Scientists Produce Cloned Embryos of Extinct Frog

The genome of an extinct Australian frog has been revived and reactivated by a team of scientists using sophisticated cloning technology to implant a "dead" cell nucleus into a fresh egg from another frog species.

The bizarre gastric-brooding frog, Rheobatrachus silus -- which uniquely swallowed its eggs, brooded its young in its stomach and gave birth through its mouth -- became extinct in 1983.
But the Lazarus Project team has been able to recover cell nuclei from tissues collected in the 1970s and kept for 40 years in a conventional deep freezer. The "de-extinction" project aims to bring the frog back to life.
In repeated experiments over five years, the researchers used a laboratory technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. They took fresh donor eggs from the distantly related Great Barred Frog, Mixophyes fasciolatus, inactivated the egg nuclei and replaced them with dead nuclei from the extinct frog. Some of the eggs spontaneously began to divide and grow to early embryo stage -- a tiny ball of many living cells.
Although none of the embryos survived beyond a few days, genetic tests confirmed that the dividing cells contain the genetic material from the extinct frog.
The results are yet to be published.

Coyote_ said:
Just in time for the re-release of Jurassic Park.

NotoriousCAT said:
While I understand that scientifically this is awesome, I think that there could be horrendous implications if this becomes common practice. I read an article years ago about issues with introducing species to deal with other issues that seemed logical but had horrible repercussions. (Kudzu comes to mind.)

FellOnEarth said:

Well, considering that the frog and many other species that have gone extinct in the past 12,000 years are probably due to humans (except for maybe some of the megafauna), I'd say it's payback time!

NotoriousCAT said:

But then we are just fucking with ecosystems all over again. We are not aware of all the changes that have been wrought because of the extinction of the animal in question so we may be condemning other species by reintroducing something that they are no longer used to/equipped to deal with.
It's good science, but I think it is bad juju*.
*this word is used with no religious connotations intended.

NotoriousCAT said:

But then we are just fucking with ecosystems all over again. We are not aware of all the changes that have been wrought because of the extinction of the animal in question so we may be condemning other species by reintroducing something that they are no longer used to/equipped to deal with.
It's good science, but I think it is bad juju*.
*this word is used with no religious connotations intended.

FellOnEarth said:

I get what you're saying, but I think that of the number of species likely able to see such a revival, most aren't likely to wreak the sort of ecological destruction you're worried about. Generally speaking, whatever environmental factors or competitive species they had to compete with (and were displaced by) are much more likely to be an ecologically hazardous problem then the reintroduced species itself. The real challenge would to identify such exotic species or systemic imbalances within a reintroduced species' historic habitat and, if at all possible, try to restore that balance (in some instances, such habitat collapse may have occurred in their absence).

The reason why I mention this is because it is the same challenge facing existing species; if we better understand what types of disruptions occurred in a (currently) extinct species past, the better prepared we are to prevent others from joining them. In the event we don't work fast enough (considering climate change and habitat loss), we may have to end up doing this anyway. In that regard, I don't see this as a problem at all.

I agree that it would be foolhardy to just start reviving species and releasing them into the wild willy-nilly. Obviously, some controlled study will be needed in each case, but by and large, I think a most of these species will be at a district disadvantage from the onset. That being said, I don't think we should be developing or genetically modifying existing species for the very reasons you fear.

Despite the similarly sounding headlines, however, this type of DNA replacement isn't exactly the same thing as Jurassic Park. In any case, I doubt that there are going to be very many viable candidates the further back in history you go, since there simply aren't enough specimens preserved in ideal conditions. Because this frog's extinction was but a heartbeat in time away from the present, I'm fairly confident they aren't going to suddenly turn into a problem like the Cane Toad or the common European rabbit (both invasives) if they are reintroduced to Australia.