[HN Gopher] A lab pursuing de-extinction of the thylacine partne...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       A lab pursuing de-extinction of the thylacine partners with a
       genetics company
        
       Author : ohjeez
       Score  : 65 points
       Date   : 2022-08-19 15:39 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.unimelb.edu.au)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.unimelb.edu.au)
        
       | rob_c2 wrote:
       | Is this likely to be the first de-extinct animal which we can
       | bring back does anyone know?
        
         | mminer237 wrote:
         | The Pyrenean ibex was de-extincted for 7 minutes:
         | https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-buca...
         | 
         | There are a number of other candidates, though. I would guess
         | either the thylacine, the woolly mammoth, or the passenger
         | pigeon would be first to sustain an actual population, but I
         | don't really follow the projects:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-extinction#Current_candidat...
        
           | biodarren wrote:
           | Colossal (the company mentioned in the article) is actively
           | working on the mammoth as well -->
           | https://colossal.com/mammoth/
           | 
           | Source: I work there.
        
       | rossdavidh wrote:
       | "We can now take the giant leaps..." says Professor Pask of the
       | Thylacine Integrated Genetic Restoration Research (TIGRR) Lab.
       | 
       | Which is a lot more accurate than the article headline, which
       | says that they _have already_ taken a 'giant leap'. I expect such
       | exaggeration and overstatement from mainstream news sources; I
       | suppose I should not be surprised to see it coming from a
       | university website.
        
         | zitterbewegung wrote:
         | At least they didn't say quantum leap...
        
           | PopePompus wrote:
           | Or exponential leap.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | tmountain wrote:
       | If they are successful, how do they navigate challenges related
       | to inbreeding given what is likely to be a very small population
       | of adult animals to work with?
        
         | kibwen wrote:
         | Since the thylacine has been extinct for less than a century,
         | they appear to be hoping that there's enough genetic diversity
         | in modern preserved samples to eventually produce a diverse
         | population. Even with a highly limited population, if you
         | strictly control which pairs breed and aggressively pair the
         | ones that are least related, you only need an initial
         | population of like 16 or something to eventually reach a state
         | where you have a large breeding population where most
         | individuals don't share grandparents, at which point you can
         | let nature take over.
        
       | biodarren wrote:
       | Oh hey! I joined Colossal Biosciences 6 months ago from a post on
       | the Who's Hiring thread and can say it's an incredible place to
       | work, with some of the sharpest people I've ever met in both the
       | biology and computer science space. This is just one of several
       | awesome projects we're working on.
       | 
       | We're actively hiring frontend and backend engineers (React,
       | Golang, GCP/multicloud). Drop a line: darren @ colossal.com
        
       | thehappypm wrote:
       | Any thoughts on mitochondria? They are basically sub-organisms
       | with their own DNA. Another organism's mitochondria is going to
       | be different.
        
       | ramesh31 wrote:
       | It's amazing what an incredibly prescient work of science fiction
       | Jurassic Park (the novel) really was. Before CRISPR, before
       | Dolly, before the Human Genome, Crichton called it.
        
         | jl6 wrote:
         | The 1982 paper that inspired Crichton to think about ancient
         | insects in amber:
         | 
         | https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.215.4537.1241
        
         | dclowd9901 wrote:
         | One can't help but wonder how much the movie influenced the
         | work
        
           | russdill wrote:
           | It's an idea that's been around a long time. Even the
           | specific idea of a dinosaur park with cloned dinosaurs is not
           | novel to the novel:
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cursed_Earth_(Judge_Dredd_.
           | ..
        
         | drcode wrote:
         | Your comment supposes that (1) not a lot of people were talking
         | about the idea back then and (2) that we have made significant
         | progress in cloning extinct animals
         | 
         | I think a lot of people were talking about the idea back then
         | and also we've had very little progress since then (despite
         | flowery "news" articles like OP)
        
       | shellfisher wrote:
       | It seems like the only "leap" is partnering with some other
       | group. Which, yes, organizing is critical on large scale
       | projects... but for those of us looking for a breakthrough, I
       | guess we've been clickbaited.
        
         | themitigating wrote:
         | The submitter altered the headline
        
       | JoeAltmaier wrote:
       | I wonder, have they asked the people of Tasmania if they want it
       | back? It's Jurassic Park writ small.
        
         | nickserv wrote:
         | This is different since they were exterminated by humans, not
         | by natural processes. It could be argued we have the moral
         | obligation to bring them back if able.
        
         | axg11 wrote:
         | De-extinction doesn't necessarily mean they will release
         | animals back into the wild. Presumably a portion of animal
         | behaviour is learned and passed down from the previous
         | generation. Animals produced by de-extinction will be lacking
         | these behaviours and perhaps best off in captivity.
        
           | immmmmm wrote:
           | yes, this is something most ppl get wrong.
        
           | foobarian wrote:
           | It's too bad it would be highly unethical to run experiments
           | with humans in tabula rasa environments. It would be really
           | neat to see what different social behaviors emerge.
        
       | leeoniya wrote:
       | that taxidermy job should be redone. the head/face looks nothing
       | like the real thing. it looks comical, like a bad sock puppet.
       | 
       | https://earthlymission.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/tasman...
       | 
       | vs
       | 
       | https://www.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/image/0004/4255339/...
        
         | pimlottc wrote:
         | The photos are from different angles, it's hard to say whether
         | they look that much different. Of course the muzzle is going to
         | appear shorter in a front view and it's hard to tell what the
         | mouth line would be from the first photo.
        
       | wonderwonder wrote:
       | Wonder if they are successful if they just go extinct again. Will
       | they know how to hunt and reproduce? Interesting test of nature
       | vs nurture.
        
         | aetherson wrote:
         | The claim from the researchers is that there has been a lot of
         | success in reintroducing human-raised animals into the wild,
         | and that for mammals, most hunting/etc behavior is indeed
         | instinctive.
        
           | bencollier49 wrote:
           | An interesting test of some of the claims about
           | epigenetics...
        
             | rpastuszak wrote:
             | Why?
        
               | waserwill wrote:
               | My guess: if non-genetic heritable elements --
               | epigenetics (such as modifications to DNA) -- are
               | necessary for proper development, then the DNA sequence
               | alone will not be enough to develop thylacines. (There
               | are caveats, notably that some modifications can be
               | inferred). However, the scientists will also be
               | experimenting with gestation and creating embryos from
               | modified cells, so whether epigenetics specifically is a
               | limiting factor will be hard to tell.
        
               | dsign wrote:
               | This is a really great point. I want very much their
               | effort to succeed, but I suspect epigenetic is so
               | important for higher organisms that the chances of this
               | working are rather low.
        
               | bencollier49 wrote:
               | Yes, that was basically my point. There has also been
               | some fairly fevered speculation about epigenetics being
               | responsible for some types of instinct - even "cross-
               | generational memories" and the like.
        
         | peteradio wrote:
         | My family dog growing up was taught to hunt song birds by their
         | mother. I don't think I've seen something so cute as a mother
         | retriever crouch walking through the brush with 8 little pups
         | in tow.
        
         | bilsbie wrote:
         | Worst case you provide 90% of their food and decrease it a
         | little bit for each generation until they've learned how to
         | hunt.
        
         | WalterBright wrote:
         | See "Born Free".
        
       | dzuc wrote:
       | Another thing William Gibson accurately predicted?
        
       | kingsloi wrote:
       | Wow, I was just reading about Benjamin, the last known captive
       | thylacine filmed in 1935
       | 
       | > https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-footage-benjam...
        
         | RajT88 wrote:
         | There are periodic sightings of them. Although not with high
         | enough confidence or documentation to say definitely, "They are
         | still out there".
        
           | jonny_eh wrote:
           | It's not plausible that such a large animal can have a self-
           | sustaining population in the wild, and not be properly
           | detected by the scientific community for 100 years.
        
             | Zanni wrote:
             | Twelve animals thought to be extinct, some for hundreds,
             | one for _millions_ of years, before being rediscovered:
             | https://www.treehugger.com/lazarus-species-extinct-
             | animals-f...
        
               | jhbadger wrote:
               | Except that in general the "rediscovery" isn't something
               | dramatic -- it's just a systematist in a lab looking at
               | an animal known by many and realizing that it is the same
               | species as fossilized/preserved specimens thought to be
               | extinct rather than a common related species. That's
               | quite different from finding a thylacine, an animal that
               | couldn't be confused with anything else.
        
               | MichaelCollins wrote:
               | This seems like a very inaccurate summary of the examples
               | given in that article.
        
               | jhbadger wrote:
               | Bermuda Petrel -- there are many nearly identical
               | petrels, exactly the same to non-experts.
               | 
               | Chacoan Peccary -- There are many wild pigs.
               | 
               | Coelacanth -- Maybe the only real example of a
               | "rediscovered species". But that's only because we know
               | the oceans far less than we know the land.
               | 
               | Lord Howe Island Stick Insect -- You've probably seen a
               | stick insect like this yourself even if it is genetically
               | different.
               | 
               | La Palma Giant Lizard -- Same genus as Gallotia, a very
               | common lizard on the Canary islands.
               | 
               | Takahe -- It's the same genus as the swamp hen. To an
               | non-expert, they are the same.
               | 
               | Cuban Solenodon -- it looks like a common shrew to non-
               | experts.
               | 
               | New Caledonian Crested Gecko -- It's a geko.
               | 
               | New Holland Mouse -- it's a mouse (not a marsupial,
               | despite being native to Australia).
               | 
               | Giant Palouse Earthworm -- It's an earthworm, although
               | larger than normal.
               | 
               | Large-Billed Reed-Warbler -- same genus as many other
               | warblers, exactly the same to non-experts who don't
               | measure the bill.
               | 
               | Laotian Rock Rat -- It actually is of a unique genus, so
               | more interesting than most of these examples, but still,
               | it's a rodent not that different to the average person
               | than other rodents.
        
             | RajT88 wrote:
             | https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-
             | facts/mammals/extinc...
        
             | mensetmanusman wrote:
             | One might be greatly overestimating the number of scientist
             | per hectare.
        
           | Apocryphon wrote:
           | Not exciting enough for the cryptozoologists to track
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-08-19 23:01 UTC)