the latest on mammoth cloning

Chlidonias

Moderator
Staff member
15+ year member
interesting new article. I enjoyed the century-old woodcut used in the middle of it as an "artist's impression of the prehistoric mammoth". The readers' comments at the bottom were even more entertaining ;)
As for me, I'll believe it when I see it (and if it happens, believe me I'll be winging my way to Japan to see it!)
[I think where it says near the end that they plan to implant the embryo into an African elephant, that that is a typo for Asian elephant]
Scientists aim to bring mammoth back to life
January 16, 2011

A team of researchers will attempt to resurrect the species using cloning technologies after obtaining tissue this summer from the carcass of a mammoth preserved in a Russian mammoth research laboratory. It has already established a technique to extract DNA from frozen cells.

"Preparations to realize this goal have been made," said Prof. Akira Iritani, leader of the team and a professor emeritus of Kyoto University.

Under the plan, the nuclei of mammoth cells will be inserted into an elephant's egg cells from which the nuclei have been removed to create an embryo containing mammoth genes.

The embryo will then be inserted into an elephant's womb in the hope that the animal will give birth to a baby mammoth.

Researchers from Kinki University's Graduate School of Biology-Oriented Science and Technology began the study in 1997.

On three occasions, the team obtained mammoth skin and muscle tissue excavated in good condition from the permafrost in Siberia.

However, most nuclei in the cells were damaged by ice crystals and were unusable. The plan to clone a mammoth was abandoned.

In 2008, Dr. Teruhiko Wakayama of Kobe's Riken Center for Developmental Biology succeeded in cloning a mouse from the cells of mouse that had been kept in deep-freeze for 16 years. The achievement was the first in the world.

Based on Wakayama's techniques, Iritani's team devised a technique to extract the nuclei of eggs--only 2 percent to 3 percent are in good condition--without damaging them.

Last spring, the team invited Minoru Miyashita, a professor of Kinki University who was once head of Osaka's Tennoji Zoo, to participate in the project.

Miyashita asked zoos across the nation to donate elephant egg cells when their female elephants died.

The team also invited the head of the Russian mammoth research laboratory and two U.S. African elephant researchers as guest professors to the university. The research became a joint effort by Japan, Russia and the United States.

If a cloned mammoth embryo can be created, Miyashita and the U.S. researchers, who are experts in animal in vitro fertilization, will be responsible for transplanting the embryo into an African elephant.

The team said if everything goes as planned, a mammoth will be born in five to six years.

"If a cloned embryo can be created, we need to discuss, before transplanting it into the womb, how to breed [the mammoth] and whether to display it to the public," Iritani said. "After the mammoth is born, we'll examine its ecology and genes to study why the species became extinct and other factors."
 
I never would have thought that the fictional technique in Jurassic Park could become a reality.

I haven't decided if this mammoth project is exciting or scary.
 
Are we really getting this smart?

Seems like a whole lot of theory atm or is there really not that much difference between 16 years and when Dinosaurs ruled the planet!!
 
I think where it says near the end that they plan to implant the embryo into an African elephant, that that is a typo for Asian elephant

Well, they might want to use the larger species as Mammoth calves are probably larger than what Asian elephants are used to carrying to term.

It's probably worth pointing out that in order to clone Dolly the sheep, about 300 eggs had to have their nuclei replaced (and not all of those were successful), and then many died during implantation.

This experiment may take a lot longer than stated.

:p

Hix
 
I have no ethical issue with bringing back the mammoth per se. From an ecological point of view it makes sense. Mammoths were likely hunted to extinction and really only disappeared a blink of an eye ago. And whilst their ecosystem might have changed in terms of balance, it hasn't really really evolved in their absence. I would especially be supportive of the project in at least part of the vast amounts of money that will be made from the venture is put into Asian elephant conservation.

What does concern me ties in with what Hix stated. Currently, the success rate for implantation and gestation to term is far from mastered. My worry is that the surrogate elephant (be it a closer genetic fit asian elephant or closer size fit african) is potentially in for a severely tough time. Elephant births are associated with enough risks as is, and thats without the complications such as ridiculously high chance of miscarriage, extra large birth weights etc.

You have to weigh up if its worth risking an already endangered elephant on such an endeavour.
 
"After the mammoth is born, we'll examine its... genes"

Surely they could do that now, from the samples they already have? But otherwise it does sound quite exciting, and as peacock pointed out, it was probably driven to extinction by humans so in that respect theres little ethical obstacle here (although resources could be better utilised for cloning critically endangered species). But once they are cloned, the only way to really understand their ecology, etc, would be to have them in the wild, and presumably thats the long term goal? But wasn't the mammoths population reduced drastically by global warming before their extinction, and future warming would likely impact on their ability to survive in the north (much like the polar bear in some respects)? So if they can't survive in the wild, and they are only going to exist in a captive setting, is their 'creation' ethical?
 
There's another factor no-one has touched on - there is only one donor. If you want to have more than one animal (which I presume you would need for social aspects, and if you want to 'reintroduce' them to the wild), all individuals will be genetically identical. So..... do we really want to utilise all those resources to create a small group of animals that can't breed, and will have died out in about 50 years anyway. Will we then create another herd?

:p

Hix
 
There is literally tens of millions of mammoth remains in the siberian permafrost. In the last decade or so there have been a number of apparently "clonable" finds. Theoretically cloning the first female (and they will make it female regardless of the sex of the donor animal) will be the hardest hurdle by far. After that the options for introducing genetic diversity are comparatively plentiful and easy.
 
There was already a project running to bring the Thylacine back into existence, the project was dropped and then restarted. Seeing as the Thylacine was wiped out due to modern human civilisation, in a climate very close to how it is now, it would make more sense to bring that back rather than a huge animal that would be boiling hot in today's weather.

Besides anything else, the largest male african elephant was nearly 4 metres tall, and mammoths were roughly 5 metres. It would be practically impossible to bring a baby one of these to term with an elephant too small to carry it
 
Last edited:
Seeing as the Thylacine was wiped out due to modern human civilisation, in a climate very close to how it is now, it would make more sense to bring that back rather than a huge animal that would be boiling hot in today's weather.

Its a misconception that during Ice Ages the entire planet was thrust entirely into a cold temperate climate. Whilst greatly diminished, there was still steaming jungles and warm savannahs during the last glaciation. If there weren't where do you suppose all the tropical animals such as the ancestral gorilla, giraffe or crocodiles were hiding?

Instead what happened was this:

File:Last glacial vegetation map.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as you can see all types of environments were still present on the planet, only the balance and location of these habitats was largely different. Thus ideal mammoth habitat and climate is still found on earth today. And one could expect a mammoth to feel equally comfortable in the steppes of central Asia today as it would have 20,000 years ago.

Besides anything else, the largest male african elephant was nearly 4 metres tall, and mammoths were roughly 5 metres. It would be practically impossible to bring a baby one of these to term with an elephant too small to carry it

This, I agree, is a much more likely problem!
 
Sure, seeing a mammoth would be spectacular.
But, I just don't feel comfortable with using a breeding age female of either species.

Woolly mammoths weighed 12,000-20,000 pounds. An animal, that at maturity weighs 6,000-14,000 pounds more than it's mother; makes me question the safety of the pregnancy and birthing process. As we know elephant breeding in the U.S. is just now taking off, and in EU it is just becoming stable. Can we really afford to waste any of our precious breeding females on an animal that went extinct thousands of years ago?
 
With regards to that comment about the climate at the time, there is a reason that the mammoth was wooly - it was cold in the regions they lived in
 
With regards to that comment about the climate at the time, there is a reason that the mammoth was wooly - it was cold in the regions they lived in

I think what is being gotten at is there are still regions of the world that are cold enough to sustain a mammoth - ie. Arctic and Antarctic.

My main concern would be the sheer cost, that could be better spent preserving the species that are still around and have a chance of survival. Reviving extinct species is a wonderful idea, but the cost to me doesn't make it seem worthwhile. I think it's just 'reviving because people want to see one.'
 
bringing back an extinct species is a wonderful concept
the main worry for me is that if they are able to achieve successful cloning of animals will that mean that they can create a "noahs ark" of animal genetics that can be recreated at mans whim
then it won't matter if we destroy their habitat and drive them to extinction as "we can make some other ones" and stick them in a zoo
just a thought
 
You do not even remotely understand the concepts I put forth.



Niether do you.

Are you saying that a mammoth does not need a cold climate? If that's the case then sorry, when I read I misinterpreted Asian steppe for the Himalayas for some reason lol. Otherwise, I don't understand your concepts :)
 
To be fair Javan Rhino, it was only part of the concept you missed. And to address that:

They certainly don't need a polar climate. A mammoth would find todays Arctic circle almost just as inhospitable as it did then, let alone the Antarctic!

My point was that whilst the overall climate was cooler during the last Ice Age, that didn't mean the entire planet was covered in ice and snow.
instead the polar caps expanded, which in the northern hemisphere pushed the buffer ecosystems such as taiga, tundra, steppe and boreal forests further south. Tropical rainforest retreated closer to the equator much of what was recently rainforest was taken up by cooler deciduous forest and grasslands.

Mammoths didn't wander around on the tops of glaciers. They needed vegetation for food. They lived cold temperate ecosystem types that still exist, only back in the Ice Ages these habitat types were more prevalent, or at least further south.

To put it simply, mammoth habitat then was not necessarily colder than that same habitat type is now. Had mammoths survived the last glaciation, they would still have woolly coats and live in the cold temperate parts of the Northern Hemisphere just as all the extant animals they once shared it with still do.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top