De-extinction company announces that the dire wolf is back

Flyaway

Flyaway

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
21 January 2015
Messages
12,071
Reaction score
16,140
From what it says at the end of this article it sounds like a completely pointless exercise.

While this is being portrayed as the return of the dire wolf, these animals are primarily a variant of gray wolves, as many of the genetic changes that create their large size and pale coat already exist in some gray wolf populations. They carry only a few changes that are specific to dire wolves. (This is very much like what the company announced with woolly mice.)

And, more significantly, they're likely to be instinctually like a gray wolf, and so would play the same role in present-day ecosystems. In fact, it has been hypothesized that the dire wolf went extinct during the late Pleistocene extinctions because it specialized in hunting large prey that also went extinct. So, it's unclear whether, even if we could bring the dire wolf back, there'd be anything for it to do.
Click to expand...
arstechnica.com

De-extinction company announces that the dire wolf is back

What they delivered is a gray wolf genome carrying a handful of genetic edits.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
 
Flyaway said:
From what it says at the end of this article it sounds like a completely pointless exercise.
Click to expand...
It's an experiment. Technology demonstration, if you like. And scientific popularization & commercialization, too. Due to "Game of thrones", dire wolves gained a rather big fandom. News about actual dire wolves being re-created attracted massive interest. And quite a lot of zoos would pay any money to have dire wolf in their exhibition. So, it's far from "pointless". It demonstrate the company capabilities, attract public interest, and create animals with high commercial potential.
 
www.bbc.com

Experts dispute Colossal claim dire wolf back from extinction

Independent experts say three white wolf puppies are not dire wolves, as claimed by US company Colossal
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Zoologist Philip Seddon from the University of Otago in New Zealand explained: "They are genetically modified grey wolves".
[...]
experts have pointed to important biological differences between the wolf on the cover of Time and the dire wolf that roamed and hunted during the last ice age.
The company has not cloned a dire wolf, explained paleogeneticist Dr Nic Rawlence, also from Otago University. Ancient dire wolf DNA - extracted from fossilised remains - is too degraded and damaged to biologically copy - or clone.

"Ancient DNA is like if you put fresh DNA in a 500 degree oven overnight," Dr Rawlence told BBC News. "It comes out fragmented - like shards and dust.

"You can reconstruct [it], but it's not good enough to do anything else with."

Instead, he added, the de-extinction team used new synthetic biology technology - snipping out pieces of DNA and inserting them into the genetic code of a living animal that has its entire biological blueprint in tact, in this case a grey wolf.

"So what Colossal has produced is a grey wolf, but it has some dire wolf-like characteristics, like a larger skull and white fur," said Dr Rawlence. "It's a hybrid."

Dr Beth Shapiro, a biologist from Colossal Biosciences, said that this feat does represent de-extinction, which she described as recreating animals with the same characteristics.

"A grey wolf is the closest living relative of a dire wolf - they're genetically really similar - so we targeted DNA sequences that lead to dire wolf traits and then edited grey wolf cells... then we cloned those cells and created our dire wolves."

According to Dr Rawlence though, dire wolves diverged from grey wolves anywhere between 2.5 to six million years ago.

"It's in a completely different genus to gray wolves," he said. "Colossal compared the genomes of the dire wolf and the grey wolf, and from about 19,000 genes, they determined that 20 changes in 14 genes gave them a dire wolf."
[...]
"Because extinction is still forever," Dr Rawlence told BBC News. "If we don't have extinction, how are we going to learn from our mistakes?

"Is the message now that we can go and destroy the environment and that animals can go extinct, but we can bring them back?"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
[...]
"Because extinction is still forever," Dr Rawlence told BBC News. "If we don't have extinction, how are we going to learn from our mistakes?

"Is the message now that we can go and destroy the environment and that animals can go extinct, but we can bring them back?"
Click to expand...

What a rubbish. So trying to correct your mistake is bad, because you won't feel guilty about making the mistake anymore?
 
Arjen said:
Colossal have not brought the dire wolf back, is what Rawlence and Seddon are saying. I agree.
Click to expand...
Maybe they didn't. So what? They at least tried - not than anyone came anywhere close - and their experiment still got major scientific, ecological, cultural and economical value.
 
- There are three genetically engineered wolves whose modified genes would have to be spread over a much larger gene pool before there would be any measurable ecological effect.

- Dire wolves became extinct because grey wolves outcompeted them, when, on the extinction of large prey, what was left of wolves' prey could be caught by grey wolves as well - or better.

- A small gene pool is more likely to go extinct than a large gene pool, witness the decline of the white rhinoceros.

- Economical value lies in generating publicity.
 
Arjen said:
- Economical value lies in generating publicity.
Click to expand...
True) But still they could make a lot of money by merely existing, so what's the problem?

Arjen said:
- There are three genetically engineered wolves whose modified genes would have to be spread over a much larger gene pool before there would be any measurable ecological effect.
Click to expand...
I was talking more about general implications of deextinction approach, but yes, of course the current population is merely a beginning.

Arjen said:
- Dire wolves became extinct because grey wolves outcompeted them, when, on the extinction of large prey, what was left of wolves' prey could be caught by grey wolves as well - or better.
Click to expand...
True. So what? As far as I know, no one is talking about releasing dire wolves into wild.
 
Arjen said:
I fear de-extinction of species - if possible at all - will have to take a back seat to limiting the current mass-extinctions, an accelerating process impossible to keep up with.
Click to expand...
Which is a far more useful application of de-extinction 'technology': there are quite a few endangered species with very limited genetic diversity, but lots of specimens from the last few centuries of hunting. Using those samples as DNA donors may be able to help make the gene pool of (e.g.) European bison much more robust.
 
AIUI their ultimate aim is to recreate the mammoth, for which there would presumably be a ready market in zoos and safari parks. Think of them as Jurassic Park, but without the park.

As more examples of partial genomes from extinct species become available, then they'll have the ability to fill in the blanks on the known differences from extant species. It's definitely creeping up the Technology Readiness Level, even if we're not at TRL 10 yet. (You could probably argue the dire wolves represent either TRL 3, proof of concept, or TRL 6, prototype demonstrated, or anything in between)
 
Yellow Palace said:
Which is a far more useful application of de-extinction 'technology': there are quite a few endangered species with very limited genetic diversity, but lots of specimens from the last few centuries of hunting. Using those samples as DNA donors may be able to help make the gene pool of (e.g.) European bison much more robust.
Click to expand...
Exactly. A black-footed ferret is the example; the gene pool is very limited, so scientists used DNA from speciemen, deceased decades ago, to clone several of them and thus restore the lost genetic diversity in the population.

1744123754094.jpeg
 
Archibald said:
Now we need a stupidity-extinction company. Dear God, with human beings they would have eternal work and eternal resources.
Click to expand...

"There are two long-standing problems in Russia; namely, fools and bad roads. One of this problems, we hope, could be solved with the extensive use of bulldozers, excavators and other heavy building machinery. But what should we do abour bad roads?"

(c, a very old Russian anekdote)
 
In my opinion, this news is partly exhibitionism and partly a bait for attracting investment, for other less flashy, but infinitely more profitable projects.

Cloning a seed of an extinct alkaloid plant can save lives and feed many people, but no one would buy that script for Jurassic Park Mk. XIV.

If some biological laboratory announces its intentions to resurrect the giant European hyena, happily extinct, there will be several prestigious law firms trying to acquire a couple, for reproduction.

The world doesn't need new monsters, we already have enough.
 
Last I heard Dire-wolves had been confirmed as not being related to Grey-wolves at all (not even being wolves). I haven't had time to dive into the most recent palaeontological literature on this - but I'm very sceptical. Also, note that this is a private company, not scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals.

Arjen said:
- Dire wolves became extinct because grey wolves outcompeted them, when, on the extinction of large prey, what was left of wolves' prey could be caught by grey wolves as well - or better.
Click to expand...

We don't really know this. Dire wolves were very slightly larger (about 10%-20%) and had a considerably stronger bite force (useful for scavenging from large prey). They are one of many species of predator that went extinct (including >8 species of big cats) at the end of the last ice-age but we don't really know why. Likely a mixture of climate change and human activity.
 
it fantastic that a extinct animal return thanks to cloning
but there some question:

can the two clones survive or have to be put down like clone sheep dolly ?
is there enough genetic material for stable population ?
how will the dire wolfs adapt to modern world ?
 
