Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

scummy_shower_stall t1_j6ac02a wrote

Did nobody read the article? The original stallion’s sperm was frozen 42 years ago, not that the horse was 42.

63

umidontremember t1_j6aqje2 wrote

Not frozen sperm. A stallions DNA was frozen 42 years ago. Sperm would have half the chromosomes, this horse would not be a clone, and the stallion that had its DNA frozen 42 years ago would be its father, providing only half of the DNA.

65

megapillowcase t1_j6aiv6r wrote

It didn’t say sperm anywhere? If they used a clone of a 42 year old horse. This one is gonna have a bad time

21

MOOSExDREWL t1_j6auhlq wrote

It wasn't cloned using sperm, but it doesn't mention the age of the original horse the DNA was collected from, just that it was collected 42 years ago.

> A California zoo has announced the birth of a critically endangered horse, a clone created with DNA preserved for 42 years.

I'm no biologist, but if I had to guess I wouldn't think the age of the original specimen matters much in this case.

13

jules2689 t1_j6b9drr wrote

My understanding is very high level here, but cloning originally meant that the cloned animal would have a shortened life span. If the original animal was to live to 60, and was 30 when cloned - the cloned animal would only live for about 30 years. This hasn't held true for all clones though, and was theorized to be caused by shortened telomeres in the clones

This link explains it https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animal-cloning/myths-about-cloning#Myth6

12

mermaidsilk t1_j6c5805 wrote

also horses do not live that long, they are like dogs. short life spans for how large they are.

3

erosram t1_j6e662h wrote

Why is this comment funny to me the more I read the responses

3