ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Fact Check: Does That New Mammoth Carcass Really Preserve Flowing Blood and Possibly Live Cells?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Artist's reconstruction of woolly mammoths in northern Spain during the late Pleistocene. Image: Mauricio Anton, via Wikimedia CommonsYesterday brought a flurry of news stories trumpeting a mind-blowing discovery from the lost world of the last ice age: a 10,000-year-old woolly mammoth carcass that preserves muscle tissue the color of fresh meat and blood in liquid form, despite the -10 degrees Celsius temperatures in the Novosibirsk Islands, where Russian researchers discovered the beast. The Siberian Times obtained striking photos of the specimen showing the reddish tissues and a vial of the dark brown liquid said to be blood that was found in ice cavities under the animal’s belly, as well as additional details of the discovery. The story quotes mammoth researcher Semyon Grigoriev of the North-Eastern Federal University in Yakutsk, who led the recovery of the mammoth, as speculating that the blood contains “a kind of natural anti-freeze” and declaring the specimen–a female that was between 50 and 60 years old when she died–to be “the best preserved mammoth in the history of paleontology.” An AFP report, meanwhile, referred to the animal as the first old female mammoth ever found and quotes Grigoriev as saying “this find gives us a really good chance of finding live cells,” which would be a windfall for his institution’s project with South Korea’s Sooam Biotech Research Foundation to clone a mammoth.

Wow! I mean, there have been some spectacular mammoths to emerge from this part of the world—the baby mammoth Lubya, discovered in 2007, for example. But muscle tissue like fresh meat? Liquid blood? The possibility of live cells? Sounds amazing, right? Yet with only the news reports to go on (the find was announced in the popular press rather than in a peer-reviewed scientific journal), I wondered if it might be too good to be true. So I contacted a couple of experts not involved in the discovery to get their read on the development. The upshot: it really does appear to be an incredible find, but some of the claims about it are incorrect as reported or have yet to be established as fact.

Daniel Fisher of the University of Michigan, a leading authority on mammoths who has worked with Grigoriev in the past and considers him a close colleague, comments that the news reports appear to be mostly legit. But he noted via email:

“…a few points have gone astray in the story, perhaps just the usual result of language differences and reporters and scientists getting a little out of sync. For instance, this is not the first old female mammoth found, just the first time we have found this much of the carcass (i.e., soft tissues) of an old female. Likewise, they have not found any ‘living cell’ — at most they could hope to find what the cloning enthusiasts might call a cell with ‘viable’ DNA, meaning that it would be intact enough to use in the context of a cloning effort. In fact, although there is much talk of ‘viability’ of this sort, I think it remains to be demonstrated that any DNA from a mammoth meets this criterion. In general, ancient DNA is highly fragmented and by no means ‘ready to go’ into the next mammoth embryo.

As for the blood, I have no doubt that they have something interesting, but what exactly it is … is hard to say at this moment. Whether it is exactly blood, and only blood, will of course require a little more analysis, including some microscopic examination. I have previously seen coagulated blood in mammoth blood vessels, which is very close to what has been reported here, so that much is entirely reasonable. At the moment, I must reserve judgment on the specific nature of this new sample, but I am sure it will be of interest.”

I also reached out to physiologist Kevin Campbell of the University of Manitoba, who, working with colleagues, has used ancient DNA to recreate the red blood cell protein hemoglobin from a woolly mammoth and then observed how that protein functioned. Their efforts, which he and  molecular biologist Michael Hofreiter of the University of York in England described last year in an article for Scientific American, revealed that the temperature-sensitive protein evolved adaptations that enabled it to perform its job of delivering oxygen to body tissues in the frigid conditions mammoths faced. Campbell noted via email that “If the fluid (‘blood’) sample is as well preserved as the muscle (which, judging from the pictures seems to be amazingly well), there is the possibility that red blood cells are still intact.” He told me he is interested in studying the substance to evaluate its oxygen-binding properties.

“The first step–from an oxygen-binding study perspective–is to look for red blood cells and then isolate hemoglobin from all the other proteins/cell debris in the sample. Since the sample was collected from outside the body, it is likely that there is also ‘contamination’ from myoglobin and possibly bacteria (for example). Based on the color alone, I think it is pretty safe to say that there is indeed a fair amount of hemoglobin (and possibly myoglobin) in the vials.”

Campbell says Grigoriev told him by email that the “blood” did not even freeze when placed in a museum freezer kept at -17 degrees C. Campbell would like to examine why the substance is not frozen solid at -17 degrees C, noting that he was initially very skeptical about the claim that the supposed blood contains so-called cryoprotectants that have maintained it in a fluid state. He writes:

