How related are dire wolves and gray wolves? The answer might surprise you.
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
In a controversial announcement earlier this month, scientists with the company Colossal Biosciences claimed they have brought back dire wolves from extinction using genetic engineering.
Dire wolves (Aenocyon dirus) lived in North America during the last ice age and died out around 12,500 years ago, but fossils have preserved enough of these predators' DNA for researchers to partly reconstruct their genome.
The announcement drew criticism from paleogeneticists and other experts, who argued that the newly created animals — three snow-white pups named Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi — are only like dire wolves in appearance and so are not true dire wolves. To "resurrect" the dire wolf, Colossal scientists made 20 tweaks to 14 genes in a modern-day gray wolf (Canis lupus) genome, modifying characteristics like body size and hair color.
"Colossal has said that the gray wolf and dire wolf genomes are 99.5% identical, but that is still 12,235,000 individual differences," Nic Lawrence, a paleogeneticist and associate professor at the University of Otago in New Zealand, told Vox. 'So a gray wolf with 20 edits to 14 genes, even if these are key differences, is still very much a gray wolf.'
In addition to the tiny number of DNA changes, experts pointed out that dire wolves and gray wolves aren't closely related in evolutionary terms. While the two species share many physical traits and the wolf-pack social structure, a seminal study published in 2021 in the journal Nature indicated that dire wolves aren't technically wolves.
Related: Reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone helped entire ecosystem thrive, 20-year study finds
According to the study, dire wolves branched off from modern wolf-like canids — a group that includes gray wolves, coyotes (Canis latrans), dholes (Cuon alpinus), African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) and African jackals — roughly 5.7 million years ago.
So just how closely related are dire wolves and grey wolves — and what does the best available evidence tell us about the evolutionary relationship between these species?
The latest peer-reviewed research suggests that dire wolves and gray wolves are only distantly related, Mairin Balisi, a paleontologist and curator at the Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology in California, told Live Science in an email.
In the 2021 study, scientists found that dire wolves and gray wolves share a last common ancestor 5.7 million years ago during a period known as the late Miocene, said Balisi, who studies the evolution of mammalian carnivores but did not contribute to the 2021 study.
The analysis, which was based on DNA extracted from five dire wolf fossils, "showed that dire wolves diverged from the ancestor of not just gray wolves, of not just the group comprising [gray wolves and their closest relatives], but of all wolf-like canids including African jackals," Balisi said. "This distant relationship justifies the genus name Aenocyon for dire wolves differing from the genus name Canis for most other wolf-like canids."
The 2021 study revealed what was a decidedly blurry picture of canid evolution. "Previously scientists had interpreted dire and gray wolves to be sister species, or at least cousins through another extinct large wolf, Canis armbrusteri, because of strong similarity in their bones and teeth," Balisi said. C. armbrusteri lived in North America during the last ice age and was likely an ancestor of dire wolves, according to the study.
Previous research also placed the split between dire wolves and gray wolves much later than the 2021 study, with dates ranging between 2 million years ago and 2.5 million years ago, Balisi said.
The 2021 study clarified some aspects of canid evolution, but many questions remain unanswered. For example, it's still unclear which wolf-like canids are most closely related to dire wolves, Balisi said.
It's entirely possible that dire wolves are more closely related to African jackals than gray wolves, she said, despite their physical appearance being closer to gray wolves, adding that "future analyses on more and/or higher-quality genomic data may shed more light on the fine-scale relationships among these canids."
African jackals are divided into two species — the black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas), native to eastern and southern Africa, and the side-striped jackal (Canis adustus), native to sub-Saharan and southern Africa. The 2021 study found that African jackals diverged from other wolf-like canids around 5.1 million years ago, forming their own branch on the evolutionary tree approximately 600,000 years after dire wolves formed theirs.
Fossils show that dire wolves were larger than modern-day gray wolves and had more robust jaws and teeth, which enabled them to take down larger prey. Current studies of canid evolution rely on these fossils to determine the relationships between species, but the record may have erased crucial information, Balisi said. "It is possible that other traits that don't fossilize as readily also set apart dire wolves from gray wolves today," she said.
There is also a question mark over whether dire wolves and gray wolves ever interbred. While it is possible that they did, the 2021 study found no evidence for gene flow between the two species, or between dire wolves and coyotes, Balisi said.
