Scientists are growing T. rex leather in a lab. It could be used to make purses.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Fossilized dinosaur footprints found on boulder
An Australian researcher discovered dozens of three-toed dinosaur footprints on a boulder in Callide Basin.
The next time you go shopping for a new purse, your choices could go beyond traditional materials such as leather, nylon, cotton and polyester to include … Tyrannosaurus rex skin?
Yes, the remnants of the prehistoric predator are being used to create synthetic T. rex leather, which can be turned into accessories including purses. That's the plan for a trio of companies – The Organoid Company, Lab-Grown Leather Ltd., and VML – working on "a high-quality alternative to traditional leather that's cruelty-free and eco-friendly," said the collaborators in an April 25 news release.
The goal of a "luxury fashion item," hitting later this year, would be the first example of leather developed from an extinct species, the companies said.
"With T-Rex leather we're harnessing the biology of the past to create the luxury materials of the future," said Bas Korsten, global chief creative officer, Innovation & CCO EMEA at VML, the agency behind the 2024 Super Bowl "Mayo Cat" campaign and 2023's Mammoth Meatball, made of lab-grown meat.
Cosmos 482: Here's when the Soviet-era spacecraft may return to Earth
The team at The Organoid Company, a Netherlands-based biotech, will use fragments of T-Rex collagen protein recovered from fossils to recreate the prehistoric protein and engineer the new DNA into specialized cells for leather production. Another biotech company, the U.K.-based Lab-Grown Leather Ltd., will then use those specialized cells to produce skin, made with the T-Rex collagen protein, which is then tanned to form T-Rex leather.
"This project is a remarkable example of how we can harness cutting-edge genome and protein engineering to create entirely new materials," said The Organoid Company CEO Thomas Mitchell.
T. Rex leather could serve as a more environmentally friendly option to traditional leather and also eliminate "animal cruelty concerns," the companies said.
But some detractors consider the project misleading. University of Maryland vertebrate paleontologist Thomas Holtz, Jr. pointed out to Live Science, a science news site, how the lab-created skin won't be authentic because there's no actual T. rex skin or DNA to serve as a basis. "What this company is doing seems to be fantasy," he said.
Calling the announcement a "gimmick," Tom Ellis, professor of synthetic genome engineering at Imperial College London, told NBC News, 'I doubt that our knowledge of dinosaur evolution is good enough to be able to design a collagen gene specifically from T. rex."
But researchers have found collagen in an 80-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil and that can be used as a template, they say.
The Organoid Company is creating a T-Rex protein by using fragments of the T-Rex collagen protein from fossils, the companies said in a statement to USA TODAY.
"An important distinction is that (the companies) are starting with the language of proteins, amino acids, rather than the DNA itself," according to the statement. "This encodes what the 3D structure looks like and from this they can then recreate or 'molecularly resurrect' the DNA which is put into special cell lines for leather production."
The result of this reconstruction of ancient protein sequences is T. Rex leather, which is structurally identical to T. rex skin. "A biomaterial inspired by prehistoric biology," Mitchell said.
Eventually, T. rex leather could be used beyond handbags and clutches to cover chairs and vehicle seats. "The production of T-Rex leather demonstrates VML's commitment to pioneering new grounds and shaping the future of our industry," Korsten said.
