Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Tyrannosaur morsels

Look! A scrap of soft tissue extracted from dinosaur bone:

Tyrannosaur soft tissue
Demineralized fragments of endosteally derived tissues lining the marrow cavity of the T. rex femur. The demineralized fragment is flexible and resilient and, when stretched (arrow), returns to its original shape.

Dr GH has already promised to describe this new find in more detail on The Panda's Thumb, so I'm going to be very brief—keep an eye on The Thumb for more.

Anyway, it has been reported in Science this week that well-preserved soft tissues have been found deep within the bones of a T. rex, and also within some hadrosaur fossils. This is amazing stuff; fine structure has been known to be preserved to this level of detail before, but these specimens also show signs of retaining at least some of their organic composition. What the authors have done is to carefully dissolve away the mineral matrix of the bone, exposing delicate and still flexible scraps of tissue inside.

Here, for example, is a piece of endothelial tissue, or the tubelike epithelia that line blood vessels and form capillaries. It is compared to a similarly prepared piece from fresh ostrich bone; you can tell the T. rex fragment has undergone some changes, but it's comparable in size and organization to the bird sample.

Tyrannosaur soft tissue
(I) T. rex vessel fragment showing detail of branching pattern and structures morphologically consistent with endothelial cell nuclei (arrows) in vessel wall. (J) Ostrich blood vessel liberated from demineralized bone after treatment with collagenase shows branching pattern and clearly visible endothelial nuclei.

Looking more closely with a scanning electron microscope, here's a similar piece of T. rex blood vessel that has ruptured, spilling out its contents. Maybe those cells don't look perfectly preserved, but they're darned close.

Tyrannosaur soft tissue
Exploded T. rex vessel showing small round microstructures partially embedded in internal vessel walls.

And lastly, here's a closeup of the surface of that epithelia, compared with an ostrich epithelium. The cells here are very, very flat, and the nuclei are the thickest part, bulging up and giving the surface a pebbled appearance. The T. rex epithelium has a similar pebbly look, suggesting that just maybe there is even some subcellular structure preserved.

Tyrannosaur soft tissue
(E) Higher magnification of a portion of T. rex vessel wall, showing hypothesized endothelial nuclei (EN). (F) Similar structures visible on fixed ostrich vessel. Striations are seen in both (E) and (F) that may represent endothelial cell junctions or alternatively may be artifacts of the fixation/dehydration process.

How could this be? Here's the authors' explanation.

…we demonstrate the retention of pliable soft-tissue blood vessels with contents that are capable of being liberated from the bone matrix, while still retaining their flexibility, resilience, original hollow nature, and three-dimensionality. Additionally, we can isolate three-dimensional osteocytes with internal cellular contents and intact, supple filipodia that float freely in solution. This T. rex also contains flexible and fibrillar bone matrices that retain elasticity. The unusual preservation of the originally organic matrix may be due in part to the dense mineralization of dinosaur bone, because a certain portion of the organic matrix within extant bone is intracrystalline and therefore extremely resistant to degradation. These factors, combined with as yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors, presumably also contribute to the preservation of soft-tissue vessels. Because they have not been embedded or subjected to other chemical treatments, the cells and vessels are capable of being analyzed further for the persistence of molecular or other chemical information.

So, basically, these cells were entombed in a thick mineral sarcophagus, protected from bacteria and other external insults. There have to have been other factors at play—cells are full of enzymes that trigger a very thorough self-destruct sequence at death—so I'm definitely looking forward to the molecular analysis. Even if their form was preserved, I expect these cells to be denatured monomer soup on the inside.


Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR, Toporski JK (2005) Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 307(5717):1952-1955.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2077/VsrxHQ0g/

Comments:
#19651: MisterBS — 03/24  at  07:53 PM
Again and again, Dr. Myers, you bring out my latent science geek. I'm going to end up dropping out of my current program and going back to school in bio.



#19653: — 03/24  at  08:20 PM
Well, as soon as I saw the headline on Yahoo I "ran" over here to get the real details. Several (dozen) clicks of the refresh button later, and I have my fix. Thanks, PZ!



#19655: — 03/24  at  08:33 PM
So what's the big deal? By definition this can be no older than 4004 BC. Probably Satan made it look older to challenge our faith.

Or I could, seriously, find this a really exciting, very revealing and utterly fascinating bit of evidence that we are learning how to analyze bits of the past we've learned to examine, and explain.

No, on the other hand, thinking is hard. I say this can only be explained by Satan.
Somebody was actually given 1/4 of a page to explain this in a a local paper. Since it's owned by a large, nationwide syndicate, we know it has to be true.



#19656: — 03/24  at  08:33 PM
I'm hoping this is all good, but I can't help but recall what happened the last time with Schweitzer and Horner's "rex blood" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html)

I'm gonna hang on for more info before I get my hopes too high.



#19658: wolfangel — 03/24  at  08:45 PM
Dinosaur cells? Deadly theme park islands ahead!



#19660: — 03/24  at  09:05 PM
N.Y. Times has an article online which will be appearing on Page One tomorrow. From the article:

Dr. Schweitzer and other scientists not connected with the research cautioned that further analysis of the specimens was required before they could be sure the tissues had indeed survived unaltered. They said the extraction of DNA for studies of dinosaur genetics and cloning experiments was only a long shot.

But in a separate article in Science, Dr. Lawrence Witmer, a paleontologist at Ohio University, who had no part in the research, said: "If we have tissues that are not fossilized, then we can potentially extract DNA. It's very exciting."