"Wolf-like canids do hybridize today — e.g., gray wolves and coyotes — so interbreeding between dire and gray wolves may have happened and just has yet to be detected," Balisi said. But gray wolves and coyotes are much more closely related to each other than gray wolves and dire wolves, so it may be that the latter two have evolved bigger reproductive differences, she said.
Following Colossal's announcement, the company uploaded a paper to the preprint database bioRxiv with new (but not yet peer-reviewed) findings about the dire wolf's evolutionary history.
RELATED STORIES
—Wolves in Ethiopia spotted licking 'red hot poker' flowers like lollipops
—Dogs may have domesticated themselves because they really liked snacks, model suggests
—Yellowstone's 'queen of the wolves' killed by rival pack after living to 11 years old and having 10 litters of pups
The results, based on two fossils dating to 13,000 and 72,000 years ago, suggest that dire wolves descended from a lineage that was itself born from interbreeding between two lineages: a sister lineage to the one that produced modern-day South American canids (Cerdocyonina) and a sister lineage to the one that produced the African wild dog.
The research may shed light on how dire wolves evolved as a species, but it does not claim to rewrite the findings of the 2021 study. Overall, the new clues "may be a valid update to the literature," so long as they hold up to peer review, Balisi said.
Regardless of whether peer review deems the study robust, the currently available evidence tells us that dire wolves and gray wolves are not closely related, which means that Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi are not dire wolves.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Rare cancer diagnoses surge dramatically among millennials and Gen X
A rare type of cancer is growing among millennials and members of Generation X, new research shows. Diagnoses of appendix cancer have tripled in the U.S. for people born between 1976 and 1984 — and it has quadrupled for those born between 1981 and 1989. The study was published on Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program to arrive at these findings. "When you take these alarming rates that we are seeing for appendiceal cancer across generations, together with the fact that one in every three patients diagnosed with appendiceal cancer is diagnosed under the age of 50, these point to a timely need for everyone to be aware of the signs and symptoms of appendix cancer," said lead author Andreana Holowatyj, PhD, assistant professor of Medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, in a press release from the university. Cancer of the appendix is rare, affecting only about one or two people per million each year in the U.S., according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Even so, doctors emphasize the importance of seeking medical attention if symptoms emerge. "Ruling out the possibility of an appendix cancer diagnosis, or diagnosing it early, is important for this cancer as we continue to learn what factors may be contributing to this worrisome trend," Holowatyj said. Appendiceal cancer forms in the appendix, which is a small organ located in the lower right abdomen. There are two main types: epithelial appendiceal cancer, which involves the cells of the lining of the appendix, and neuroendocrine appendiceal cancer, which results from the growth of neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumors of the appendix, the NCI states. In early stages of the disease, most people do not notice symptoms. As the cancer progresses, common symptoms include pain, a bloated feeling, a mass in the abdomen, nausea and vomiting, and sudden feelings of fullness while eating, according to the above source. Five-year survival rates for appendix cancer range from 10% to 63%. Common treatments for this type of cancer include surgery to remove the appendix and any other affected organs, as well as chemotherapy to kill any metastasized cancer cells. Based on the study findings, the researchers are calling for increased awareness among both the public and the medical community. "As incidence rates in younger generations are often indicative of future disease burden, these results support the need for histology-specific investigations of appendiceal adenocarcinoma, as well as increased education and awareness of appendiceal adenocarcinomas among healthcare providers and the public," the study stated. There are no standard screening guidelines or risk factors for appendix cancer, which means up to half of diagnoses occur after the disease has already spread, according to the researchers. Five-year survival rates for appendix cancer range from 10% to 63%. For more Health articles, visit The new study received funding from the Appendix Cancer Pseudomyxoma Peritonei (ACPMP) Research Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
WebMD
an hour ago
- WebMD
Sunscreen Fears Are Spreading — Here's the Truth
