Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wild flower blooms again after 30,000 years on ice (2012)

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 60 posts

Re: Wild flower blooms again after 30,000 years on ice (2012)

#11

Post by quadrangle »

grondilu wrote: post #9

When talking about megafauna resurrection, it is often said that it's not possible because DNA degrades too much after a few thousand years. Yet apparently the DNA of this plant was still viable. What am I missing?

I think DNA breakdown makes it much less likely to find viable DNA, but not that it's impossible to find. I'm no expert though.

Re: Wild flower blooms again after 30,000 years on ice (2012)

#12

Post by danielmorozoff »

jdavis703 wrote: post #10
grondilu wrote: post #9

When talking about megafauna resurrection, it is often said that it's not possible because DNA degrades too much after a few thousand years. Yet apparently the DNA of this plant was still viable. What am I missing?

Perhaps plant DNA is hardier against time, bacteria, freeze/thaw cycles, etc than animal DNA? I'm not a biologist, so I'd also love to know.

The tundra is primarily always frozen. As you point out freeze/thaw cycles are terrible for biochemical stability, but at the tundra below the surface (where earth acts as an heat insulator) I believe this effect is minimized

DNA has some remarkable stability properties when it comes to preservation. This is one of the reasons people are so interested in DNA storage technologies.

DNA chemistry allows for information to be preserved for millenia at sub-zero centigrade temperatures.

Robert N. Grass, Reinhard Heckel, Michela Puddu, Daniela Paunescu, Wendelin J. Stark. Robust Chemical Preservation of Digital Information on DNA in Silica with Error-Correcting Codes. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2015; DOI: 10.1002/anie.201411378

Re: Wild flower blooms again after 30,000 years on ice (2012)

#14

Post by whyenot »

grondilu wrote: post #9

When talking about megafauna resurrection, it is often said that it's not possible because DNA degrades too much after a few thousand years. Yet apparently the DNA of this plant was still viable. What am I missing?

A seed is a living organism essentially in suspended animation. Cells in the embryo have intact plasma membranes, DNA repair mechanisms are present (although working very slowly), each cell is surrounded by a cell wall, and the entire seed has an outer protective seed coat.

When people talk about DNA degrading, they are usually referring to DNA that is no longer inside living cells, and that doesn't have these multiple levels of protection.

Re: Wild flower blooms again after 30,000 years on ice (2012)

#16

Post by whyenot »

marcusgarvey wrote: post #8

Nice to read about a new breakthrough in botany. The field doesn't get much attention at all. Maybe now it will benefit from the popularity of Martian, the movie.

As is true in many areas of organismal biology, botany is a field in decline. There are not a lot of jobs anymore, and in academia, not a lot of grant money. In spite of this, every year universities continue to pump out more and more graduates trained for careers that no longer exist. Some of the best botanists these days are citizen scientists who have day jobs at the Cheesecake Factory or driving limos in Las Vegas.

Re: Wild flower blooms again after 30,000 years on ice (2012)

#17

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

spacecop wrote: post #15
dgudkov wrote: post #13

Can it be considered a one more proof supporting the Panspermia [1] hypothesis? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

What does the resurrection of a flower have to do with the origin of life?

Nothing. But, Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its distribution in the Universe. - from the Panspermia Wikipedia article

Re: Wild flower blooms again after 30,000 years on ice (2012)

#18

Post by 88e282102ae2e5b »

grondilu wrote: post #9

When talking about megafauna resurrection, it is often said that it's not possible because DNA degrades too much after a few thousand years. Yet apparently the DNA of this plant was still viable. What am I missing?

DNA that's hundreds of thousands of years old has been recovered [1]. Sorry for the non academic link but the number I've always been told was just under a million years, this seems reasonable at first blush.

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49366487/ns/technology_and_science...

Re: Wild flower blooms again after 30,000 years on ice (2012)

#19

Post by spacecop »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #17
spacecop wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the resurrection of a flower have to do with the origin of life?

Nothing. But, Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its distribution in the Universe. - from the Panspermia Wikipedia article

I'm sorry, I still don't understand the connection. Aliens buried the flowers under the tundra in the ice age? Why bring it up?

Re: Wild flower blooms again after 30,000 years on ice (2012)

#20

Post by wpears »

spacecop wrote: post #19
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. But, Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its distribution in the Universe. - from the Panspermia Wikipedia article

I'm sorry, I still don't understand the connection. Aliens buried the flowers under the tundra in the ice age? Why bring it up?

If the DNA in a seed is still in good enough shape to support blooming after being frozen 30,000 years, perhaps a seed frozen in a meteorite [1] could also survive long enough to be spread between solar systems.

[1] maybe after glancing off a planet or created by the collision of two large objects

Post reply on HN