The Final Nail in the Jurassic Park Coffin? ...Absence of DNA in Sub-Fossilized Insects

Science News ^ | Wednesday, September 11, 2013 | Manchester University

[SunkenCiv]

According to Professor Brown: "In the original 1990s studies DNA amplification was achieved by a process called the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which will preferentially amplify any modern, undamaged DNA molecules that contaminate an extract of partially degraded ancient ones to give false positive results that might be mistaken for genuine ancient DNA. Our approach, using 'next generation' sequencing methods is ideal for ancient DNA because it provides sequences for all the DNA molecules in an extract, regardless of their length, and is less likely to give preference to contaminating modern molecules."

The team concluded that their inability to detect ancient DNA in relatively young (60 years to 10,600 years old) sub-fossilized insects in copal, despite using sensitive next generation methods, suggests that the potential for DNA survival in resin inclusions is no better, and perhaps worse, than that in air-dried museum insects (from which DNA has been retrieved using similar techniques). This raises significant doubts about claims of DNA extraction from fossil insects in amber, many millions of years older than copal.

[SunkenCiv]

full title, "The Final Nail in the Jurassic Park Coffin? Next Generation Sequencing Reveals Absence of DNA in Sub-Fossilized Insects"

This image shows a sub-fossilized insect in copal. (Credit: Dr. David Penney, University of Manchester)

[SunkenCiv]

[FreedomStar3028]

I’m sure that there is going to be an absence of DNA in a LOT of the insects.

For it to be perfect the blood would have to have been drawn minutes before they were fossilized. Otherwise the DNA would be broken down and digested.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

S-s-so you mean to tell me Helen Thomas can never be cloned?

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

"Bawk bawk bawk!"

[ckilmer]

Is the dna they’re talking about the dna from the insect or the dna from whatever critter from which the insect drew blood.

[Thorliveshere]

What about from actual dinosaur cell tissues?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

Why waste time with insects?

[BroJoeK]

There's no DNA in that dino-tissue either.

"Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke.
Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil.
Schweitzer’s work is 'showing us we really don’t understand decay,' Holtz says.
'There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.' "