Japanese clone mouse from frozen cell, aim for mammoths

November 4, 2008

This handout picture, released by Japan natural science research center shows a cloned mouse (left) created with a new technology by using a frozen dead cell of a mouse

Japanese scientists said Tuesday they had created a mouse from a dead cell frozen for 16 years, taking a step in the long impossible dream of bringing back extinct animals such as mammoths.

---

Content from AFP expires 1 month after original publication date. For more information about AFP, please visit www.afp.com .

---

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

Hydrogen milestone moves energy independence one step forward

10 hours ago | 3.7 / 5 (6) | 1

UK starts study on using human DNA in animals

Nov 09, 2009 | 5 / 5 (2) | 0

FDA-approved drugs eliminate, prevent cervical cancer in mice

Nov 09, 2009 | not rated yet | 0

W. Africa's last giraffes make surprising comeback

Nov 08, 2009 | not rated yet | 0

From ecological Soviet-era ruin, a sea is reborn

Oct 25, 2009 | 4.4 / 5 (11) | 3

• Egnite - Nov 04, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  Jurassic Park here we come :-O
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• ShadowRam - Nov 04, 2008
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
  That is AWESOME!
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• GIR - Nov 04, 2008
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
  I want one! I'll name him Snuffleupagus and we'll be best friends until he goes crazy from living in a world he wasn't meant for and squishes me.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Quantum_Conundrum - Nov 04, 2008
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)

  Jurassic Park here we come :-O

  
  
  Indeed. Scientists should learn to leave well enough alone.
  
  Suppose they start tinkering around with DNA from extinct species from several hundreds or thousands of years ago, and accidentally revive some long extinct virus in the process...Viral DNA could be inside those nucleus.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Modernmystic - Nov 04, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  Where are the environmentalists decrying our "messing up" the "natural order"? Oh wait I forgot that only applies to SUVs and coal fired power plants.
  
  All sarcasm aside, I think it would be cool to see a Melaphant.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Lord_jag - Nov 04, 2008
  • Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
  It went extinct for a reason. Probably a really good one.
  
  What makes them think it has a chance of living in a world we polluted when it couldn't live in a world before?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Szkeptik - Nov 04, 2008
  • Rank: 3.3 / 5 (3)
  DNA can only be conserved without irreversible degradation for a maximum of about 50,000 years. So sorry still no Jurassic Park. Bringing back some lately extinct species like the Kiwi or the Thylacine does sound like a good idea though. Not sure about the Mammoth. Overbreeding elephants do enough damage to the vergetation in Africa. We probably don't need another behemoth for the tundra.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• jplur - Nov 04, 2008
  • Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
  Wait, Kiwis are extinct? Maybe you should wiki kiwi.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• fsmith - Nov 04, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  I think Szkeptik meant the moa.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• NeilFarbstein - Nov 04, 2008
  • Rank: 2.5 / 5 (2)
  it'll be like an artist rendition of a person instead of a real photograph. they'll fill in the details where nucleotides are missing and get something more or less resembling a woolly mammoth.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Nov 05, 2008
  • Rank: 2.5 / 5 (2)

  DNA can only be conserved without irreversible degradation for a maximum of about 50,000 years. So sorry still no Jurassic Park. Bringing back some lately extinct species like the Kiwi or the Thylacine does sound like a good idea though. Not sure about the Mammoth. Overbreeding elephants do enough damage to the vergetation in Africa. We probably don't need another behemoth for the tundra.

  
  
  Typically animals go extinct because the environment no longer suits them.
  
  To bring them back only serves to drive other species extinct.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Egnite - Nov 07, 2008
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (3)
  Yes animals go extinct for a reason, but who says that reason was natural or required? I mean how many species have been made extinct due to human hunting? I agree it could be dangerous and these species that get brought back, should be done cautiously and carefully. Ofc that won't happen when profit is involved..
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Nov 07, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)

  Yes animals go extinct for a reason, but who says that reason was natural or required? I mean how many species have been made extinct due to human hunting? I agree it could be dangerous and these species that get brought back, should be done cautiously and carefully. Ofc that won't happen when profit is involved..

  
  
  Well how many animals have gone extinct due to bear predation, or wolf predation.
  
  
  What makes us different from them? Rational? So we can rationalize our will to kill and eat?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Szkeptik - Nov 08, 2008
  • Rank: 2 / 5 (2)
  "Well how many animals have gone extinct due to bear predation, or wolf predation."
  
  I'd say probably none. Nature usually remains in a rapid equilibrium state if there's no outside manipulation. Predator and prey populations are in a feed-back mechanism.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Nov 09, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)

  "Well how many animals have gone extinct due to bear predation, or wolf predation."
  
  I'd say probably none. Nature usually remains in a rapid equilibrium state if there's no outside manipulation. Predator and prey populations are in a feed-back mechanism.

  
  
  That can't be true, otherwise we wouldn't have a term for "invasive species".
  
  Wolfs have driven coyotes to extinction in many places, bears have driven smaller predators into extinction. It's the way evolution works. The top predators displace or drive their competition to extinction.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Egnite - Nov 11, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  So would it be a bad thing to bring back species that were made extinct from hunting? I think not. Think of all the fine furs and whatnot we could get supplies to again, lol. Or better still, the delicacies wild animals would have access to again.
  
  Either way, my point is how could bringing back species we have hunted to extinction de-evolve us?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Nov 11, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)

  So would it be a bad thing to bring back species that were made extinct from hunting? I think not. Think of all the fine furs and whatnot we could get supplies to again, lol. Or better still, the delicacies wild animals would have access to again.
  
  Either way, my point is how could bringing back species we have hunted to extinction de-evolve us?

  I never said it would de-evolve us. Especially considering there is no such thing as de-evolution.
  
  Bringing back species that occupied a particular niche is a bad idea because now new species occupy that niche.
  
  If you're against humans driving animals to extinction via hunting, why would you be for humans driving animals to extinction via genetic manipulation?
  
  For a really good fictional reference, read Jurassic Park.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5