If the tissues are as well preserved as they seem, the scientists held out some hope of recovering intact proteins, which are less fragile and more abundant DNA. Proteins might provide clues to the evolutionary relationship of dinosaurs to other animals and possibly help solve the puzzle of dinosaur physiology: whether, as argued, dinosaurs were unlike other reptiles in being warm-blooded.

"If we can isolate certain proteins, we can address the issue of the physiology of dinosaurs," Dr. Schweitzer said.



#19661: Rana — 03/24  at  09:09 PM
What is this? Extra fortified freakin' cool science day?

Not that I'm complaining, mind you. smile



#19662: — 03/24  at  09:13 PM
"Deadly theme park islands ahead!"

Ted Turner should give up his bison-meat restaurant chain, and start working on a ritzy chain serving vat-grown hadrosaur steaks.

Maybe it'd be easier to grow big hunks of meat, than it would be to grow functional organisms.

Also, they'd have more room for fudging. If it came down to it, they could put some hadrosaur DNA into alligator or ostrich eggs, and work from there. They'd just need to be able to grow slabs of meat, so it wouldn't matter if the result was effectively 99.99% ostrich meat. There'd be dinosaur in the mix, which would be enough for marketing purposes.

This is all assuming that they could obtain DNA, which is probably unlikely. But then, obtaining soft tissue at all was also unlikely.



#19668: — 03/24  at  10:24 PM
Holy...freakin'...cow.

I had no idea this kind of preservation was possible. Even if there's not much more we're able to learn from this, I'll never be able to look at fossils the same way.

I suppose I should have known at least a little better, but I'm used to thinking of fossils as rocks that tell us wonderful tales of what once existed but that are, in and of themselves, barely worth calling "bones." Now I find they can be on the opposite end of the spectrum...almost like mummies. Suddenly I'm no longer holding a rock, but a genuine piece of some incredible animal millions of years gone.

To quote Syndrome: "I'm still geeking out about it."



's avatar #19670: — 03/24  at  10:28 PM
It could be done. But who wants to eat ostrich meat? Or lizard steak? I see more of a market in the entertainment / biblical parks industry. Dinosaurs may have no resistance to bird diseases, chicken flu may extinguish them again.

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#19676: Josh — 03/24  at  11:15 PM
I'm so glad I wasn't the first to wonder what T. rex taste like.

If it doesn't taste like chicken, does that mean birds aren't really dinosaurs?



#19679: — 03/24  at  11:27 PM
"It could be done. But who wants to eat ostrich meat?"

Ostrich isn't bad, actually. Does *not* taste like chicken. There was a recent damp-squib boomlet in ostrich farming a few years back, because people thought it'd become a popular, healthier alternative to beef.

I'm sure there are exotic meat outlets online where you can buy alligator meat. Never tried that.



#19682: Andrew Willett — 03/24  at  11:33 PM
Clones! Clooooones!

I know. Sorry. I just couldn't help myself.



#19686: Rana — 03/25  at  01:08 AM
I don't know about alligator, but I had crocodile once, and I imagine they'd be similar. It was sort of like pork chops.



's avatar #19687: Chris Clarke — 03/25  at  01:18 AM
Alligator isn't far off of pork either. It's the other other other white meat.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson



#19688: — 03/25  at  01:40 AM
I found alligator to be too chewy. I can imagine it surviving intact for 65 my, even unfossilized.



's avatar #19691: Chris Clarke — 03/25  at  02:01 AM
You're not supposed to eat the skin, Harry.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson



's avatar #19695: Ben — 03/25  at  02:48 AM
Good, no can somebody please nail down Michael Crichton?

So what's the big deal? By definition this can be no older than 4004 BC. Probably Satan made it look older to challenge our faith.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who immediately thought that. YECs may be out to destroy science as we know it, but they're doing wonders for my sense of irony.

"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them." --Thomas Edison.



#19697: CKL — 03/25  at  03:34 AM
P.Z.

Do you have any images of the analogous structures from reptiles for further comparison?



#19699: — 03/25  at  04:54 AM
So what are the creationists saying about this? I remember seeing news in recent years about the fossilisation of ancient soft tissue - dinosaur eggs, I recall, but not even semi-preservation of the tissues themselves. But, then, I'm an ex-physicist, so what do I know? I don't regard it as axiomatic that tissues can't be semi-preserved for a long, long, time - dried-out ancient bacteria seem to be discovered all the time these days - but it is amazing. Why didn't bacteria eat the tissue before fossilisation set in, or even afterwards? Is this really a first? Don't fossil collectors section some fossil bones as a matter of routine?

Certainly, there's some interesting scientific work ahead.



#19700: — 03/25  at  05:31 AM
There are interesting comments and some speculation from a UK 'ancient bio-molecule' specialist about this matter on the BBC's web page reporting it - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm. (Is there markup available here to make that a clickable link?)



#19706: Michael Feldgarden — 03/25  at  07:18 AM
Does anyone know if the tissue work can definitively address the issue of dinosaurs being warm- or cold-blooded?



#19709: Orac — 03/25  at  07:46 AM
Great stuff. You realize, of course, that I study vascular endothelial cells in my lab, because I'm interested in tumor angiogenesis. This gives me an idea for a grant proposal:

Dinosaur angiogenesis, anyone?

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



#19711: — 03/25  at  07:53 AM
It would be interesting to see if the blood cells are nucleated.



#19716: — 03/25  at  08:27 AM
JM, I'm sure the basic creationist response will be "See! It's UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for soft tissue to survive in any form for millions of years! CLEARLY this is consistent with what we see in 4000 year old specimens. Evolution has now been undeniably disproven!"



Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Next entry: A good decision

Previous entry: Maybe it's just me

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college