Posted on 04/14/2007 10:18:48 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Researchers have decoded proteins from a 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, the oldest such material ever found. The unprecedented step, once thought impossible, adds new weight to the idea that today's birds are descendants of the mighty dinosaurs.
"The door just opens up to a whole avenue of research that involves anything extinct," said Matthew T. Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
While dinosaur bones have long been studied, "it's always been assumed that preservation does not extend to the cellular or molecular level," said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.
It had been thought that some proteins could last a million years or more, but not to the age of the dinosaurs, she said.
So, when she was able to recover soft tissue from a T. rex bone found in Montana in 2003 she was surprised, Schweitzer said.
And now, researchers led by John M. Asara of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston have been able to analyze proteins from that bone.
The genetic code that directs the development of living things is the DNA, but that is more fragile and they didn't find that.
"But proteins are coded from the DNA, they're kind of like first cousins," Schweitzer said
What Asara's team found was collagen, a type of fibrous connective tissue that is a major component of bone. And the closest match in creatures alive today was collagen from chicken bones.
Schweitzer and Asara report their findings in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
"Most people believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but that's all based on the architecture of the bones," said Asara. "This allows you to get the chance to say, 'Wait, they really are related because their sequences are related.' We didn't get enough sequences to definitively say that, but what sequences we got support that idea."
"The fact that we are getting proteins is very, very exciting," said John Horner of Montana State University and the Museum of the Rockies.
And, he added, it "changes the idea that birds and dinosaurs are related from a hypothesis to a theory."
To scientists that's a big deal.
In science, a hypothesis is an idea about something that seems probable, while a theory has been tested and is supported by evidence. Previously, the bird-dinosaur relationship was based on similarities in the shape of bones, now there is solid evidence of a relationship at the molecular level.
Horner, who found the bones studied by Schweitzer and Asara, said this is going to change the way paleontologists go about collecting specimens — they will now be looking for the best preserved items, often buried in sand or sandstone sediments.
This summer, he said, his museum is organizing nine different field crews involving more than 100 people to search for fossils in Montana and Mongolia.
Asara explained that he was working on a very refined form of mass spectrometry to help detect peptides — fragments of proteins — in tumors as part of cancer research.
In refining the technique, he had previously studied proteins from a mastodon, and when he heard of Schweitzer's finding soft tissues in a T. rex bone he decided to see if he could detect proteins there also.
He was able to identify seven different dinosaur proteins from the bone and compared them with proteins from living species. Three matched chickens, two matched several species including chickens, one matched a protein from a newt and the other from a frog.
Co-author Lewis Cantley of Harvard Medical School noted that this work is in its infancy, and when it is improved he expects to be able to isolate more proteins and seek more matches.
"Knowing how evolution occurred and how species evolved is a central question," Cantley said.
The Smithsonian's Carrano, who was not part of the research teams, said the report is an important confirmation of Schweitzer's techniques and shows that "the possibility of preservation is more than we had expected, and we can expect to see more in the future."
Matt Lamanna, a curator at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, called the finding "another piece in the puzzle that shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that dinosaurs are related to birds." Lamanna was not part of the research team.
So, does all this mean that a T. rex would have tasted like chicken? The researchers admit, they don't know.
Both research teams were supported by the National Science Foundation and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation. Schweitzer had additional support from NASA and Asara had added support from the Paul F. Glenn Foundation.
How can they find protein in a fossil?
Let me be Rokke’s wingman anyday in my ‘105 :-)
Perhaps you need to re-check your eyeglasses prescription? Or attend a remedial reading course?
What’s odd is that you are the only person who has this information. Last I checked, dinosaur bones are just as solid as our own bones, and this includes the therapods.
It it the microvascularization found in these bones that leads to the conclusion that they are related to birds, not hollowness.
It is the number of cavities of the skull (not like the empty spaces WITHIN your own) of some therapods, as well as the light structure of the tail, that leads to this same conclusion.
You take an inch, and stretch it into a mile, then scorn those who insist on using the ruler.
You are one of the faithful, not so much certain, as convinced. The facts don’t concern you, just the conclusions.
Also, I don’t know if birds and dinosaurs are related. Though there does seem to be some evidence of this, it is far from certain that birds are their ancestors, or merely a parallel species.