Mike Snider is a reporter on USA TODAY's Trending team. You can follow him on Threads, Bluesky, X and email him at mikegsnider & @mikegsnider.bsky.social & @mikesnider & msnider@usatoday.com
What's everyone talking about? Sign up for our trending newsletter to get the latest news of the day
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
an hour ago
- WIRED
I Tried the Best At-Home Pet DNA Test Kits on My Two Cats
If You Have a Dog, Consider These Kits I don't have a dog, so I didn't try these at-home DNA test kits for dogs, but these are the kits specifically for dogs from Basepaws and Wisdom Panel, the two companies I've tested for my cats. How Does a DNA Testing Kit Work? Pet DNA tests rely on pet owners collecting cells for testing through a cheek swab, where the sample is put into a sealed stabilizing or preserving fluid for transit. You'll mail the sample back to the lab in the prepaid envelope. It takes up to five weeks to get results. (The first time I sent my cat Basil's Basepaws sample, the company emailed that the results were inconclusive, and I had to wait for another kit to be sent, re-swab him, and wait another five weeks for results.) At the lab, the sample is analyzed against the company's breed and genetic health database. They use single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays—the standard technology used to identify breed ancestry—as well as various inherited traits and risk of common diseases. Essentially, different breeds have distinct patterns of SNPs in their genomes, which act as the genetic markers. These tests analyze the pet's DNA sample for specific SNPs and then compare them to the company's existing database to estimate the composition of breed types in the animal. This not only tells you about breed composition, but can also identify the specific DNA sequences that are markers for potential health risks, like predispositions to diseases or hereditary cancers. Don't take the health or DNA test results as absolute truth, however. 'This can lead to a false sense of security or false alarms," says veterinarian Amanda Chambers. Forward your results to your veterinarian and always follow up with scheduling a visit to the vet if your pet is marked as a carrier for any genetic disease. Limitations of At-Home DNA Test Kits After chatting with Jamie Richardson, head of veterinary medicine at Small Door Veterinary, I've found that these are the major areas of limitations with at-home DNA test kits: Results depend on the size/diversity of the genetic database Most kits test known markers only—not full genomes Feline data is less developed Misinterpretation of results can lead to unnecessary concern How Accurate Is At-Home DNA Testing? Wisdom Panel claims its breed results for cats are over 98 percent accurate and that tests for dogs are over 99 percent accurate. I've outlined the results below, so you can see the disparity in results from the two kits I tested, particularly with breed ancestry. One problem with the vast disparity in results is that the two companies have different sample sizes and metrics for identifying breeds. But the biggest issue for cat owners taking these at-home DNA tests is that you can't really identify most cats' breeds the way you can with dogs. Unless your cat is a purebred, around 95 percent of cats don't belong to a recognized breed. Cats' genetic backgrounds are muddied—they're just similar mixes with different physical characteristics, so the tests only show the breed(s) they share the most markers with. Basically, these tests for cats aren't able to reliably tell us about breed composition, just similarity to other breeds' traits in the company's data pool. From my research, it seems the breed identification part of these tests is more accurate for dogs, as dog DNA is so much more diversified. Breeds have been clearly defined after centuries of diversifying from other breeds, and dog DNA mutates quickly, with genes changing quickly after just a few generations. Cats are not much different from their Egyptian ancestors. Interestingly, in this report from CBS in 2023, the news organization sent dog and human DNA to different at-home test companies and got various results, ranging from 65 to only 29 percent German shepherd DNA for the dog. The human DNA results were attributed to a bulldog, border collie, and cane corso mix. TL;DR There isn't one catch-all way to determine a pet's genetic makeup or ancestry. Humans like categories. And breeds are essentially human constructs, based on the way the dog or cat looks. The genetic part of the test is fun, but take it with a grain of salt—especially with cats. Ancestry Results If you read above, you know that there's a significant disparity in results based on the pool the sample is compared against. For example, below are the results I got for my cat Clover, who's a dilute calico with long, white fur and visually looks most like a Maine coon or Norwegian forest cat. (I also tested my run-of-the-mill gray cat Basil, but he was almost entirely 'American domestic cat' and 'polycat/domestic shorthair'—basically the mutt final boss, a result of many generations of mixed breeding between different types of cats, where ancestry and origin is almost impossible to determine.) Health Results Wisdom Panel tests for 49 genetic health predispositions by comparing the pet's DNA against a panel of cat or dog genetic health checks. It tests for the top five genetic conditions that could impact the pet's vet visits—essentially, the most common conditions that are seen in cats or dogs with a similar breed makeup as your pet. These are for things like drug sensitivity, immune deficiency, and bleeding disorders. They also identified the cat's blood type (both of my cats were A) and transfusion risk (both were moderate). Basepaws tests for up to 115 health markers, but my cat received results for only 44 genetic diseases (owners are encouraged to check results often in case missing markers are added as more data becomes available). This list felt more in-depth than the Wisdom Panel test, testing genes for markers against disorders in musculoskeletal and connective tissue; eyes; metabolic, autoimmune, and endocrine systems; blood; and more. Both of my cats, Clover and Basil, were cleared as having none of the genes that mark them as potential carriers of genetic diseases. It also identified blood type and transfusion risk, which were A and moderate (the same results I got with Wisdom Panel's test). If your pet gets flagged for any of these results, don't panic. 