June 10, 2025 — Just as summer begins and people are stocking up on sunscreen, a new report is raising questions about the safety and effectiveness of many brands. But the truth behind those attention - grabbing headlines is more complicated. The research, conducted by a nonprofit advocacy group that verifies sunscreens with its own seal, looked at more than 2,200 sunscreens and found that just 498 met its high bar for safety and effectiveness. While the group, called the Environmental Working Group (EWG), raises valid concerns about certain chemical ingredients, which some studies link to health risks in mice, experts caution that the report leaves out key research findings. 'They used a fraction of the literature out there to determine safety,' said Adam Friedman, MD a dermatologist at The George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences in Washington, D.C. Two JAMA studies cited by the report, for instance, found that various UV filters — the chemicals in sunscreens that absorb or block sunlight — could be detected in people's blood after repeated application, but neither study showed effects on the body, Friedman said. 'The reality is, whether it be human safety or even environmental safety, there are tons of studies showing the safety of the very few organic and mineral filters that we have,' said Friedman. 'Also there's tons of longitudinal data showing that the sunscreens we have, the ingredients we have, can protect against accelerated skin aging and skin cancer.' In the U.S., 1 in 5 people will develop skin cancer by age 70, and 20 people per day die of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. David Andrews, PhD, the EWG's acting chief science officer, said the sunscreen ratings were based on a 'comprehensive review of the most current, peer-reviewed' science plus data from federal agencies like the FDA and health and safety organizations from around the world. 'We assess ingredients for both health hazards — such as hormone disruption, developmental toxicity, and allergic reactions — and for their efficacy in protecting against UVA and UVB radiation,' said Andrews, noting that the group's standards 'go beyond what is required by [the] FDA.' 'Not all sunscreens are created equal, and it's about making informed choices,' Andrews said. 'We share a common goal with dermatologists: reducing skin cancer risk.' The real takeaway: It's a good opportunity to understand how sunscreens work and how to choose the right one for you. First, What Is SPF? SPF, or sun protection factor, is the level of protection from UVB rays that a product provides. The sun releases a full spectrum of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, a form of energy that's part of the electromagnetic spectrum. UVB is a type of UV radiation, and so is UVA. UVB rays are shorter and have a greater effect on sunburn. They can also damage the skin's DNA, leading to skin cancer. SPF 15 provides over 94% protection, allowing about 6% of UVB rays to reach your skin. SPF 30 provides 97% protection, SPF 50 provides 98% protection, and SPF 100 provides 99% protection. The SPF number indicates protection compared to no sunscreen. For instance, it will take 30 times longer for your skin to burn if you wear the recommended amount of SPF 30, versus wearing no sunscreen. What About UVA? UVA rays are longer and penetrate deeper into the skin, causing skin aging. They also contribute to sunburn, skin cancers, and rashes, said Zakia Rahman, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at Stanford. Broad-spectrum sunscreens protect you against both UVB and — to an extent — UVA rays. However, 'they're not great at UVA,' Friedman said. 'They're sufficient from an FDA perspective, but they're not great. We have very few UVA filters.' What's the Difference Between Mineral and Chemical Sunscreens? 'They work in different ways, but they still achieve the same effect,' said Syril Keena Que, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis. Chemical sunscreens contain organic (carbon-containing) UV filters called oxybenzone or avobenzone, which absorb UV radiation, converting it into heat, said Que. Mineral (also known as physical) sunscreens contain UV filters like titanium dioxide or zinc oxide — metal particles that block, reflect, and scatter UV rays. Mineral sunscreens tend to cause fewer allergic reactions and may be better for people with sensitive skin, Que said, such as babies and young children and those with skin conditions like eczema or psoriasis. Hybrid sunscreens use both kinds of filters. When chemical filters absorb UV radiation, their electrons become excited. As they return to normal, they release that energy as heat. But over time, 'they get stuck in that higher level of excitement,' Friedman said, and stop protecting your skin. Combining them with mineral filters takes some of the load off them, Friedman said. 'Minerals can do it all day. They're not going to burn out." Are Sunscreen Ingredients Safe? Several sunscreen ingredients — including oxybenzone and avobenzone — lack enough safety data to be generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) by the FDA. Some studies in mice have linked those ingredients to cancer and hormone disruption. That has influenced the EWG's methodology and the results of their latest sunscreen report. 'Our top recommended sunscreens are primarily mineral sunscreens using zinc oxide or titanium dioxide,' said Andrews, of the EWG. In 2019, the FDA determined that these two mineral blockers are the only sunscreen active ingredients that are GRASE. But the GRASE category 'is almost to the detriment' of consumers, Rahman said, 'because a lot of chemical sunscreens work really well.' While endocrine disruption, specifically caused by microplastics, is a "legitimate" concern, "we have to balance that with skin cancer risks." While it's true chemical filters lack enough research to confirm they're safe, there's not enough data to say they're dangerous, either. Friedman pointed to a 2025 study that found six common chemical UV filters, including avobenzone, do not cause cancer. So Why Not Just Use Mineral Sunscreens? While chemical sunscreens are made so your skin absorbs them, mineral sunscreens sit on top of your skin. Both zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are 'very white, so that limits who can use the products,' Rahman said. They can leave a visible white or gray layer, making them less appealing for people of color. Some brands add tinting agents like iron oxide or pigment particles, providing protection against visible light (known to stimulate melanin production), Rahman said. That makes them potentially a good option for those who are prone to pigmentation and dark spots. But even tinted mineral sunscreens can still leave a cast on the skin. "Being a person of color myself and having a lot of patients with pigmentary disorders, it's important for me to talk about the different wavelengths of light and how people can protect themselves," Rahman said. Europe and Asia offer a wider variety of sunscreens for different skin tones, Rahman said, but because European and Asian sunscreens are regulated under a different system (one that classifies them as cosmetics, not drugs), they aren't subject to the same rigorous testing required in the U.S., where sunscreens are regulated by the FDA as over-the-counter drugs. In 2006, the FDA granted approval to products containing Mexoryl SX, an organic compound that protects against UVA and was already being used abroad. But many dermatologists say that consumers need more options. 'We're really advocating for the FDA to approve more products so we have new things available that cover UVA and provide a more broad-spectrum sunscreen in the U.S.," Rahman said. How Is SPF measured? SPF is measured in a lab with human participants, who are doused with the recommended sunscreen amount: 2 milligrams per square centimeter of skin, or about a teaspoon for the face and an ounce (about equal to a shot glass) for the body. They're exposed to UVB light, with and without sunscreen. SPF is determined by how long it takes for the skin to turn red. 'They look at what's called the minimal erythema dose, which tells you how your skin responds and if it's sunburned,' Rahman said. Broad spectrum sunscreens also undergo lab testing using a skin-like substance instead of real skin to determine protection from UVA rays. A spectrophotometer machine helps identify different wavelengths of light and which ones are blocked, Rahman said. Does Lab Testing Reflect How People Really Use SPF? Not really. Most people use between 20% and 50% of the recommended amount. 'When you're using an SPF 50, for example, it may be only equivalent to an SPF 15 or 25, based on how much you're applying,' Que said. Is SPF 100 worth using? 'It does have a benefit only because people are under-applying,' Que said. 'My daily sunscreen probably has SPF 30 or 40, but if I'm going to the beach or getting a lot of sun exposure, then I do like trying to find a higher SPF sunscreen because it does offer a little bit more protection.' To get that protection, you'd also need to reapply at least every two hours if you're sweating or exposed to water, Que said. Wiping away sweat also removes sunscreen from the skin. Water-resistant sunscreens create a hydrophobic film on the skin that repels water, but they still provide only 40 to 80 minutes of water resistance. 'It doesn't mean that the whole time you're swimming, the sunscreen is going to stay on,' Que said. 'Eventually it does wash off too.' The FDA outlawed use of the terms 'sunblock,' 'waterproof,' and 'sweatproof' in 2011 because they may give people a false sense of protection from harmful rays. What's the Bottom Line? Choose products that are SPF 30 or higher, broad spectrum, and water resistant for 80 minutes, Friedman said. Patch-testing samples of different sunscreens can be helpful for finding one that you like. 'The best sunscreen is the one that you're going to use repeatedly,' Friedman said. Que emphasized the importance of daily sunscreen use — at least SPF 30 — on the face, neck, and any exposed areas, such as arms and hands. 'Oftentimes, it's that cumulative sun damage over many years that results in skin cancer,' she said. Use sunscreen sprays in well-ventilated areas to avoid breathing in harmful chemicals, Que said. Spray products may contain benzenes, which are carcinogens. Because benzene isn't added to sunscreen intentionally but can result from the manufacturing process, it's not listed on the label. "There's no way for consumers to identify which sprays might contain trace benzene," Que said. "That's why using sprays in well-ventilated areas and avoiding inhalation is wise." Choosing lotion-based sunscreens can reduce that risk, she said. And don't forget other sun-protective behaviors like seeking shade and wearing broad-brimmed hats, UV protection factor (UPF) clothing, and sunglasses. And try to avoid sun exposure during the middle of the day, when the UV index tends to be highest. Heading outside later in the day offers additional health benefits. 'I am a big proponent of sunset walks,' Rahman said. 'The red light and near-infrared light of the setting sun is great for our mitochondria,' helping our cells to stay healthy.
