Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

Post Reply
User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:55 am

Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

By Robert F. Service
ScienceNOW Daily News
31 July 2009
When scientists reported 2 years ago that they had discovered intact protein fragments from a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, the skeptics pounced. They argued that one of the main lines of evidence, signatures of the protein fragments taken by mass spectrometry, was flawed. But now a reanalysis of that mass-spec data from an independent group of researchers backs up the original claim that dinosaur proteins have indeed survived the assault of time.

In 2005, a team led by Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh reported in Science that it had discovered an unusual T. rex fossil, in which some of the soft tissues, including blood vessels and other fibrous tissue, seemed to have been preserved. Two years later, Schweitzer teamed with mass-spec expert John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues to report that mass-spec studies identified seven peptide fragments that appeared to come from dinosaur collagen and that those sequences were closely related to analogous sequences from the chicken and other modern birds, as would be expected given the many lines of evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. But skeptics argued that the mass-spec signals barely hovered above the data's background noise. And Schweitzer and Asara, they argued, couldn't rule out that the signals were caused by contaminants.

The controversy has continued in letters and follow-up papers. It also prompted Asara to release his complete mass-spec data set to other experts to allow them to judge for themselves. So researchers from the Palo Alto Research Center in California and the University of California, Davis, decided to do just that. They reanalyzed Asara's mass-spec data using a different set of bioinformatics tools and statistical tests.

In a paper published this month in the Journal of Proteome Research, the California researchers report that three of the peptides are a strong match to what looks to be an ancient form of collagen, whereas others matched with less statistical significance. "In summary, we find nothing obviously wrong with the T. rex mass spectra: the identified peptides seem consistent with a sample containing old, quite possibly very ancient, bird-like bone, contaminated with only fairly explicable proteins," they conclude.

"That's pretty good news," says Asara. He doubts that the new result will put the entire controversy to rest, because soft tissue from dinosaur is such an extraordinary find. However, he argues, "I think it puts the mass-spectrometry interpretation to rest." The case for T. rex proteins is also helped by the fact that it is no longer a unique discovery. In May, Schweitzer, Asara, and colleagues reported a similar result from an 80-million-year-old dinosaur and raised further hopes that scientists may soon have a window into the molecular makeup of dinosaur
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Made Of Stars

Re: Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

Post by Made Of Stars » Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:04 pm

Indeed, Schweitzer's findings did not rely solely on the mass spec data. They also looked at (amongst other things) amino acid sequencing of the collagen; cladistic analysis of that sequence showed that it fell closest to a hadrosaur sequence from their earlier paper, followed by two bird sequences (ostrich and chicken IIRC), then other reptiles.

Schweitzer et al. were careful to point out the degraded nature of the collagen (as demonstrated by the mass spec results) that showed that it was far older than a few (or even six) thousand years old. ;)

Woohoo, double digits! Go me.

RPizzle
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

Post by RPizzle » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:03 am

If their bones are bird-like...how do you explain this? PZ's the man.
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests