Is it possible to clone dinosaurs 2010

Technique to test for DNA preservation Jul Reprints and Permissions. Kaplan, M. DNA has a year half-life. Nature Download citation. Published : 10 October Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:.

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative.

Nature Communications Nature Chemistry The first sticking point is that when researchers look for traces of ancient biological molecules, they use technologies invented to find intact traces that have been degraded or altered by vast amounts of time.

On top of that issue, there remains much experts do not know about how a dinosaur bone changes from organic tissue in a recently alive animal to a fossil hardened by minerals. For example, it is unclear how modern microbes outside of fossils might interact with those that have been living within the bones. These unknowns, as well as protocols that are still in development, fuel the ongoing debate over what the biological tidbits inside dinosaur bones represent.

The research on the Hypacrosaurus cartilage looked at its microscopic details and used chemical stains that bind to DNA. In contrast, the study on the Centrosaurus bone used DNA sequencing to understand the nature of the genetic traces inside it—but did not look at its microstructure. Bailleul acknowledges that considering previously unknown forms of microorganisms when studying dinosaur bone microbiology is important. But she proposes that it is unlikely bacteria would find their way into a cartilage cell and mimic its nucleus in such a way that researchers would mistake the microorganisms for the genuine article.

One of the largest difficulties in the ongoing debate, Barnett says, is a lack of replication. And paleogenetics has been through this problem before: Around the time the film Jurassic Park debuted in , research papers heralded the discovery of Mesozoic DNA. Those claims were later overturned when other research teams could not replicate the same results. Even though the science of paleogenetics has changed since that time, the need for multiple labs to confirm the same result remains important.

Such collaboration has yet to take place for some of the assertions of exceptional dinosaurian preservation. Paleontologists must sometimes feel like Mary when answering questions about dinosaur de-extinction. They must also wonder how so many people could watch "Jurassic Park" and its sequels and miss the persistent theme of unintended consequences. Does the discovery of dino embryos open up a new avenue to reptilian rebirth?

The answer is no. Dinosaur eggs are tens to hundreds of millions of years past their Use By date, and fossilized to boot -- not exactly prime incubator material.

As for the embryos, they are just so many piles of bone. Not much help there. What about the organic material -- have we finally dug up dinosaur DNA? Not exactly. Paleontological circles have been debating possible organic tissue finds for years, but they have yet to find DNA and likely never will -- see sidebar. Take the Tyrannosaurus rex , for example. In , scientists using weak acid to demineralize Tyrannosaurus bone pulled soft, pliable "tissues" from the remains, including bits that resembled bone cells, red blood cells and blood vessels.

Later finds provided further samples of preserved tissues from a variety of species and time periods, suggesting this discovery was no fluke [sources: Kaye et al. Needless to say, people got a little excited. In a game of inches like paleontology, such a find amounted to a touchdown, but research referees soon rolled back the scoreboard. They might look the part, but they actually have more in common with tooth plaque than dinosaur cells [sources: Bayles ; Kaye et al. Whatever their nature, the finds made paleontologists wonder; Might the real thing be out there, waiting to be discovered?

They adjusted their techniques and, with the Lufengosaurus nest, struck pay dirt. Not by a long shot [source: Reisz et al. Advances in genetics continue to inspire dreams of dinosaur clones but suffer from one problematic missing ingredient: DNA.

The oldest DNA on record was extracted from an ,year-old Greenland ice core, but in general the maximum survival age of genetic molecules probably falls more in the range of ,, years one million at most. At best, that places mammoths, giant ground sloths and saber-tooth cats within reach, but not dinosaurs [sources: Gannon; Kolata ; Mabry ]. Over the past decade, advances in stem cells , salvaging ancient DNA and rebuilding genomes have brought the concept of "de-extinction" -- particularly of genetic cousins of living species -- closer to realization [sources: Kolata ; Zimmer ].

Just how close, and what this might mean to much more ancient animals, remains less clear. Using frozen cells, scientists in successfully cloned an extinct Pyrenean ibex, aka a bucardo Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica , but it died minutes later [sources: Kolata ; Mabry ; Zimmer ]. So it looks like cloning a dinosaur is off the table, but an alternate way to recreate the extinct animals would be to reverse-engineer one. Jurassic World: Dominion is scheduled to be released theatrically by Universal Pictures on June 10, The film was previously set for release on June 11, , but it was delayed to the current date due to the pandemic.

The results showed that Pixar animation is more successful than Disney animation! The science shows that Pixar is better than Disney.