Michel Van said:
can the two clones
Click to expand...
Three clones. Two boys (Romulus and Remus), and one girl (Khalisi). Presumably more would be produced.

Michel Van said:
can the two clones survive or have to be put down like clone sheep dolly ?
Click to expand...
With all respect, but... do you realize how enormously genetic and biotechnology improved since that? You are basically comparing 1900s biplane with F-22 here.

Michel Van said:
is there enough genetic material for stable population ?
Click to expand...
Theoretically, the majority of their genetic material are from grey wolves, so yes.

Michel Van said:
how will the dire wolfs adapt to modern world ?
Click to expand...
Probably only as zoo animals. They were specialized on hunting big prey (and by "big" I meant "megafauna-big"), and aren't well-suited for hunting modern prey like deers. They are too slow, and (presumably) not capable of pack-hunting.
 
Dilandu said:
Theoretically, the majority of their genetic material are from grey wolves, so yes.
Click to expand...
Assumption: the pups are fertile.
With most of the pups' genes being from grey wolf stock, there is the distinct possibility that, after several generations of random breeding, the 'dire wolf' genes are bred out leaving animals indistinguishable from ordinary grey wolves. In particular if cross-breeding with those ordinary grey wolves.
To have a decent chance of preserving those hard-gained modified genes, controlled breeding would be advisable. Unlikely to be achievable in the wild, so -
Dilandu said:
Probably only as zoo animals.
Click to expand...
I am none too sure about the compared-to-grey-wolves-prowess at hunting of dire wolves after the remark of @Avimimus , all I am sort of sure about is that dire wolves were outcompeted by other predators - how that came about, I do not know, but I would expect the dire wolf would be outcompeted again. Slow? Don't know. Stronger bite? Yes. Maybe not quite as clever as a grey wolf? Or less of a pack hunter? More susceptible to disease? Who knows.

Which of those characteristics would have been captured in the modified wolf genes inserted by Colossal?
Three grey wolf pups with some dire-wolf-like genes.
 
Last edited:
Dilandu said:
Probably only as zoo animals. They were specialized on hunting big prey (and by "big" I meant "megafauna-big"), and aren't well-suited for hunting modern prey like deers. They are too slow, and (presumably) not capable of pack-hunting.
Click to expand...
Since they are from America
Either San Diego Zoo Habitat or Yellowstone National Park here enough Bison to hunt for them.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Which is a far more useful application of de-extinction 'technology': there are quite a few endangered species with very limited genetic diversity, but lots of specimens from the last few centuries of hunting. Using those samples as DNA donors may be able to help make the gene pool of (e.g.) European bison much more robust.
Click to expand...
Apparently humans as a species have very limited genetic diversity, the same as one tribe of chimps.
 
Gorge R Martin found another excuse not to finish his book series...
...playing with dire wolf cub
GoBkVw8XIAAglPD
 
An increasing number of elderly people die alone and are partially eaten by their pets. In my country we have a saying: “Cria cuervos y se comerán tus ojos”. Raise crows and they will eat your eyes.

Was it necessary to take King Kong to New York only to find that the chains weren't solid enough?
 

Attachments

  • 217.jpg
    217.jpg
    44.8 KB · Views: 4
Arjen said:
Fair enough. I still think the species, if resurrected, would be outcompeted again by other predators. Especially with more humans about.
Click to expand...

A few findings from modern evolutionary ecology regarding competition:
- Competition is generally diffuse competition (i.e. one species competing against many other species and the impacts those species have on the environment)
- Species minimise competition (as competition lowers the likelihood of survival). This is done through niche partitioning and character displacement.

Fifteen thousand years ago North America had nearly ten times the number of predatory species we have today - so there would have been much more diffuse competition and more niche partitioning (and overall it would be harder to survive).

The exception is (1) the presence of modern humans and (2) the extinction of most species of larger herbivores. These two factors probably explain why there are only a few species of predators left, and why these tend to be generalists (that survive on a wide variety of food sources).

So, it wouldn't be outcompeted by other predators, but more face a lack of prey animals and too many humans.
 
I would classify humans as competing predators in most ecosystems.
Add to that the harmful effects of all other human activities on ecosystems.
 
Even if humans weren't about, cheetahs look to be on an evolutionary dead end like stabbing-cats---only this time having traded too much brawn for speed.

If nothing else--they have practice so as to truly de-extinct this:
colossal.com

Thylacine | Tasmanian Wolf |Tasmanian Tiger - Colossal

Uncover the mystery of the enigmatic Thylacine. Delve into the fascinating history, unique characteristics, and revival of this iconic marsupial.
colossal.com colossal.com

I always had a problem with terms like junk species---since renamed:
phys.org

Dark diversity reveals global impoverishment of natural vegetation

A study recently published in Nature indicates that human activities have a negative effect on the biodiversity of wildlife hundreds of kilometers away. A research collaboration led by the University of Tartu assessed the health of ecosystems worldwide, considering both the number of plant...
phys.org phys.org

So, if a species is in bilge-water it is 'junk,' but if it floated to the same locale atop a pumice raft from a volcano that did a triple somersault--that's fine....even if the volcano itself wiped out two other species in the process.

As we see in how Hawaii/Midway trail off into seamounts---without human 'interference' any island species is doomed eventually---erosion bringing them under the waves AGW or no.

I just have a problem with virology taking place planetside.

Work on minimal cells:
www.jcvi.org

Evolution of a minimal cell.

Possessing only essential genes, a minimal cell can reveal mechanisms and processes that are critical for the persistence and stability of life....
www.jcvi.org www.jcvi.org
biology.indiana.edu

Artificial cells demonstrate that "life finds a way"

IU Biology news: Artificial cells demonstrate that "life finds a way."
biology.indiana.edu biology.indiana.edu
 
Last edited:
on one side, its great to see an extinct species being grought back to life.
but on the other side, i think its a bad idea, there a reason these animals went extinct and playing god never ended well for mankind.
 
Agriculture was 'playing god' in that it kept us out of the icebox.
www.highnorthnews.com

The Arctic Cooling that Never Was: Ancient Farming Prevents Glacial Period

5,000 years ago, humans first altered our planet’s landscapes to plant wheat, harvest rice, and raise livestock. Unknowingly, they also prevented a new ice age and forever changed Earth’s climate.
www.highnorthnews.com www.highnorthnews.com

Not only that, but electric eels can change local fish DNA via electroporation:
astrobiology.com

Electricity From Electric Eels May Transfer Genetic Material To Nearby Animals - Astrobiology

The electric eel is the biggest power-making creature on Earth. It can release up to 860 volts, which is enough to run a machine.
astrobiology.com astrobiology.com

Bugs too
www.sciencedaily.com

Scientists uncover transfer of genetic material between blood-sucking insect and mammals

Researchers have found the first solid evidence of horizontal DNA transfer, the movement of genetic material among non-mating species, between parasitic invertebrates and some of their vertebrate hosts.
www.sciencedaily.com

Just being a mammal means you have more of a "carbon footprint" than cold bloods, like reptiles or Dick Cheney.

Just never let anyone (Greens, religious zealots, etc.) make you feel guilty about existing. We are a technological species--that and the noosphere IS our niche. Two books I would suggest:

METAMAN and SEIZING THE FUTURE.
 
Spey_Phantom said:
on one side, its great to see an extinct species being grought back to life.
but on the other side, i think its a bad idea, there a reason these animals went extinct and playing god never ended well for mankind.
Click to expand...

I a few cases climatic changes may have caused animals to go extinct - but more than 90% of species that went extinct in the past 50,000 years are probably due to overharvesting or destruction of environments. We've already played god.
 
Archibald said:
What does Liz Truss has to do with the thread topic ?
Click to expand...
Don't Know...
...Back to Topic

what comes after Dire Wolf ?
certain is the Mammut on top list
follow by Dodo bird, The Tasmania Wolf (the marsupial version of Wolf)
and eradicate pigeon species from North America.

what worry me a bit is: will they brake ethics boundaries one day,
and resurrect Neandertaler Humans ? Egypt mummy ? death celebrity ?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom