foodborne illness.

Yep. Steaks are relatively safe at lower temperatures. Ground meat products are the ones to watch out for a little more... I'd only trust a rare burger as much as I'd trust every individual involved in its preparation to have washed hands at all times.

Re:Photo Op (3, Funny)

ogrizzo (23524) | about a year ago | (#43853847)

Eating meat nearly raw is mostly an American custom (ok, and some aboriginal groups'). So is drinking beer so cold you can't feel any taste.

Actually what you call rare in the US, is called well done in continental Europe.

Re:Photo Op (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43854045)

Not even close, for instance Russians don't like their meat cooked until it is tastless cardboard either.

Also, telling you that beer should be served warm is just marketing propaganda so they don't have to chill your beer and you fell for it.

Icy, no, there is such thing as going too far, but slightly below room temperature is required to slow oxygenation and maintain the crisp separation of flavors. Warm beer pretty quickly starts to taste like the room it's in, stale smoke, BO, fast food, it really depends on where you are drinking it.

Already been done (almost) (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852691)

Warning: The first paragraph of the following book review may cause you to giggle uncontrollably, stab yourself with a toothpick, or suffer other calamity whilst reading at work. Good luck explaining yourself when the office security team calls you into their office.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n10/richard-fortey/down-to-the-last-flea

Berezovka River expedition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853275)

The article reviews "Mammoth: The Resurrection of an Ice Age Giant" by Richard Stone, a detailed account of the 1901 Berezovka River expedition in Siberia. The starving Russians found exceptionally well-preserved mammoth meat and debated whether to eat it instead of rancid horseflesh; they decided to feed it to their dogs instead. The NSFW warning applies to where on the mammoth the well-preserved meat came from and the detailed description by the author.

Read the submission next time before marking it -1, Offtopic, moderator.

Posting the topical link again for interested readers: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n10/richard-fortey/down-to-the-last-flea

Re:Already been done (almost) (1)

Quasimodem (719423) | about a year ago | (#43853561)

That flap of protective skin sounds like a good idea.

I really hate it when cold winds blow snow into my anus.

All of the modern conveniences will now be ours (5, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year ago | (#43852477)

Wooly mammoth vacuum cleaners, wooly mammoth shower heads, the possibilities for the modern stone age family are endless...

Med iPhone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852613)

Wooow Bro !

Med iPhone
www.med4design.com

Hunting for science! (3, Interesting)

drunken_boxer777 (985820) | about a year ago | (#43852625)

There is obviously some money for the research, and a zoo would bring in enough revenue to help offset research costs, but how much do you think someone might bid to be the first person in 10,000 years to hunt and kill a woolly mammoth? $20M? $50M? That would go a long way in funding further research. Even better: to do so with stone age weapons.

The contract could stipulate that the researchers still own the carcass, and therefore could profit from auctioning the hide or the ivory. Of course, it would be a long time after cloning until such an endeavor was even worthwhile.

Re:Hunting for science! (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43852697)

but how much do you think someone might bid to be the first person in 10,000 years to hunt and kill a woolly mammoth? $20M? $50M?

I don't know, let's ask GoDaddy CEO Scott Wagner what number he's writing on that cheque right now.

Re:Hunting for science! (3, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43852715)

Addendum: Whoops, it's GoDaddy founder and former CEO Bob Parsons who hunts elephants for fun.

Re:Hunting for science! (1)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | about a year ago | (#43852719)

Now this would be one hell of a TV game show, hunting stone age animals with stone age weapons. I bet MTV would fund this.

Re:Hunting for science! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853289)

Watching Snooki and Company being chased by sabre-tooth tigers would convince me to get cable.

Re:Hunting for science! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852781)

Even better: to do so with stone age weapons.

Stone-age mammoth hunting techniques tended to be group activities --- you needed many people with spears to wear a mammoth down from blood loss, or even drive it off a cliff. I doubt the type of folks who blow megabucks to compensate for their lacking manliness by murdering some poor big game critter from a distance would be interested in authentic re-creation of human cooperative social activities. Not that they wouldn't be interested in torturing a dying mammoth with some symbolic spear-thrusts after someone else has used modern technology to render the beast harmless and helpless.

Re:Hunting for science! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852975)

It could be yet another team building exercise!

Re:Hunting for science! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43854161)

Your envy is showing.

Re:Hunting for science! (2)

localman57 (1340533) | about a year ago | (#43853127)

There is obviously some money for the research, and a zoo would bring in enough revenue to help offset research costs, but how much do you think someone might bid to be the first person in 10,000 years to hunt and kill a woolly mammoth?

Interesting question from this. After you clone it, is it an endangered species?

Also, did they find a male or a female? Assuming mammoths use an XY sex signature, would it be possible to engineer a female if it was male blood by putting two X genes together? Although it might be unviable if there's genetic defects in the X. Getting two of the same exact chromosome is generally bad...

Re:Hunting for science! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853615)

The reasons two of the same chromosome are bad are generally the same reasons males with only 1 X chromosome are more likely to have X-linked defects, so I don't think the female would be any worse off than a male, unless it duplicated a defect that somehow only affects females. That wouldn't be my concern so much as inbreeding causing many more duplicates in the next generations. Not sure how many chromosome pairs a mammoth has.

Re:Hunting for science! (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43853413)

Hunting? I have it on good authority that powdered woolly mammoth bones are the ultimate aphrodisiac and male virility enhancement.

Re:Hunting for science! (1)

magarity (164372) | about a year ago | (#43853603)

how much do you think someone might bid to be the first person in 10,000 years to hunt and kill a woolly mammoth? $20M? $50M? That would go a long way in funding further research. Even better: to do so with stone age weapons.

I can't even begin to imagine the liability waiver you'd have to sign.

now buy a island and open a zoo any on have some (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#43852751)

now buy a island and open a zoo any on have some dino DNA?

Re:now buy a island and open a zoo any on have som (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852831)

Quaternary Park

Half life of DNA is 521 years... (-1)

t4ng* (1092951) | about a year ago | (#43852789)

The half life of all DNA is 521 years [nature.com] . What kind of 2-bit "scientists" are these that think they can clone an animal that died 10,000 years ago?

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852877)

What kind of 2-bit "internet hero" are you to think that, because your managed managed to reach nature.com, you now know more about DNA and cloning than the chief scientist Semyon Grigoryev, professor at North-East Federal University?

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (1)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | about a year ago | (#43852971)

What kind of 2-bit "internet hero" are you to think that, because your managed managed to reach nature.com, you now know more about DNA and cloning than the chief scientist Semyon Grigoryev, professor at North-East Federal University?

Hey, since when do we on Slashdot let the facts get in the way of a good argument?

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (1)

localman57 (1340533) | about a year ago | (#43853159)

When they agree with the point we want to make. Otherwise, we belittle either the guy who cites them, or his source.

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (4, Informative)

kwerle (39371) | about a year ago | (#43852889)

The kind that can do math? From that very article:

The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of 5 C, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information.

“This confirms the widely held suspicion that claims of DNA from dinosaurs and ancient insects trapped in amber are incorrect,” says Simon Ho, a computational evolutionary biologist at the University of Sydney in Australia. However, although 6.8 million years is nowhere near the age of a dinosaur bone — which would be at least 65 million years old — “We might be able to break the record for the oldest authentic DNA sequence, which currently stands at about half a million years,” says Ho.

Emphasis mine.

So 10K years -- enough material and it should certainly be possible.

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (4, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43852893)

You don't need a full piece of DNA, just lots of small pieces you can combine into a full one. While I appreciate that posting on /. gives you the ability to second guess any amount of considered research and scientific understanding, from time to time reality does kick in.

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (1)

baKanale (830108) | about a year ago | (#43853133)

You don't need a full piece of DNA, just lots of small pieces you can combine into a full one.

And you can fill in any remaining gaps with frog DNA!

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853463)

ribbit...THUMP!...ribbit...THUMP!...ribbit...

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (3, Funny)

bmxeroh (1694004) | about a year ago | (#43853991)

Maybe in this case we can use an elephant? The last thing I want is an elephant sized creature that can grab things at a distance with its tongue at blindingly fast speed. Not to mention could you imagine how high/far it could jump? It would be terrifying.

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852921)

isn't that assuming that it isn't frozen?

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (4, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | about a year ago | (#43852961)

The half life of all DNA is 521 years.

Did you even READ that article?

"After cell death, enzymes start to break down the bonds between the nucleotides that form the backbone of DNA, and micro-organisms speed the decay. In the long run, however, reactions with water are thought to be responsible for most bond degradation. Groundwater is almost ubiquitous, so DNA in buried bone samples should, in theory, degrade at a set rate."

So, that 'half life' is for buried bones in fairly specific situations. It doesn't apply everywhere.

Best part of all, is that story you linked to has its own related stories, and the first link is another story where they recovered DNA from 19,000 year old eggshells.

The second link is a story about sequencing the DNA from 100,000+ year old polar bears. Where the 'cold DRY' environment allows DNA to be preserved.

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853447)

Did you even READ that article?

Why would you ASK that? This is slashdot, clearly you are on the wrong site.

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43852969)

Interesting link there. The DNA studied in the story at the link sat at a temperature of 13.1 C. That is quite a bit above freezing, and temperature is a key aspect of speeding up aging. The oldest DNA sequenced is quite a bit older than 10,000 years (from your link)..

“We might be able to break the record for the oldest authentic DNA sequence, which currently stands at about half a million years,” says Ho.. --- DNA has a 521-year half-life [nature.com]

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (2)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about a year ago | (#43852973)

It doesn't matter how old it is, as long as there's enough frog DNA to fill in the gaps.

cthulhu fhtagn! (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#43853269)

Wouldn't that run the risk of creating some sort of mammoth frog?
I'm not sure I'd want to risk that.

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852987)

From your source:

"The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of 5 C, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information."

So 10k years... easy

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43852995)

What kind of 2-bit "scientists" are these that think they can clone an animal that died 10,000 years ago?

I'm going to assume they're the kind with degrees and an understanding of what "half-life" means, as opposed to the armchair kind who like to make themselves feel smarter than everyone else by crapping from on high on any article proclaiming the promise of advancing human knowledge by Googling around for the first article that even remotely appears to undermine the latest claim.

Perhaps you should have dug a little deeper than the first article you found that supported your implied hypothesis. You didn't even have to look very far, since just one click from the article you linked to, you could have found the following:

DNA from a 110,000–130,000-year-old polar-bear fossil has been successfully sequenced.

Interestingly, there is no direct association between the age of a sample and the state of its DNA.

The eggs were between 400 and 19,000 years old, and the team collected good-quality DNA from all specimens

In fact, you could have just stuck to the article you linked to:

the record for the oldest authentic DNA sequence [...] currently stands at about half a million years

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853049)

That's for mtDNA in the bone of birds stored at 13.1 degrees Celsius. Not for genomic DNA in the blood of mammals preserved in ice.

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about a year ago | (#43853339)

You got em dude. Those scientists never thought anyone would look at nature.com and foil the great fraud they were planning. Bravo!

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year ago | (#43853727)

That article takes it to the logical conclusion and says their max viable age is something like half a million years. After 10,000 years, you'll have a lot of broken bonds, but this animal has a LOT of cells and a LOT of copies to work with. You can analyze all the fragments and work out at least one complete sequence if you have several billion copies.

Re:Half life of DNA is 521 years... (2)

drunken_boxer777 (985820) | about a year ago | (#43853831)

The half life of all DNA is 521 years [nature.com] . What kind of 2-bit "scientists" are these that think they can clone an animal that died 10,000 years ago?

If you read your own reference, you will see that the researchers believe they could recover sequences as old as 1.5 million years. Granted, "sequence" is not the same as "genome", but "10,000 years" is not the same as "500,000 years" (current record). So this seems reasonable to carry out.