“Given that the sample is still fluid at -17C indicates that it is in a ‘supercooled’ state, as we expect blood and other body fluids to freeze at about -0.6C. Many insects (and some vertebrates) are able to avoid freezing at far colder temperatures via the expression of antifreeze peptides/glycoproteins and (largely carbohydrate based) cryoprotectants, which can dramatically lower the supercooling point (roughly equivalent with the freezing point). If mammoth blood had this trait, they would be the only known mammalian example of this to my knowledge (however, the abdomens of arctic ground squirrels have been shown to supercool down to -2.9C, though the mechanism allowing this ability is still unknown [I think]). At any rate, I highly (very highly) doubt that circulating mammoth blood was able to supercool to -17C–though it is worth testing the samples to see why they are still ‘fluid’. For instance, maybe they did have some sort of cryoprotectant (arctic ground squirrels certainly seem to), and this became concentrated during the long period of preservation. Conversely, maybe they had absolutely no ‘antifreezes’ and instead most of the water in the sample was taken up by the surrounding ice, such that the remaining ‘blood’ became extremely concentrated–which would lower its freezing point. Alternatively, perhaps the sample was contaminated by ice-living bacteria which secreted cryoprotectants, or maybe there is some other explanation? Another question is how were these samples preserved in this state for so long? Also, why, given the many recent mammoth finds, is this the only one (that I know of) with ‘fluid’ blood? Regardless, this–on balance–appears to be a remarkable finding [if of course it is true--and I have no way to assess that at this point] and something worth pursuing.”

Both Campbell and Fisher are now in discussions with Grigoriev about studying the new specimen. From the sound of things, these remains may well revolutionize scientists’ understanding of mammoth physiology, which would be thrilling indeed. As for resurrecting this long-vanished creature, well, let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. As my colleagues and I argue in the June issue of Scientific American, de-extinction is a bad idea.

Update 05/30/13 2:00 p.m.: I asked Daniel Fisher about the claim that this new mammoth is the best preserved one yet and how it compares to other finds like the baby mammoth dubbed Lubya. I also asked him where he stands on the issue of resurrecting the mammoth. Although he was unable to reply to these questions before my deadline, he has since emailed me with this response:

“When we talk about comparative ‘quality’ of preservation, there is a whole spectrum of spatial scales involved, from the gross (in the medical/anatomical sense of the word) morphology of the whole body to the subcellular level. We say that Lyuba is well preserved … and she is … but when digging a little deeper, we say she is the most complete mammoth carcass ever recovered … and in fact, she was ALL THERE, and intact, from her dermis (and some of her woolly coat) to her internal organs. In point of fact, however, she owed this high level of completeness to some chemical and bacterially mediated processes that had affected her tissue, essentially ‘pickling’ it (i.e., this is why she was not scavenged upon initial exposure).  As a result, there was some internal breakdown of certain tissues (especially ones including what is called Type 1 collagen), with the result that at the histological and cellular level (extending to her DNA), she is not as well preserved as she would appear from the ‘outside.’  In contrast, other specimens, such as Khroma and Yuka, are less intact as whole bodies, but better preserved at the tissue level and below, as they did not undergo this ‘pickling’ process. They simply froze, more or less quickly, following death. This new mammoth would be more like these, except that its quality of preservation also varies from one part of the body to another–it’s well preserved in parts of its body, at least at the tissue level and below, and is much more degraded in other parts of its body. Assuming the descriptions are accurate, it might be one of the best preserved at the tissue level, in those areas that are best preserved, but it will take some histological investigation to really demonstrate this.
…My ‘feeling’ about mammoth cloning is that it is not likely to happen anytime soon because of massive gaps in the chain of technical abilities required to achieve this goal and the unfavorable nature of probabilities for even those aspects of the process that we have made some progress in handling. Would I like to see a mammoth, imagining that it were possible?  Of course I would!  However, we’re talking about complex, social organisms that are what they are (or were what they were) as much because of how they grew up within a family unit as because of their genetic structure. Could we really provide for such an animal, fresh from its surrogate mother?  I doubt that we could really do enough in this direction. It’s not a matter of food–we can handle that–it’s more the whole social environment of the family unit. I’m not sure what we would learn from such an experiment, or what bearing it would really have on the lives of ‘real’ mammoths. And finally, doing anything like this requires choices, selection among priorities, and with all the conservation challenges we face, let alone other problems, I’m not sure that this goal deserves first place among our alternatives. I’m sure there will be other arguments in favor of the effort, arguments citing tangential benefits and such, but for all I want to learn about the lives of mammoths, I have more confidence in our ability to generate new knowledge from the fossil record than in our ability to learn from cloned mammoths.”

 

Kate Wong About the Author: Kate Wong is an editor and writer at Scientific American covering paleontology, archaeology and life sciences. Follow on Twitter @katewong.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 5 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Fanandala 11:50 am 05/30/2013

    “de-extinction is a bad idea”. Certainly not, if the antifreeze speculation holds up under scrutiny we could learn so much from it.

    Link to this
  2. 2. scottalias 4:23 pm 05/30/2013

    This is not a fact check. This is more speculation and assumptions about the speculation and assumptions made yesterday.

    Link to this
  3. 3. Thinker 11:23 pm 05/30/2013

    Does this beast have any frozen sperm? If it does,inseminate a modern ,live elephant.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Gerard 2:11 am 05/31/2013

    @thinker : it’s a female ;-)

    Link to this
  5. 5. tjsetzer 4:07 pm 09/13/2013

    Similar findings were reported by the Barnhart and Goodman et al. back in the day (1980s) with a much older specimen (44,000 years ago). Looks like there is a journal article/report on the histology that I haven’t pulled yet. Link to news article:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19800508&id=CfdUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AJMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5056,3477314

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Give a Gift &
Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now! >

X

Email this Article

X