You, on the other hand, are an arrogant, rude and mean-spirited jerk. I’m not at all surprised that you are an anti-Christian Darwinist.
When was the last time you checked?
"In a literal "lucky break" that exposed unusual bone tissue lining the hollow cavity of a Tyrannosaurus rex leg bone, paleontologists at North Carolina State University have determined that a 68 million-year-old T. rex fossil from Montana is that of a young female, and that she was producing eggs when she died. ...-- National Science Foundation
... "The 107-centimetre-long femur - small for a T. rex - was intact when found, and its hollow interior had not been filled with minerals. That is unusual for a long-buried bone. ...-- New Scientist
ANATOMY-- EnchantedLearning.com
"Tyrannosaurus rex was a fierce predator that walked on two powerful legs. This meat-eater had a huge head with large, pointed, replaceable teeth and well-developed jaw muscles. It had tiny arms, each with two fingers. Each bird-like foot had three large toes, all equipped with claws (plus a little dewclaw on a tiny, vestigial fourth toe). T. rex had a slim, stiff, pointed tail that provided balance and allowed quick turns while running. T. rex's neck was short and muscular. Its body was solidly built but its bones were hollow.
"But estimating both the size and life span of a T. rex was thought to be impossible: the weight-bearing bones used to estimate size were hollow, like bird bones, and grew in a way that erased much of the growth record. ...-- Boston Globe
View the photos fool.
Kevin Trudeau?....I had to look that one up...recognized the face, just did not know his name...so I read up on this guy...thanks for the prod to check him out...
What problem do you see in this? There has been a great deal written about this in the last two years. I know that some creationists posted claims that the find included raw red meat, but this was based on ignorance.
Protein includes many substances that are stable when dry and not exposed to air circulation. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?
You are obviously a summa cum laude graduate of the 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' academy.
You obviously aren't well-versed in Googling, are you? Go back and check some of the links I posted, especially the one about dinosaurs having bird-like air sacs and hollow bones in areas of their bodiesalso paralleling birds in this manner.
:Jim35 wrote: It is the number of cavities of the skull (not like the empty spaces WITHIN your own) of some therapods, as well as the light structure of the tail, that leads to this same conclusion. You take an inch, and stretch it into a mile, then scorn those who insist on using the ruler."
My what a convincing argument. See my reply above and do some research before spouting off. "Jim35 wrote: You are one of the faithful, not so much certain, as convinced. The facts don’t concern you, just the conclusions. *SNIP* You, on the other hand, are an arrogant, rude and mean-spirited jerk. I’m not at all surprised that you are an anti-Christian Darwinist"
More erudite devastating critiques that prove your argument. Didn't read my home page like I suggested, did you?
What was the name of the charm school that gave you your degree?
Anyone who knows how this testing works realizes that it is not accurate on specimens of recent date. It is based upon predictable and consistent isotope half-life which requires a long period of time to decay enough to be measured. It is not that the tests are not useful or that they are the work of the “devil”, it just means that the testing criteria require specimens to be of at least a certain age before the tests can measure anything.
No, it only means that the index was erroneously established. I use statistics regularly in my work, and won’t be fooled by slight of hand, because I have used similar tricks myself.
Meanwhile, I checked out your profile page. Very interesting. I noticed that you link to a number of articles claiming to refute Creationism, or the creationist critique of evolution. I also notice that you failed to cite the responses to most of your articles...responses which are done very well. I guess confusing your readers with the other side of the argument is asking too much.
No need to respond...this creationist can pretty well predict what you will say.
Nonsense.
I think you meant "once living."
The bone is also not fossilized; it is just bone.
I agree with you. But, if the scientists are going to extract DNA and genetic material from the protein, it can’t be fossilized.
Nonsense.
Read the frigging articles. The reason this specimen is unusual is because it was protected from air and moisture. Some of the protein survived without being mineralized. Protein is not alive, even if it is a product of living things. If you have research indicating the rate of decomposition in the absence of light, moisture and air, please present your references.
Nuclear irradiation is the only thing that could preserve anything that long, even in a vacuum. The US Army commissioned studies on that subject in the early sixties.
Show me some research backing this up. Are you saying, for example, that a fragment of rope would spontaneously decompose in the absence of air, moisture and light? How long would this take? Show me some research.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.