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
BioAegis Therapeutics Announces US Navy Contract to Support Phase 2 Study of Recombinant Human Gelsolin, for Inflammasome-Driven Decompression Sickness (DCS)
NORTH BRUNSWICK, N.J., June 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- BioAegis Therapeutics, a pioneering biotech company at the forefront of innovative therapies for acute and chronic inflammatory diseases, announces that it will conduct a Phase 2 study of rhu-pGSN for decompression sickness (DCS) under a contract awarded by the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research to the University of Maryland School of Medicine (UMSOM). This work is the culmination of an extended collaboration with Dr. Stephen Thom, Professor of Emergency Medicine at UMSOM. The Company's portfolio is built around gelsolin, a highly conserved and critical immune regulatory protein which rebalances dysfunctional inflammation without suppressing immune function. Phase 2 Clinical Trial of Rhu-pGSN The study, 'Rhu-pGSN to Mitigate Proinflammatory Responses to Decompression in Healthy SCUBA Divers,' NCT06216366 is being conducted under a contract with the Office of Naval Research with the University of Maryland. It will investigate the use of rhu-pGSN as a pre- or post-exposure intervention in healthy trained SCUBA divers exposed to controlled hyperbaric conditions. The study is designed to assess the impact of rhu-pGSN on key inflammatory responses and microparticle production associated with decompression. Decompression sickness occurs when inert gas bubbles form in the bloodstream and tissues due to rapid pressure changes, triggering an inflammatory cascade. Previous studies have shown that individuals with DCS exhibit depleted levels of plasma gelsolin and elevated levels of microparticles that contain inflammatory cytokines. In animal models, supplementation with rhu-pGSN both prevented and mitigated DCS-related complications. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study will enroll healthy trained SCUBA divers at a single site and expose them to a standardized hyperbaric protocol (30 meters of seawater for 35 minutes). Participants will be randomized into three groups to receive either pre-exposure or post-exposure rhu-pGSN, or placebo. The study will assess a broad range of outcomes including plasma gelsolin levels, inflammatory markers like IL-1β, gas bubble formation, and well-being metrics. Dr. Thom states, 'If successful, this study could transform the way we manage decompression sickness by providing a portable, field-deployable treatment option. Reducing our reliance on hyperbaric chambers would greatly expand our ability to treat DCS in remote or operational environments, improving outcomes and readiness, a key goal for the Navy.' BioAegis and University of Maryland are co-applicants on a patent filing listing Dr. Thom as an inventor. Gelsolin: A Multitasking Protein for Complex Inflammatory Conditions Rhu-pGSN holds immense promise as a therapeutic intervention for serious acute and chronic conditions due to its multifaceted mechanism of action. In critical illness, gelsolin levels collapse, causing adverse outcomes. Supplementing gelsolin addresses this deficit directly, restoring immune balance while preserving host defense and rhu-pGSN has been shown in animal studies to: Supplementation with the recombinant gelsolin protein holds promise to address the overzealous inflammatory response associated many inflammatory diseases without suppressing immune function. About BioAegis BioAegis Therapeutics Inc. is a NJ-based clinical-stage private company whose mission is to capitalize on a key regulatory component of the body's immune system, plasma gelsolin, to prevent adverse outcomes in diseases driven by inflammation. BioAegis has the exclusive license to broad, worldwide intellectual property through Harvard-Brigham and Women's Hospital. It holds over 40 patents issued for coverage of inflammatory disease, infection, renal failure, neurologic disease, and frailty. BioAegis will also have U.S. biologics exclusivity and has recently filed new IP in areas of unmet need. BioAegis' lead product, rhu-pGSN, is currently being studied in a 600-patient global Phase 2 trial for patients with moderate to severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). This project has been supported in whole or in part with federal funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response; Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), under contract number 75A50123C00067. NCT05947955 Investor Inquiries: Steven Cordovano 203-952-6373 [email protected] Media Inquiries: Christine Lagana [email protected]
