Fossilised Moa bones help scientists unravel the mystery of DNA decay

Oct 10, 2012
Mystery of DNA decay unravelled
Dr. Mike Bunce with a moa bone.

(Phys.org)—A new study is finally laying to rest the debate over whether DNA from the age of the dinosaurs could survive to the present day.

Scientists at Murdoch University led a study which shows the rate of DNA degradation and calculates that all bonds in a preserved at the ideal temperature of minus five degrees centigrade would be completely destroyed in bone after approximately 6.8 million years.

This figure is incompatible with the idea of finding intact DNA in an 80 million year old dinosaur remnant, as was famously alluded to in the film Jurassic Park, but is much older than the currently accepted record of 450,000 to 800,000-year-old DNA from Greenlandic ice cores.

Dr Mike Bunce and Dr Morten Allentoft from Murdoch University's lab came to their conclusions after studying 158 fossilised belonging to three species of the moa, an of birds that once roamed New Zealand.

"It has been agonisingly difficult to estimate the rate of DNA decay before now because finding a large set of DNA-containing fossils with which to make meaningful comparisons are exceedingly rare," said Dr Bunce.

"Environmental conditions like temperature, degree of microbial 'attack' and oxygenation, can affect the DNA decay process and make it hard to detect a basic rate of degradation.

"The moa bones however have allowed us to study the comparative DNA degradation because they come from different ages from a region where they have all experienced the same environmental conditions."

The fossil bone specimens were carbon dated as being between 600 and 8000 years old and looking at the varying degrees of DNA degradation in each specimen, the team were able to calculate a DNA half-life of 521 years. The half-life is the amount of time taken for an amount of DNA to reach 50 per cent of the starting amount.

The scientists found that the estimated decay rate in the specimens was almost 400 times slower than predicted from simulation experiments carried out in the lab.

Based on these calculations and other investigations, the team were able to make their predictions of DNA survival deeper into time.

"If the is accurate then we predict that DNA fragments of sufficient length will preserve in frozen of around one million years in age," added Dr Bunce.

The research team say that much more research into DNA degradation was required because their findings showed that the age of the fossils can account for only 38.6% of the variation in DNA preservation.

"Other factors that impact on DNA preservation include storage time following excavation, soil chemistry and even the time of year when the animal died," explained Dr Bunce.

"We hope to refine predictions of DNA survival by more accurately mapping how DNA fragments decay across the globe.

"Ultimately the models might enable better estimates of which fossils might work and prevent the destructive sampling of rare fossils which are thought unlikely to yield DNA."

The research is published in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B journal.

Explore further: Tricking plants to see the light may control the most important twitch on Earth

Related Stories

Elusive Z- DNA found on nucleosomes

Jan 20, 2012

New research published in BioMed Central's open access journal Cell & Bioscience is the first to show that left-handed Z-DNA, normally only found at sites where DNA is being copied, can also form on nucleosomes.

Cracked eggs reveal secret life

Jan 04, 2012

Australian researchers have found a breakthrough technique that uses eggshells from endangered and extinct birds as a molecular resource—revealing insights into the behaviour and evolutionary history ...

DNA falls apart when you pull it

May 20, 2011

DNA falls apart when you pull it with a tiny force: the two strands that constitute a DNA molecule disconnect. Peter Gross of VU University Amsterdam has shown this in his PhD research project. With this research, ...

Scientists 'rebuild' giant moa using ancient DNA

Jul 01, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists have performed the first DNA-based reconstruction of the giant extinct moa bird, using prehistoric feathers recovered from caves and rock shelters in New Zealand.

Toward more effective paleolgenetic analysis

Jan 17, 2007

DNA preserved in bones undergoing fossilization deteriorates up to 50 times faster when stored in a museum than when the bones are buried in the ground. This has just been shown by a paleogenetics team led by Eva-Maria Geigl ...

Recommended for you

Getting a jump on plant-fungal interactions

Jul 29, 2014

Fungal plant pathogens may need more flexible genomes in order to fully benefit from associating with their hosts. Transposable elements are commonly found with genes involved in symbioses.

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LariAnn
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2012
So while it may not be possible to do a "Jurassic Park" style resurrection of a dinosaur, it is still possible to retrieve DNA from, say, a "caveman" and attempt a reconstruction. In fact, a wide range of extinct species could, conceivably, be brought back, given the properly preserved samples of DNA and the right technology.
Telekinetic
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2012
So while it may not be possible to do a "Jurassic Park" style resurrection of a dinosaur, it is still possible to retrieve DNA from, say, a "caveman" and attempt a reconstruction. In fact, a wide range of extinct species could, conceivably, be brought back, given the properly preserved samples of DNA and the right technology.

You don't have to look any further than "Jersey Shore" to find your cavemen.
Sinister1811
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2012
Apparently, they found soft tissue preserved in a Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil back in 2005. This would, however, be quite a rare occurrence.

http://en.wikiped...t_tissue
http://news.natio...ues.html
Telekinetic
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2012
@Sinister:
Thanks for the link that describes the tussling of archaeologists over real bone tissue versus biofilm. It's like ballplayers arguing over a bad call. Even without viable tissue, it seems that we'll soon see an advance in bioengineering that will allow for the creation of any monster or beast your heart desires.
KalinForScience
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2012
@Sinister:
Thanks for the link that describes the tussling of archaeologists over real bone tissue versus biofilm. It's like ballplayers arguing over a bad call. Even without viable tissue, it seems that we'll soon see an advance in bioengineering that will allow for the creation of any monster or beast your heart desires.


archaelogists do not dig dinosaur bones... those specialists are called palaeontologists (duh)