Mammoths and tigers and bears, oh my!

[rogue06]

Seems like mammoths should be the easiest to revive. They share a large portion of DNA with the elephant. So they could use elephant DNA for any missing bits, and an elephant could act as surrogate mom for birthing/raising.

That's the way most everyone has been working on.

Probally the easiest would be the Auroch since the last of them died out in the 1600s.

[Ronson]

The Thylacine went extinct in the 20th century (1930s?). I'm sure we have relatively fresh DNA to utilize, and the Tasmanian Devil could play host. This seems a better candidate than a mammoth.

I just can't think of where mammoths would be introduced- or reintroduced. They're huge. And if protected, they might cause some new extinction due to their impact.

[rogue06]

The Thylacine went extinct in the 20th century (1930s?). I'm sure we have relatively fresh DNA to utilize, and the Tasmanian Devil could play host. This seems a better candidate than a mammoth.

I just can't think of where mammoths would be introduced- or reintroduced. They're huge. And if protected, they might cause some new extinction due to their impact.

Mammoths would likely end up in a zoo

[TheLurch]

The Thylacine went extinct in the 20th century (1930s?). I'm sure we have relatively fresh DNA to utilize, and the Tasmanian Devil could play host. This seems a better candidate than a mammoth.

We have multiple mammoth genome sequences now, so it's not like we'd actually need to start with fresh mammoth cells to do anything.

Most talk I've seen has focused on looking at the differences between mammoths and elephants, figuring out which are likely to be important, and editing the elephant genome to make it mammoth-like. But there are massive hurdles to getting that to work. Off the top of my head:
We have a very limited knowledge of which genome differences are most significant.
We don't know whether any changes we'd make would require some compensatory changes elsewhere. (ie - maybe we make a genome edit to make things more hairy, but they end up growing hair in places they shouldn't unless you also add a second edit).
Gene editing is still inefficient and error prone, and we'd presumably need to make thousands of edits.
To the best of my knowledge, we have no elephant stem cells.
The elephant lineage was apparently aquatic at one point in their past, and have a rather complicated reproductive system as a result, which makes IVF an iffy prospect.

So, going to be a while before we need to sort out where to put them.

[rogue06]

We have multiple mammoth genome sequences now, so it's not like we'd actually need to start with fresh mammoth cells to do anything.

Most talk I've seen has focused on looking at the differences between mammoths and elephants, figuring out which are likely to be important, and editing the elephant genome to make it mammoth-like. But there are massive hurdles to getting that to work. Off the top of my head:
We have a very limited knowledge of which genome differences are most significant.
We don't know whether any changes we'd make would require some compensatory changes elsewhere. (ie - maybe we make a genome edit to make things more hairy, but they end up growing hair in places they shouldn't unless you also add a second edit).
Gene editing is still inefficient and error prone, and we'd presumably need to make thousands of edits.
To the best of my knowledge, we have no elephant stem cells.
The elephant lineage was apparently aquatic at one point in their past, and have a rather complicated reproductive system as a result, which makes IVF an iffy prospect.

So, going to be a while before we need to sort out where to put them.

We seem to having stalled at determining that Asian elephants are closer related to them than are African elephants.

[Ronson]

We have multiple mammoth genome sequences now, so it's not like we'd actually need to start with fresh mammoth cells to do anything.

Most talk I've seen has focused on looking at the differences between mammoths and elephants, figuring out which are likely to be important, and editing the elephant genome to make it mammoth-like. But there are massive hurdles to getting that to work. Off the top of my head:
We have a very limited knowledge of which genome differences are most significant.
We don't know whether any changes we'd make would require some compensatory changes elsewhere. (ie - maybe we make a genome edit to make things more hairy, but they end up growing hair in places they shouldn't unless you also add a second edit).
Gene editing is still inefficient and error prone, and we'd presumably need to make thousands of edits.
To the best of my knowledge, we have no elephant stem cells.
The elephant lineage was apparently aquatic at one point in their past, and have a rather complicated reproductive system as a result, which makes IVF an iffy prospect.

So, going to be a while before we need to sort out where to put them.

All the more reason to look at some other species. Aside from some of the hurdles you mention, mammoths have been gone for - what? Around 6K years? Considering their size and longevity, and the distances they travelled (one article I read said one mammoth appeared to have travelled nearly twice the circumference of the earth - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02206-1) they would have a sizeable impact on environments today.

Unfortunately, some extra reading on the thylacine is disappointing. Apparently, tissue preserved from the last animal known to have existed is unusable.

[rogue06]

All the more reason to look at some other species. Aside from some of the hurdles you mention, mammoths have been gone for - what? Around 6K years? Considering their size and longevity, and the distances they travelled (one article I read said one mammoth appeared to have travelled nearly twice the circumference of the earth - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02206-1) they would have a sizeable impact on environments today.

Unfortunately, some extra reading on the thylacine is disappointing. Apparently, tissue preserved from the last animal known to have existed is unusable.

Aurochs.

We got the DNA and we have plenty of their descendants.

[TheLurch]

We seem to having stalled at determining that Asian elephants are closer related to them than are African elephants.

Pretty sure it's Asian, though i'd have to check.

Aurochs.

We got the DNA and we have plenty of their descendants.

Plus we've already got cloning and IVF working on said descendants.

[rogue06]

Plus we've already got cloning and IVF working on said descendants.

They were considered as being monstrous for many centuries, and when you look at a timeline comparison you can see why, although now we've managed to come up with cattle of similar size.

depositphotos_239543646-stock-illustration-height-cattle-time.jpg


images.jpg

One of the various species survived up until the 1620s in Poland.

[lee_merrill]

Unfortunately, some extra reading on the thylacine is disappointing. Apparently, tissue preserved from the last animal known to have existed is unusable.

I think Michael Archer in his Ted talk mentioned getting some good thylacine DNA...

Blessings,
Lee

[Sparko]

I think Michael Archer in his Ted talk mentioned getting some good thylacine DNA...

Blessings,
Lee

Can't they just paint stripes on a dog?

7j79r5vzdkw51.jpg

[Ronson]

I think Michael Archer in his Ted talk mentioned getting some good thylacine DNA...

Blessings,
Lee

Ooooh! Thanks for that video! I agree with Archer 100%, and my hopes are up again. Thylacines would be a great animal to bring back for all of his reasons.

[Ronson]

Can't they just paint stripes on a dog?

7j79r5vzdkw51.jpg

The coloring looks right anyway. Thylacines had enormous heads and maws, relative to their body size.

[TheLurch]

So, there's now a startup that claims to be in the de-extinction business, starting with the mammoth. It's founded by Harvard's George Church, a prominent biologist, who will presumably make money on this if he convinces enough venture capitalists that de-extinction will have a market.

But — and i am not making this up — the company's money will go towards funding research on elephant gene editing done in the lab of... George Church. So, basically, Church has found a way of separating venture capitalists from their money, keeping some of it for himself as a director of the company, and putting much of the rest into his own lab so that he doesn't have to write grants to fund people like most other researchers do.

I suppose a lot of venture money gets spent on worse things.