Have scientists sequenced dinosaur DNA yet?

  Improve

One view

Dr Scott Woodward and colleagues from the Brigham Young University won the race to provide the first Dinosaur DNA sequence in 1994. The details of this discovery were published ine journal Science 266 (5188): 1229-1232. Title: Woodward, S.R., N.J. Weyabd and M. Bunnell. "DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments."

According to a New York Times article (November 16 1994, sourced online under the title:''A Scientist Says He Has Isolated Dinosaur DNA'') Dr Woodward's research produced ''9 readable sequences from a strand of DNA for a particular gene." This would indicate there remains more work to be done.

Other scientists have questioned the validity of these findings, given that they are considered to be about 30% different from birds, reptiles and even mammals.

Evaluating Woodward's Sequence

Ultimately the only way to validate or invalidate these findings would be for other scientists to publish their own sequences for comparison. It is possibly surprising, even given the assumptions of great age for this not to have occurred, since Schweitzer has published a protein sequence, and her findings indicate fresh red blood cells and other seemingly ''fresh'' tissue.

Creation scientists believe that DNA could not survive the suggested time period and so this points to them being significantly younger.

Discussion Papers
What has so far been unreported in this answer is the discussion papers on the original article. One of their primary criticisms is that the results of Woodward et al's work has not as yet been reproduced by other scientists. Reproducibility is very important. It demonstrates that the original result was not due to a mistake. See Austin et al. (1997) Problems of reproducibility--does geologically ancient DNA survive in amber-preserved insects? Proc Biol Sci, 264 No. 1381, pp 467-474. For more information.

Also in a technical note to Science by Zischler et al. regarding the original paper by Woodward et al., they highlight the fact that the DNA sequence produced by Woodward et al. most closely matches that of mammalian not reptilian life. This is a very strong indicator of the fact that the original sample that Woodward et al tested was contaminated by human DNA and as such very great care must be taken from drawing conclusions from the results. It certainly isn't evidence to suggest that the age of the Earth is "young".

Zischler, H., Hoss, M., Handt, O. (1995). Detecting dinosaur DNA. Science. 268, pp. 1192-1193.
 

Another view

While individual dinosaur specimen DNA may have been sequenced, an entire genome cannot be done because there is nowhere near enough DNA remains; invariably all DNA in the remains found so far has long since been decomposed, removed or contaminated.

One scientist, Dr. Scott Woodward, and his team at Brigham Young University in 1994 found 80 million year old fossilised bone fragments which may be dinosaur remains. After "hundreds of unsuccessful attempts" they managed to derive several DNA sequences from samples of the remains. The university and Science journal reported them as the first to sequence dinosaur DNA.
However, other scientists have pointed out there is no confirmation they are dinosaur remains (owing to the fragments' size) nor that they remained free of later biological contamination (which would mean the DNA didn't belong to a dinosaur).

In short, Woodward may have sequenced dinosaur DNA in which case the answer is yes; however, he may have simply sequenced other biological entities or contaminated matter, in which case the answer is no. Because of the nature of the remains and the lack of any comparable samples, his work is inconclusive.

Further detail:
There are a number of discussion papers on the original article and also papers dealing with similar issues, including those summarised by Austin et al., and Zischler et al. One of their primary criticisms is that the results of Woodward et al's work has not as yet been reproduced by other scientists. Reproducibility is very important. It demonstrates that the original result was not due to a mistake, however Woodward et al have apparently not been able to provide this and so other researchers have not been able to confirm their findings. See Austin et al. for more information on the difficulties of sequencing ancient DNA and Zischler et al. for some of the specific problems with Woodward's paper.

Also in the technical note to Science by Zischler et al. regarding the original paper by Woodward et al., they highlight the fact that the DNA sequence produced by Woodward et al. most closely matches that of mammalian not reptilian life. This is a very strong indicator of the fact that the original sample that Woodward et al tested was contaminated by human DNA and as such very great care must be taken from drawing conclusions from the results. It certainly isn't evidence to suggest that the age of the Earth is "young".

Austin et al. (1997) Problems of reproducibility--does geologically ancient DNA survive in amber-preserved insects? Proc Biol Sci, 264 No. 1381, pp 467-474.
Zischler, H., Hoss, M., Handt, O. (1995). Detecting dinosaur DNA. Science. 268, pp. 1192-1193.

Note: There are comments associated with this question. See the discussion page to add to the conversation.

This answer is closed to changes. This is done in rare cases when questions are being vandalized or answers have become debates. E-mail reopen @ answers.com (no spaces) if you would like it to be reopened.

First answer by PeteNco. Last edit by SBDW1. Contributor trust: 199 [recommend contributorrecommended]. Question popularity: 1 [recommend question].