tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1222590081823739642.post29082888381170041..comments2024-03-28T07:28:58.459-07:00Comments on The Breeding-back Blog: Extinct megafauna that could be revived using genome editingDaniel Foidlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02924677790606716751noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1222590081823739642.post-36061119722873228962024-02-25T04:57:54.917-08:002024-02-25T04:57:54.917-08:00We also have mummified woolly rhino specimens thou...We also have mummified woolly rhino specimens though, why did they not make the list, if I may ask? Also, possibly pushing it, but what about ground sloths and the hair samples we have from them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1222590081823739642.post-88119500296714935872023-02-12T07:41:29.928-08:002023-02-12T07:41:29.928-08:00Can we use a combination of CRISPR and back breedi...Can we use a combination of CRISPR and back breeding to bring back camelops and stag-moose?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1222590081823739642.post-19550562653812993172023-01-31T08:24:21.458-08:002023-01-31T08:24:21.458-08:00Actually, you should not really need multiple geno...Actually, you should not really need multiple genomes when de-extincting species via genome editing. Once you have one genome, you 'just' need to identify all heterozygous mutations that would be pathogenic if homozygous and then not introduce those. There is nothing intrinsically good about variation (aside of certain immune traits or maybe size differences that decrease competition within the population) and inbred lines exist for different species like mice or guppys. Of course, an inbreed population is slightly slower to adapt to difference in conditions (as mentioned above). However, the de-facto main reason why you do not want inbreeding is because it increases the chance of getting rare loss of function mutations on both haplotypes and if you eliminate those I do not see a reason to start a population with (male and female) clones.Lemairenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1222590081823739642.post-74330791199776742572023-01-20T02:11:38.389-08:002023-01-20T02:11:38.389-08:00Worth noting that 2-3 Equus caballus lambei genome...Worth noting that 2-3 Equus caballus lambei genomes already exist. I would argue that in the case of the Bubal hartebeest, it would be more expedient and equally effective to rewild other subspecies in the North African range. Rewilding of other Capra pyrenaica subspecies in the French Pyrenees has already begun. The current mammoth projects plan to use artificial womb technology, which is rapidly progressing, in order to dispense with using elephant surrogates at all. I also think that rewilding barasingha, California sea lion, and Hawaiian monk seal in the ranges of their sister species would be a better use of resources than de-extinction. The utility of cave lion and steppe/European bison DNA would probably be more in augmenting existing genomes than in synthesizing new ones, as with mammoths and horses.RhysLemoinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07185462416597856043noreply@blogger.com