How a Des Moines professor helped de-extinct the dire wolf
A professor of anatomy at Des Moines University contributed research to revive the extinct dire wolf — or something similar to a dire wolf, given that she is among scientists who question the animal's classification.
Why it matters: Julie Meachen's work uncovering ancient animal DNA may help save endangered species or even de-extinct others.
Driving the news: Texas company Colossal Biosciences announced this week that it had successfully edited genes of gray wolves with key features of dire wolves and implanted embryos in surrogate dog mothers.
Three healthy animals with dire wolf characteristics — long, thick white fur and bodies as much as 25% bigger than gray wolves — were born in October and are being kept at an undisclosed U.S. location.
Catch up quick: Meachen is the lead investigator of a team of scientists exploring Natural Trap Cave in Wyoming, where Ice Age animal remains are being studied.
She was among a team of scientists who authored a 2021 paper about the retrieval of DNA from fossils of dire wolves, which went extinct about 13,000 years ago.
Zoom in: Meachen was not involved in creating the wolf pups but provided DNA samples collected from animal remains in Idaho and Ohio to help fine-tune the de-extinction project.
The dire wolf project would have been possible without her input but would not have been as accurate, she tells Axios.
The intrigue: Meachen says she doesn't believe the pups unveiled this week are dire wolves but, instead, are genetically modified gray wolves.
"They are basically transgenic gray wolves with dire wolf DNA inside them," she said.
Yes, but: She said the technology is exciting and is already being used to boost genetic diversity in endangered species.
"Even though the scientist in me is skeptical about creating extinct animals, the kid in me wants to see what they look like," Meachen said.
What's next: Meachen will lead another project at Natural Trap Cave this summer.
Colossal is working on a project that could de-extinct the woolly mammoth.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
How many ice ages has the Earth had, and could humans live through one?
Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you'd like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@ How many ice ages has the Earth had, and could humans live through one? – Mason C., age 8, Hobbs, New Mexico First, what is an ice age? It's when the Earth has cold temperatures for a long time – millions to tens of millions of years – that lead to ice sheets and glaciers covering large areas of its surface. We know that the Earth has had at least five major ice ages. The first one happened about 2 billion years ago and lasted about 300 million years. The most recent one started about 2.6 million years ago, and in fact, we are still technically in it. So why isn't the Earth covered in ice right now? It's because we are in a period known as an 'interglacial.' In an ice age, temperatures will fluctuate between colder and warmer levels. Ice sheets and glaciers melt during warmer phases, which are called interglacials, and expand during colder phases, which are called glacials. Right now we are in the most recent ice age's warm interglacial period, which began about 11,000 years ago. When most people talk about the 'ice age,' they are usually referring to the last glacial period, which began about 115,000 years ago and ended about 11,000 years ago with the start of the current interglacial period. During that time, the planet was much cooler than it is now. At its peak, when ice sheets covered most of North America, the average global temperature was about 46 degrees Fahrenheit (8 degrees Celsius). That's 11 degrees F (6 degrees C) cooler than the global annual average today. That difference might not sound like a lot, but it resulted in most of North America and Eurasia being covered in ice sheets. Earth was also much drier, and sea level was much lower, since most of the Earth's water was trapped in the ice sheets. Steppes, or dry grassy plains, were common. So were savannas, or warmer grassy plains, and deserts. Many animals present during the ice age would be familiar to you, including brown bears, caribou and wolves. But there were also megafauna that went extinct at the end of the ice age, like mammoths, mastodons, saber-toothed cats and giant ground sloths. There are different ideas about why these animals went extinct. One is that humans hunted them into extinction when they came in contact with the megafauna. Yes, people just like us lived through the ice age. Since our species, Homo sapiens, emerged about 300,000 years ago in Africa, we have spread around the world. During the ice age, some populations remained in Africa and did not experience the full effects of the cold. Others moved into other parts of the world, including the cold, glacial environments of Europe. And they weren't alone. At the beginning of the ice age, there were other species of hominins – a group that includes our immediate ancestors and our closest relatives – throughout Eurasia, like the Neanderthals in Europe and the mysterious Denisovans in Asia. Both of these groups seem to have gone extinct before the end of the ice age. There are lots of ideas about how our species survived the ice age when our hominin cousins did not. Some think that it has to do with how adaptable we are, and how we used our social and communication skills and tools. And it appears that humans didn't hunker down during the ice age. Instead they moved into new areas. For a long time it was thought that humans did not enter North America until after the ice sheets started to melt. But fossilized footprints found at White Sands National Park in New Mexico show that humans have been in North America since at least 23,000 years ago – close to the peak of the last ice age. Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you'd like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@ Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live. And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you're wondering, too. We won't be able to answer every question, but we will do our best. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Denise Su, Arizona State University Read more: What will the Earth be like in 500 years? Small climate changes can have devastating local consequences – it happened in the Little Ice Age Last of the giants: What killed off Madagascar's megafauna a thousand years ago? Denise Su does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Beyond de-extinction and dire wolves, gene editing can help today's endangered species
Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of 'Game of Thrones' author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books. The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a 'de-extinction' company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species. While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a Ph.D. in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term 'endangered species.' The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation. What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes. The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother. While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesn't match in the two species represents over 12 million base pair differences. More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological or evolutionary context. Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the 'functional de-extinction' game. The company acknowledges it isn't making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the 'if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck' school of speciation. Disagreements about taxonomy – the science of naming and categorizing living organisms – are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of 'species,' and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature. Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity. To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid 'species' and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species. Colossal's functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their 'aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.' In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point. Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossal's definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just 'pick your favorite species and call up Colossal'? Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for today's endangered species. I suggest gene editing's real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost. For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity. The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt. In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, you'd need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a 'lost' population in the wild. Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed. This coyote population was Colossal's source for its cloned 'ghost' red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all. Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these 'ghost wolves' into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic 'purity' versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty. Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problem – especially habitat destruction. The ability to make 'functional' copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings' moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Alex Erwin, Florida International University Read more: If it looks like a dire wolf, is it a dire wolf? How to define a species is a scientific and philosophical question How redefining just one word could strip the Endangered Species Act's ability to protect vital habitat One green sea turtle can contain the equivalent of 10 ping pong balls in plastic Alex Erwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Forbes
4 days ago
- Forbes
The Science Of De-Extinction Is Providing Hope For Nature's Future
Younger audiences are becoming increasingly tired with the rhetoric on the horrors of climate change, with research showing that Gen-Z feel that their climate-related concerns are often dismissed by older generations. Enter: Colossal Biosciences, a Texas-based biotech and genetic engineering company working tirelessly to de-extinct several animals and bring hope to the future of nature. Co-founded by entrepreneur Ben Lamm and Harvard geneticist George Church, Colossal Biosciences is tapping into the cultural zeitgeist by not only making bold scientific promises, but by embracing a storytelling approach that resonates with Gen Z. High school students write in asking how they can get involved; college students express inspiration to pursue science because of Colossal Biosciences' work. Their excitement is less about nostalgia and more about agency—about changing the narrative of inevitable loss. 'If history teaches us anything, it's that we shouldn't argue with youth,' Colossal Biosciences CEO Lamm said. 'Progress often begins with what youth culture believes in,' Citing historical youth-led movements, Lamm believes the younger generation is rallying around biotech and conservation innovation. Not only does the company have the backing of Gen-Z, but it has also garnered support from Hollywood's greatest. Peter Jackson, Tom Brady, Tiger Woods, Sophie Turner and George R.R. Martin have all endorsed or invested in Colossal Biosciences. The company is focused on creating a de-extinction toolkit that can act as a fail-safe if the government, conservationists, environmentalists and citizens fail to do what is necessary to protect animal species. By 2050, nearly half of all animal species could be threatened with extinction, which could pose significant impact on the global economy. Colossal Biosciences' mission is to stop or even reverse extinction and, to date, they have announced ambitious projects related to the woolly mammoth, thylacine, dodo and dire wolf. The species selection is driven by an elaborate plan to assist conservationists, environmentalists, governments and organizations all over the world to biobank genetic materials, create resilience in faltering species lines and, if absolutely necessary, recover full species from extinction. 'It goes back to the apathy point in your research that is making everyone feel so hopeless. We need to all be advocating for genetic rescue science to be used and for lots of advancements to be made in order to save species. But, do you know how hard it is to get people to care about progress or the need for progress in genetic science?' Lamm noted. 'Almost impossible. Do you know how easy it is to get people talking about bringing back their favorite ancient pachyderm? Substantially easier,' Lamm explained that he doesn't believe the company's mission can succeed without public support and an interest in and understanding of the new technologies his company is inventing. In early 2025, the company made a breakthrough with the colossal woolly mouse, sharing parts of the woolly mammoth's DNA and proving the scientists' ability to recreate complex genetic combinations that took nature millions of years to create. 'We need to get people excited about saving the planet, so that we have a shot at being able to actually save it. Part of the reason we are working to bring back the woolly mammoth is so that we could get the public to pay attention to genetic science; it's one part: holy s—t how amazing. And one part: you're doing what now?' Lamm explained. 'That combination has allowed us to talk to a lot of people about what we are working on, why it's important for conservation and how they can get involved,' 'It is going to be their planet to care for,' he added. 'We see it as our job to make sure there is something left for them to take care of.'