'The presence of a certain gene does not always mean a patient will develop a certain disorder that is associated with that gene—it just means they're at higher risk of it. I would encourage owners to reach out to their veterinarian if they have questions after receiving the results of a DNA test,' says Chambers. Oral Health Results Wisdom Panel doesn't screen for oral health, which is a huge problem in many pets, and can lead to tooth extraction and bigger health issues. Oral health was a concern for me, and Basepaws tests for oral health by testing against an oral microbiome database. In this regard, Basepaws wins out. According to the Basepaws results, Clover was a low risk for periodontal disease and tooth resorption, but at a high risk of halitosis. The report said bad breath could be indicative of a larger health issue, but she was cleared for disease, so I wasn't sure what to do with that information. Courtesy of Molly Higgins My other cat, Basil, was at high risk for all the dental markers mentioned above, and Basepaws came up with a health plan for him: 'adopt a daily oral healthcare routine, consider supplementing Basil's routine with products accepted by the Veterinary Oral Health Council, and schedule an appointment with your veterinarian in the next month.' Courtesy of Molly Higgins Although I was alarmed at the results, I liked that Basepaws gave me recommended next steps so I could come up with a plan of action for care. And it's important to remember that these results don't necessarily mean a pet is guaranteed to develop the disease. "These can be a helpful flag for your veterinarian to keep an eye on [...] but does not necessarily mean aggressive testing is needed at that moment,' says Richardson. 'DNA tests are tools to support—not replace—veterinary care.' Traits Results Both of the tests had this section, which tests for coat color traits and variants, but I found it mostly useless. Wisdom Panel's assertions of both cats' physical traits were correct. But with Basepaws, Clover, a dilute calico, was marked as being likely black in color. I can see with my eyes what my cat(s) look like, but if you're a genetic nerd, this might be fun to see what the actual DNA reflects. A Note on At-Home Allergy Testing Kits I recently tested both of my cats for their allergies and intolerances using a similar at-home test kit, 5Strands Pet Food & Environmental Intolerance Test for $100. For this, you only need to send a fur sample in the mail to a lab; results were sent to my inbox within seven days. The report showed that both of my cats showed strong intolerances to common ingredients in their diet, like various types of fish and chicken meal. This sent me into a panic about the health and (dis)comfort of my cats. After more research, I learned that hair/fur samples are not an accurate way to measure allergies and intolerances, and studies show kits claiming to provide these results perform no better than chance and often produce inconsistent or false results. 'There's no scientific evidence to support allergy testing through hair, fur, or saliva,' says Richardson. 'Veterinarian-supervised elimination diets to test for food allergy and intra-dermal skin testing or blood tests to test for environmental allergies remain the gold standard.' So, save your money and consult a vet instead if you suspect your pet is suffering because of allergies or intolerances. Compare Our Top Picks Meet the Experts
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Biomechanics study shows how T. rex and other dinosaurs fed on prey
By Will Dunham WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Tyrannosaurus subdued prey with raw power, using bone-crushing bite force. But other meat-eating dinosaurs that rivaled T. rex in size used different approaches. Giganotosaurus relied more on slashing and ripping flesh. And the long and narrow snout of Spinosaurus was well-adapted for catching fish. Researchers have documented the feeding biomechanics of meat-eating dinosaurs in a comprehensive analysis of the skull design and bite force of 17 species that prowled the landscape at various times from the dawn to the twilight of the age of dinosaurs. The study found that Tyrannosaurus possessed by far the highest estimated bite force, with a heavily reinforced skull and massive jaw muscles. But it showed that other dinosaur predators evolved successful approaches to bringing down prey even without matching the T. rex chomp. "We found that large predatory dinosaurs didn't all evolve the same kind of skull to deal with the challenges of feeding at massive size," said vertebrate paleontologist Andre Rowe of the University of Bristol in England, lead author of the study published this month in the journal Current Biology. "Some, like T. rex, reinforced the skull to tolerate extremely high bite forces and the associated skull stresses. Others, like Allosaurus or Spinosaurus, went with lighter or possibly flexible builds that spread out stress in different ways. There's no single 'correct' way to be a giant meat-eater, and that's the point," Rowe added. The study focused on species within the group, or clade, called theropods that includes the meat-eating dinosaurs. They ran from Herrerasaurus, which lived in Argentina about 230 million years ago and is one of the earliest-known dinosaurs, all the way to T. rex, which was present in western North America when an asteroid struck Earth 66 million years ago and ended the age of dinosaurs. The researchers used three-dimensional models of the skulls of the 17 species, including two different specimens of Tyrannosaurus, and applied a method for simulating how structures respond to physical stress. They estimated muscle forces using digital muscle reconstructions based on living relatives of the dinosaurs - birds and crocodiles - then applied those forces to the skull models to simulate bites. "Our focus wasn't raw bite force. We were testing how the skulls distributed that force under load, and how these distributions varied by each lineage of carnivores," Rowe said. The early theropods examined in the study such as Herrerasaurus, which lived during the middle of the Triassic Period, and Dilophosaurus, which lived early in the Jurassic Period, exhibited much lower stress resistance than their later counterparts. They were lightly built dinosaurs and not well adapted to high bite forces, Rowe said. The increase in bite force and skull strength unfolded gradually over time, reaching its apex with Tyrannosaurus and its close relatives in a lineage called tyrannosaurs such as Daspletosaurus and Albertosaurus, which like T. rex appeared late in the Cretaceous Period. "In tyrannosaurs, there's a big jump in skull strength and bite mechanics, coinciding with deeper skulls, more robust bone architecture and changes in jaw muscle attachment. So the ramp-up wasn't immediate. It evolved over time and in certain lineages more than others," Rowe said. Tyrannosaurus, Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus were three of the largest theropods, but their skulls were quite different. Perhaps the largest-known Tyrannosaurus is a specimen named Sue at the Field Museum in Chicago, at 40-1/2 feet (12.3 meters) long. Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus rivaled T. rex in size. Giganotosaurus lived in Argentina in the middle of the Cretaceous, while Spinosaurus inhabited North Africa at around the same time, both predating Tyrannosaurus by roughly 30 million years. "Giganotosaurus was large, but its skull wasn't built for the same kind of high-force feeding as T. rex. Spinosaurus had a long, narrow snout, which is consistent with a diet focused on fishing, though we have fossilized evidence that it ate other animals, such as pterosaurs," Rowe said, referring to the flying reptiles that were cousins of the dinosaurs. One of the key takeaway messages, Rowe said, is that giant body size did not funnel all theropods toward the same design. Stronger bite force was one strategy, but not the only one, Rowe added. "Some animals win with raw power, others by striking quickly or repeatedly. What we're seeing here is a spectrum of ecological adaptations. These animals weren't all trying to be T. rex clones. They were solving the same problem in different ways," Rowe added. "That kind of evolutionary flexibility," Rowe added, "probably helped them dominate ecosystems for so long." Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
What was in the sky? Witnesses, experts speculate on strange sightings captured on camera
Missourians who had their eyes to the skies Tuesday night in hopes of catching the Perseid meteor shower, were surprised to see something much bigger than a shooting star. Witnesses all across the Show-Me State, and in Kansas and Illinois, took to social media to share what they captured, and to ask, 'What did I just see?' 'It looks like a portal trying to open up,' said Rex Howlett as he was recording from Waynesville, Missouri, Tuesday night. Despite most agreeing it was a man-made object traveling across our skies, there is ongoing debate over whether it was a satellite or rocket, and who it belongs to. Some speculated it was a satellite, a drone, a rocket, or something even stranger, like aliens or a UFO. Daniel Bush, a Missouri photography enthusiast, captured a timelapse of what he first called a 'fuel dump' as it traveled above Albany, Missouri. Bush tells Ozarks First on Wednesday there is ongoing debate among experts, so he can't be sure as to what happened or what it was. As speculation continues, some online are pointing to a Vulcan Rocket that was launched last night as part of it's first mission for the U.S. Space Force. The United Launch Alliance was touting the success of the launch from Cape Canaveral Tuesday night, describing it on Facebook as the 'First National Security Space Launch aboard Vulcan rocket delivers USSF-106 spacecraft directly to GEO.' However, the sightings were likely none of those theories, according to an astronomer interviewed by CBS News. In CBS News' coverage Wednesday, Derrick Pitts, chief astronomer at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, said the timing and trajectory of the Vulcan Rocket would not have lead to people in the Midwest witnessing its launch into space Tuesday night. Instead, he told CBS News that he believes the sightings were likely that of a different rocket launched by the European Space Agency around the same time. 'ArianeSpace, a company that works with the ESA, said it launched an Ariane 6 rocket from Kourou, French Guiana, around 9:37 p.m. local time,' CBS News reports. Pitts told CBS the rocket was carrying weather satellites into orbit, and it's flight path could have been close enough to the East Coast for people on the ground to see it clearly. While we wait for real confirmation, its a reminder that despite the thrill of theories conspiracies, sometimes the least exciting explanation is the correct one. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
