Skip to Content
Uncategorized

Neanderthals, Gibbons, and Bats, Oh My!

New sequencing technologies allow scientists to unravel the DNA of our ancient human cousins.
July 25, 2006

New sequencing technologies are opening up a world of possibilities in understanding ancient DNA. Scientists in Germany announced plans last week to sequence the Neanderthal genome in collaboration with 454 Life Sciences, a Connecticut sequencing company.

Collecting and analyzing DNA from fossilized bones has been notoriously difficult because genetic material in such bones breaks down into short strands. But new technology developed by 454 analyzes the sequence of thousands of DNA fragments in parallel, allowing a quarter million short DNA strands to be sequenced in just four hours.

As a test of the new technology, scientists have already sequenced one million bases from a 38,000-year-old Neanderthal fossil in Croatia. They eventually plan to compare the Neanderthal genome to the genomes of chimps and modern humans. (Here’s the 454 press release.)

In other news, the National Human Genome Research Institute announced their latest sequencing plans. Topping the list of animals is the Northern white-cheeked gibbon, a primate with an unusually high number of chromosomal rearrangements compared with other primates. Also on the list: the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), domestic cat (Felis catus), guinea pig (Cavia porcellus), African savannah elephant (Loxodonta africana), tree shrew (Tupaia species), rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), and an as-yet-undetermined species of bat.

Keep Reading

Most Popular

The inside story of how ChatGPT was built from the people who made it

Exclusive conversations that take us behind the scenes of a cultural phenomenon.

How Rust went from a side project to the world’s most-loved programming language

For decades, coders wrote critical systems in C and C++. Now they turn to Rust.

ChatGPT is about to revolutionize the economy. We need to decide what that looks like.

New large language models will transform many jobs. Whether they will lead to widespread prosperity or not is up to us.

Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong?

An approach that promised to democratize design may have done the opposite.

Stay connected

Illustration by Rose Wong

Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

Explore more newsletters

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at customer-service@technologyreview.com with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.