Dendrochronology and DNA mutation rates?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bailiac
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dna Mutation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the feasibility of using dendrochronology to determine DNA mutation rates by comparing DNA from the inner rings of trees to that from the outer living parts. It concludes that extracting viable DNA from inner tree rings is impractical due to the dead nature of xylem tissue, which degrades rapidly and is often contaminated by external DNA sources. While some tree species, like the bristlecone pine, can live for thousands of years, the degradation and contamination of DNA render this method ineffective for accurate long-term mutation rate predictions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of dendrochronology and tree ring dating
  • Knowledge of DNA extraction techniques and degradation processes
  • Familiarity with somatic cell mutations in plants
  • Awareness of microbial interactions with wood and DNA contamination
NEXT STEPS
  • Research DNA extraction methods from plant tissues
  • Explore the biology of xylem and its role in tree growth
  • Investigate the effects of environmental factors on DNA preservation in wood
  • Study the genetics of long-lived tree species like bristlecone pines
USEFUL FOR

Botanists, geneticists, environmental scientists, and students interested in plant biology and the intersection of genetics and dendrochronology.

Bailiac
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Using dendrochronology to get DNA mutation rates?

A question:

Would it be possible to use DNA analysis in combination with tree ring dating get an accurate DNA mutation rate?

By extracting DNA from the inner rings of a tree, shouldn't it be possible to compare it to the DNA from outer still living part of a tree? By doing so you could have a accurate time between mutations(?)

Now this is a pretty obvious experiment, so what my question really is, is this:

1) Does what I say make any sense? ( I really don't know much about trees and so forth)

2) Is it possible? ( How quickly does DNA degrade? Might it be that there isn't any good DNA left in the inner rings? Are there other problems? )

3) Is the average life time of a tree too short to get any real long term mutation rate predictions?

4) Has this research already been done? (If so, could anyone point me toward an article? )


Thanks in advance and greets from a college student :blushing:

Edit: Just to clear something up, I indeed meant somatic cell changes. I don't know what kind of mechanisms a tree has to eliminate them, but I initially thought there might still be enough to overwhelm it. But to be honest, now that I've though some more about it, I really don't think this will work at all. Nevermind this mindfart :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Biology news on Phys.org
The problem is that the inner rings of a tree are not composed of living cells, but dead, empty cells, so there is no DNA to be extracted from them.
 
Xylem (woody tissue) is essentially dead within a few months of the creation of the tree ring as Moonbear indicated. In some instances there are tiny amounts of cytoplasm locked inside some specialty cells, like ray parenchyma in the xylem.

There are tree species like the bristlecone pine that live for 10000+ years. However, within a few dozen years a lot of the xylem tissue is exposed to bacteria. You may have seen spalted wood - this is caused by bacterial deposition. Really old trees are virutally always like a straw - completely hollow. It is possible by working with different sections of the tree trunk to work backwards in time getting cores. But they have all been exposed to foriegn DNA from saprophytes and pathogens, nesting birds, burrowing beetles, etc.

So whatever DNA you do encounter is guaranteed to be flummoxed after 100+ years, let alone 10000.
 
Right, I figured as much.

I do understand that the inner part of a tree is dead, but thought maybe that the DNA that was initially in there might be good for a while. A while however isn't very useful if you are talking about many 1000's of years for some trees.

Thanks for the replies :smile:
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
11K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K