Would more DNA be stored in mosquitoes than bones?

Question

In Jurassic park, Dinosaurs are resurrected by DNA stored in mosquitoes, who had sucked dinosaur blood. Is there any particular reason why more DNA would be stored in a mosquito than in a bone or similar device?

score 20 · Accepted Answer · answered May 07 '11 at 21:26

20

There's a real-life basis for that: mosquitos trapped in amber can remain intact for millions of years. It is plausible for an insect with intact DNA to be thus recovered from up to the late Jurassic. DNA in exposed bones decays too fast (a few million years at most) to be recovered from a dinosaur fossil.

In real life, there have been plausible but eventually disproven reports of dinosaur DNA findings.

answered May 07 '11 at 21:26

2

The problem with using the preserved mosquito would be that, using current methods of extracting/enhancing DNA, you would likely end up with a very mixed up genome with mosquito DNA and DNA from multiple species which the mosquito has fed on. The scenario sounds plausible enough in the book and movie - but in real life, just can't be done (yet). – HorusKol May 08 '11 at 23:27
2

Too, the bones aren't bones in the technical sense anymore but are fossils. – Xantec May 09 '11 at 17:21

score 6 · Answer 2 · answered May 11 '11 at 02:05

Bones turned into fossils cease being bone; fossilization is the slow process of replacing biological matter with deposited minerals, but retaining the shape of the bones. Few fossils actually have any biological proteins left, let alone the obnoxiously fragile DNA.

Critters preserved in amber, however, are protected in a closed organic polymer container, in an anaerobic state, and have little, if any, chemical replacement. The mosquito's DNA is readily obtained; the meal, less so, as the insect's own digestive system contains chemicals which break down blood. Even so, it's still often fragmented due to age. Some DNA from blood in mosquitos has been sequenced, but I recall it not being able to be identified as to source.

score 5 · Answer 3 · answered May 07 '11 at 22:44

I think the whole point is something like "quality rather than quantity".

As I understand it correctly the reason they are using DNA from mosquito is because it is in amber. Therefore it is said that the DNA is well (fully) preserved. On the other hand because a bone would be exposed to outside elements it should be fragmented.

score 3 · Answer 4 · answered May 20 '11 at 01:34

I think the concept is that the insects trapped in amber are essentially unchanged as they are completely sealed off. From what I've heard though, the DNA still deteriorates, and the oldest viable DNA that's ever been recovered is less than 100K years old. So no hope for dinosaur DNA.

score 2 · Answer 5 · answered May 24 '20 at 06:51

Fossils aren't bones. They're rock, there's little if any DNA because a fossil of a bone has been virtually mineralized into a rock. There's no DNA to obtain.

Even if a mosquito with dino blood in it's gut was preserved in amber, at geologic burial underground temps are ambient as much as 58 degrees Fahrenheit, not ideal preservation temps. The DNA is at least 65 million years old, so given it's composition (DNA is made of sugar and phosphates) it would biodegrade over time. PLUS mosquitoes have nuceloese enzymes in their gut to break down blood for digestion.

Would more DNA be stored in mosquitoes than bones?

5 Answers5