Remember, in this case a half life denotes whole vs. broken sequences. You don't need unbroken DNA to sequence it. Remember, one of the first things they will do with the fragmented DNA is create a library [wikipedia.org] , so they will have a renewable supply of every recoverable fragment.

Global warming (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43852837)

Another win for global warming!

There are rules for these things. (2)

pyzondar (1234980) | about a year ago | (#43852899)

Rule 34: There is porn of it, no exceptions.
Rule 35: If no porn is found at the moment, it will be made.

Re:There are rules for these things. (1, Insightful)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | about a year ago | (#43852977)

Rule 34: There is porn of it, no exceptions. Rule 35: If no porn is found at the moment, it will be made.

Were I not at work right now, I would confirm the hunch than "mammoth" has already been used in a few titles so far.

Re:There are rules for these things. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853053)

They better shave it first. This isn't the 70s and even fans of hairy porn have limits.

Hurry up (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43853073)

There are big profits awaiting if you manage to clone one of them. And a lot of patents to fill all in the way toward it. Is the kind of things that could improve, extend, or save the life of only the ones that kindly pays you a lot, for something cheap to produce.

Mammoth Implications for Climate Change? (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | about a year ago | (#43853075)

For a woolly Mammoth to survive, in large numbers, its habitat had to have very dense forestation & vegetation, even if it was a colder climate.

The interesting question is why did they suddenly get "flash frozen?" Anything less would result in carcass predation and decomposition.

The only 2 answers I can give is that a sudden volcanic eruption could have occurred to blank out the sun nearly completely or there was an asteroid impact that blanked out the sky.

Either of those conditions should be obvious from sediment records.

Re:Mammoth Implications for Climate Change? (2)

niado (1650369) | about a year ago | (#43853721)

The only 2 answers I can give is that a sudden volcanic eruption could have occurred to blank out the sun nearly completely or there was an asteroid impact that blanked out the sky.

Either of those conditions should be obvious from sediment records.

Well, "obvious" is a little strong but yes, these conditions should at least be detectable. There is ongoing research into the climate and ecological conditions around this time. The mainland Wooly Mammoths became extinct around 10000 BP [wikipedia.org] , along with lots of other megafauna (large animals), all of which are grouped together in the "Quaternary Extinction Event" - the causes of which are currently being debated.

The Younger Dryas [wikipedia.org] cold spell did occur shortly before the mammoths disappeared (~12800 BP). This is hypothesized to have been caused by a bolide impact or volcanism, but there is no consensus on this. This is also shortly after the Clovis people [wikipedia.org] (precursors to the Native Americans) appeared in North America, and around the time that agriculture was developed in the near east.

Reminds me of Futurama,, (2)

Striikerr (798526) | about a year ago | (#43853131)

The episode 'Fun on a Bun' where Bender digs up a 30,000 year old Woolly Mammoth from the ice to make sausages.. Should make for some tasty sausages!!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fun_on_a_Bun [wikipedia.org]
" Meanwhile, Bender discovers that chef Elzar is there, ready to win the sausage-making challenge using pork that has been aged over 3000 years. Bender is determined to win the event, and takes a despondent Fry with him in the Planet Express ship to look for woolly mammoths frozen in a nearby glacier within Neander Valley, believing that meat aged over 30,000 years should certainly win. Bender is successful at finding a woolly mammoth, and with Fry's help, proceeds to grind the woolly mammoth into sausages."

Survive? (5, Funny)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year ago | (#43853179)

The upper torso and two legs, which were in the soil, were gnawed by prehistoric and modern predators and almost did not survive.

"I do not think that word means what you think it means."

reerere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853197)

http://showup-tv.org.pl

10,000 years old? (2, Funny)

nawcom (941663) | about a year ago | (#43853235)

Looks like mammoths are able to breathe under water as well as be alive before the Christian god created the universe. Damn you Satan, quit tricking with us!

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43853653)

When can we have the Mammoth-Wurst...?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...