Print 32 comment(s) - last by Azethoth.. on Mar 20 at 6:46 PM

The DNA of a frozen specimen was used to grow embryos

Australian scientists have successfully taken the first steps necessary for bringing back an extinct frog species.

The team, led by University of New South Wales paleontologist Mike Archer, has grown embryos with the revived DNA of the extinct gastric-brooding frog for the first time.

The gastric-brooding frogs were a genus of ground-dwelling frogs that were native to Queensland in eastern Australia. It was quite an extraordinary genus because it had the only two known frog species that incubated their offspring in the stomach.

However, the gastric-brooding frog became extinct in 1983.

Now, the research team has brought their DNA back to life. It did this by reviving frozen DNA samples of a gastric-brooding frog and inserting the genetic material into donor eggs. The donor eggs were those of a distant relative -- the great barred frog. But the great barred frog's DNA was deactivated by UV light.

As time went on, the cells began dividing, showing signs of growing embryos.

The embryos have not yet turned into tadpoles, but research shows that the dividing cells do, in fact, have the DNA of the extinct frog.

"We do expect to get this guy hopping again," Archer said.

While finding viable DNA and creating the frog embryos was no easy task, this opens the door to the possibility of bringing other extinct species back to life.


Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Question
By Ammohunt on 3/19/2013 1:44:48 PM , Rating: 0
Yeah still within the realm of evolution and nature. If the introduction of invasive species happened without mans intervention then this creatures extinction would have been ok right? We should resurrect Neanderthals, Egyptians, maybe Cathars as well with this line of thinking.

RE: Question
By Etsp on 3/19/2013 2:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see any reason why studying creatures that were ill-suited to survival is somehow of less benefit to the study of evolution than the study of animals that were well suited to it.

Understanding the traits of these creatures, including behavioral patterns would be immensely beneficial to understand exactly what types of things causes species to be ill-suited to survival, and why others are well adapted to it.

Aside from that, almost any species going extinct could be considered "bad", because that lessens the genetic diversity of all known life, which exists only on this one planet.

RE: Question
By Ammohunt on 3/19/2013 3:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Just saying that its a good chance that certain creatures were at the end of their existence anyway and we should not introduce extinct species back into nature.

RE: Question
By MrBlastman on 3/19/2013 3:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from that, almost any species going extinct could be considered "bad", because that lessens the genetic diversity of all known life, which is known to exist only on this one planet for now.

Correction. See above.

We may or may not find life elsewhere. Given the gigantic expanse of stars, galaxies and matter outside our own precious little sphere, it is entirely possible there is other life out there. We may never know, though. Not unless we break past the physical boundaries that hem us to this star system. It is also possible that even if we do, we may still never discover it. Or, perhaps, it is also likely that we might be alone at this point in time--time that has extended into the past for 13.77 billion years--and now is our time to exist with all prior extra-terrestrial species having gone extinct.

Whatever your view on the above, whatever you might believe, I'm sure any scientist could tell you that the study of any and all life is beneficial to us as a whole, no matter how different from us they might be.

RE: Question
By Etsp on 3/19/2013 5:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
That's why I said all known life, because there might be life elsewhere that we will never encounter (Or that we will). Or there may not be.

RE: Question
By Motoman on 3/19/2013 2:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm reasonably sure that there are still living Egyptians. A few, anyway.

As for Neanderthals...well, might be some of them around too, based on some of the commentary we get here.

I guess in all seriousness though, there's no guarantee that invasive species would have been introduced without Man's help...and sure, they might have gone extinct on their own anyway.

But aside from the intrinsic scientific value in the exercise to revive such species, and then be able to study them, some of these species might just deserve a second chance, particularly if they were just killed off as a result of human stupidity.

I for one would like to see Tasmanian Tigers running around again.

RE: Question
By Ammohunt on 3/19/2013 3:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm reasonably sure that there are still living Egyptians. A few, anyway.

if i am not correct modern Egyptians are of Arab decent like most of north Africa.

RE: Question
By ClownPuncher on 3/19/2013 6:02:44 PM , Rating: 3
Many definitely have semitic DNA (Arab, Jew, Palestinian, Canaan...). It's a mixed pool. It always has been, at least since recorded history began.

RE: Question
By ClownPuncher on 3/19/2013 6:04:56 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, autodownrated for saying Jew?

DT is antisemitic!

RE: Question
By ClownPuncher on 3/19/2013 2:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
The species introduced by man also wreak havoc on the ecosystem.

RE: Question
By Jim Vanus on 3/19/2013 5:46:45 PM , Rating: 3
Man is a part of this planet's life system, not outside of it.

I'm tired of this "man is in the forest" BS. Man is the crown of creation, whether by divine means or evolutionary means, and will continue to define his role in the ecosystem. Now part of that role appears to be the capability to resurrect extinct species.

I'm not too worried about man's impact because the process that produced this planet's many & diverse life forms will continue to do so, as proven by life's ability to recover following past cataclysmic events.

We had better spread to other planets to secure our own survival, which could now quickly come to an end due to a meteor strike, mega-volcanic event, solar event, etc.

RE: Question
By ClownPuncher on 3/19/2013 5:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
When you introduce a species not endemic to the area and that new species devastates crops and livestock, introduces new disease and weakens the economy and ecology, why not do something about it? Dreaming of the stars and moon colonies doesn't do anything to help this particular issue at this particular time.

The frog problem down under is actually a rather large issue.

RE: Question
By Jim Vanus on 3/19/2013 7:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
Man has already come a long way in recognizing negative impacts on the environment and does do something about it. Every individual should avoid doing things that damage the environment. It is up to man to create the kind of ecosystem he wants because no other creature can.

Governments probably pose the greatest threat to the planet's ecosystems because of their proclivity for war.

RE: Question
By JPForums on 3/20/2013 8:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
Governments probably pose the greatest threat to the planet's ecosystems because of their proclivity for war.
A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned. - Firefly

Point being, humans have the same propensity for conflict, governed or not. The difference being, under government, there are fewer, larger scale conflicts, where as without we would see dramatically more, much smaller scale conflicts. I suspect the number of deaths and amount of destruction over time would be comparable. They would just come as a constant stream rather than condensed bursts.

"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki