Direwolf has been Cloned

[carliro]

I feel they are still efficient models for how dire wolves functioned in terms of biomechanics, but it's cute that this parallels the original Jurassic Park book

[Bucklander]

I'm surprised at all the negative reactions. This seems like a "Ship of Theseus" scenario to me. Surely, having compared the DNA sequence of Dire wolves to extant wolves of whatever species, noting where the two differ, then altering the base pairs on the extant species' DNA, the resulting pups are Dire wolves. Phenotypes are after all, expressions of the information carried in the sequence of base pairs on the DNA.

If molecules of DNA were constructed from scratch, completely artificially, one nucleotide at a time, then inserted into a denucleated egg, the individual created as a result would be a member of whatever species, the DNA sequence was representative of, would it not?

[andrewsaurus rex]

Sure, if that's exactly what happened, you'd get dire wolf looking pups.   You'd be able to glean a bit of new information from them ie coat colour and any instinctive behaviour.  Most behaviour is learned not inborn, so you would not be able to learn anything about that.,,.so they would be living fossils, which is neat i guess.  But what will happen to the pups?  What kind of life will they lead?  Will they be schlepped from zoo to zoo, forever in new places being gocked at their whole lives?

And they may not be exactly the same genetically.  Mistakes happen, or info could be missing and different dna gets 'plugged in', a la Jurassic Park.

Also, the temptation will be there to make them bigger and more 'monster' like, maybe not in this instance but down the road as the technology proliferates so they fetch more money from spectators.

[Faelrin]

No absolutely not Aenocyon. Not even close. A few select genes (that were not directly used) out of an entire genome do not make it so. There's still an entire genetic history lost to time short of whatever remains in the fossils discovered, nevermind all the learned behaviors and genetic memory.

These are still ultimately wolves doing wolf things. GMO, but still. They were just tampered with to look like the GOT wolves (I've never watched the show but if everyone is making that comparison, I'll trust it).

[Protopatch]

Beyond the fact that the aims of this project remain difficult to seize but ethically questionable, the whole hype about it could appear a bit exaggerated.
According to some reliable sources, despite the similarity between the direwolf and the test-tube animals, the latter would only possess a drop of its genetic heritage.
To quote the evolutionary biologist Nadir Alvarez it's not because 20 nucleotides have been modified that this wolf will be able to attack bigger preys.
Moreover, the company hasn't yet provided the detail of the modified genes.

[Turkeysaurus]

I don't like fictional dinosaurs in Jurassic World but i'm all for it in real life.

[Shane]

Moreover, the company hasn't yet provided the detail of the modified genes.

This is what I think bugs me the most here. Initially, most outlets were just publishing the press release from Colossal, with no reaction from the greater scientific community. I think it's irresponsible to jump wholly into this like it's a major story, cover of TIME magazine worthy, based solely on the press release from the company.

Here's a question - they claim they want to bring back the dodo. How exactly would that work with the methods they're using here? The closest living relatives of the dodo are pigeons - how could a dodo-sized egg come from a modern day pigeon-sized bird? The idea of tweaking a handful of genetic markers doesn't really seem like something you could do to create an "actual" dodo using any extant relative.

So what would they do here? Use a larger extant bird as the incubator? Would tweaking the genetics of a more distantly related bird that has the necessary size still produce an "actual" dodo?

[stargatedalek]

There are a few pigeon species (and breeds of domestic pigeon) at least approaching the size of the dodo. Little dodos are the obvious option, but crowned pigeons might work too. Starting with an animal about half the size and increasing the max size to be more in line with Raphus, only a generation or two would be needed to have a viable parent.

While I take issue with their... style of presentation and showmanship, I can't be too mad at Colossal for their methodologies. So many of these de-extinction projects have been obsessive perfectionists, some even refusing to publish work unless it was "perfect". While they might be a bit too far in the other extreme, I am put in mind of GloFish and my mixed feelings on those, I say bring on the pet stores full of wooly mice and faux dodos, since it's more than any others of these projects have shown themselves willing to do.

[Saarlooswolfhound]

I'm still bothered by the fact that they haven't openly discussed their methods with *how* they did this. Only fractions have been released. I.e. they state these pups have been born over a series of weeks from the Autumn of last year to now- so each pup was born as a singleton with the female being the most recent addition. Were they incubated inside an actual wolf or dog womb? Or was this an artificial one? Colossal keeps calling the three "siblings"- is that because they used the same genetic basis to create them? Because they weren't born in a litter (let alone at the right time of year for a more natural mimic of birth). And are they going to breed these individuals when they are adults or just create more test tube projects? All in all, where did it start- and where does it end?

They likely won't release such details of this process because these are really trademarked animals instead of a development for science. They can't release their secrets for replication and still make billions off of them. Make no mistake, this is purely a commercial venture and nothing else.

[andrewsaurus rex]

if they are clones, wouldn't the siblings be identical to each other?  So how can one be female while the others male?  If they combined dire wolf dna with that of a modern wolf or dog then they are not really dire wolves.  Are we to assume they used different genetic material for each pup but that each pup is 100% dire wolf dna? 

If they don't disclose clearly how they did it then we have only their word for it that the pups are dire wolf pups.  They could just as easily be genetically modified modern wolf pups that they are passing off as dire wolves because their attempts to create actual dire wolves didn't work and they have antsy investors to satisfy.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

I'd highly recommend anyone interested in this read the thread by James Napoli I've linked below, it clears up a lot of the misinformation surrounding this, both from Collosal and critics. I've linked XCancel as it should be accessible to those without Twitter accounts.

https://xcancel.com/jgn_paleo/status/1909800784084320685?s=61&t=CdSkoh5uEqSQN2zcDiEViw

[andrewsaurus rex]

i will add, that whether really dire wolf pups or not, they are pretty cute. 

[Saarlooswolfhound]

I'd highly recommend anyone interested in this read the thread by James Napoli I've linked below, it clears up a lot of the misinformation surrounding this, both from Collosal and critics. I've linked XCancel as it should be accessible to those without Twitter accounts.

https://xcancel.com/jgn_paleo/status/1909800784084320685?s=61&t=CdSkoh5uEqSQN2zcDiEViw

Thank you for linking that- it was a great read! He laid out a lot of the basics of this question.

I still don't agree that these are Aenocyon in any degree. But a mere attempt to mimic one. And I personally find the Times article very difficult to stomach with all the fanfare and clearly gimmicky use of language.

[Carnoking]

I'm still bothered by the fact that they haven't openly discussed their methods with *how* they did this. Only fractions have been released. I.e. they state these pups have been born over a series of weeks from the Autumn of last year to now- so each pup was born as a singleton with the female being the most recent addition. Were they incubated inside an actual wolf or dog womb? Or was this an artificial one? Colossal keeps calling the three "siblings"- is that because they used the same genetic basis to create them? Because they weren't born in a litter (let alone at the right time of year for a more natural mimic of birth). And are they going to breed these individuals when they are adults or just create more test tube projects? All in all, where did it start- and where does it end?

They likely won't release such details of this process because these are really trademarked animals instead of a development for science. They can't release their secrets for replication and still make billions off of them. Make no mistake, this is purely a commercial venture and nothing else.

All the articles I've read mention the method of using surrogate dog mothers for gestation and that Romulus and Remus were born through cesarean section to two different mothers.

They also highlight that there are currently no plans to breed them but they hope to create a few more through the same methods for these first 3.

I believe all of this is covered in the lengthy but informative article from the New Yorker

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

From what I've gathered the dna side of things was done by sequencing the DNA from two dire wolf specimens and modifying around 15 genes in grey wolf DNA to match what was seen in the dire wolf sequence, most likely it was only those 15 as those are the genes where they could be confident what effect they would have on the wolves. As for why they're being called siblings I was under the impression the first two were while the third was unrelated to the other two.

[Faelrin]

Glad to see him chime in on this.

Also glad to see him put the word about the jackal phylogenetics thing people keep misinterpreting and parroting.

But I am glad to learn that there is a very real possibility all in Canini could belong to the genus Canis as well. But why bring Aenocyon back in the first place, and not just do that then?

I'd like to see more data supporting that their coat color would be pale beyond these. There's also the question of individual variation, and the question of how widespread it would be, if some were truly pale in coat color? I feel like if they truly can identify the genes for coat color, could they not do a broader sample size among the fossils we have? Obvious a study like that would need extensive time and funding, and that depends on the right genes surviving in the fossil material. Basically if it turned out the few samples were from pale colored animals, I'd still caution against stating that they all were without more data. At the very least a few individuals might have been, and it may also be worth investigating why. I do agree with him people blew the red color out of porportion (even if there was a plausible line of thought behind it, but it was still ultimately speculative without knowing more).

But it still doesn't change the obvious comparison made, especially if one of those images were shared by Colossal. Could have avoided folks thinking that it was intentional in the first place by not making it so blatant.

[Carnoking]

I'd highly recommend anyone interested in this read the thread by James Napoli I've linked below, it clears up a lot of the misinformation surrounding this, both from Collosal and critics. I've linked XCancel as it should be accessible to those without Twitter accounts.

https://xcancel.com/jgn_paleo/status/1909800784084320685?s=61&t=CdSkoh5uEqSQN2zcDiEViw

Thank you for sharing this! Feels like I've been gobbling up so much information from every article I come across on the matter but this thread makes for some very succinct and informative perspective

[Shane]

I'd highly recommend anyone interested in this read the thread by James Napoli I've linked below, it clears up a lot of the misinformation surrounding this, both from Collosal and critics. I've linked XCancel as it should be accessible to those without Twitter accounts.

https://xcancel.com/jgn_paleo/status/1909800784084320685?s=61&t=CdSkoh5uEqSQN2zcDiEViw

So, from my understanding, he starts off by countering what he perceives are the main criticisms of Colossal's announcement...before ultimately arriving at the same conclusion as most critics - these are "dire wolf replicas" or "approximated dire wolves" and he suspects they are much more grey wolf than dire wolf...yet he still comes down on basically defending the decision of Colossal calling them "dire wolves" with no other qualifier, even though he himself admits it is at best oversimplifying and at worst misleading.

Most of the criticisms he cites seem a bit straw mannish, ie. "Direwolves weren't white! They were red!" I haven't personally seen anyone saying this; what I have seen people say is that there is no evidence for them being white beyond what evidence Colossal is claiming they have, which they have not yet publicized, yet Colossal is claiming the pale coloration as one of their distinct dire wolf traits.

It just all feels a bit overly defensive of Colossal when what he eventually arrives at is the same place most of the criticism ends on - these aren't actually de-extinct dire wolves, they're grey wolves bred to exhibit dire wolf-like traits, and Colossal is hyping up "DE-EXTINCTION" when that's not really what this is. Claiming these are de-extinct dire wolves gives people the Jurassic Park vibes that they extracted actual viable dire wolf DNA and created a full brand new dire wolf directly from that DNA and that's not actually what's happening. He even says he'd be surprised if there were only 15-20 different genes separating dire wolves and grey wolves, which is Colossal's claim. The un-critical nature of the reporting and blanket acceptance of Colossal's claims and hype are what most people are criticizing.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

So, from my understanding, he starts off by countering what he perceives the main criticisms of Colossal's announcement...before ultimately arriving at the same conclusion as most critics - these are "dire wolf replicas" or "approximated dire wolves" and he suspects they are much more grey wolf than dire wolf...yet he still comes down on basically defending the decision of Colossal calling them "dire wolves" with no other qualifier, even though he himself admits it is at best oversimplifying and at worst misleading.

Most of the criticisms he cites seem a bit straw mannish, ie. "Direwolves weren't white! They were red!" I haven't personally seen anyone saying this; what I have seen people say is that there is no evidence for them being white beyond what evidence Colossal is claiming they have, which they have not yet publicized, yet Colossal is claiming the pale coloration as one of their distinct dire wolf traits.

It just all feels a bit overly defensive of Colossal when what he eventually arrives at is the same place most of the criticism ends on - these aren't actually de-extinct dire wolves, they're grey wolves bred to exhibit dire wolf-like traits, and Colossal is hyping up "DE-EXTINCTION" when that's not really what this is. Claiming these are de-extinct dire wolves gives people the Jurassic Park vibes that they extracted actual viable dire wolf DNA and created a full brand new dire wolf from that DNA and that's not actually what's happening. The un-critical nature of the reporting and blanket acceptance of Colossal's claims and hype are what most people are criticizing.

The point is to clear up the misinformation surrounding it, not to come to any new conclusions. I don't know about you but I absolutely have seen people saying they were red and closer to jackals and whatnot, the point is not to defend Colossal. With science, it's important that you get the facts straight if you want to make any meaningful criticism, if you critique Colossal based on things that aren't true then you end up ultimately making them look right.

[Shane]

The point is to clear up the misinformation surrounding it, not to come to any new conclusions. I don't know about you but I absolutely have seen people saying they were red and closer to jackals and whatnot, the point is not to defend Colossal. With science, it's important that you get the facts straight if you want to make any meaningful criticism, if you critique Colossal based on things that aren't true then you end up ultimately making them look right.

That makes sense, I suppose I'm looking at it more from people criticizing it from a fairly more informed standpoint and taking for granted that some criticism is certainly based on misconception.