pinball1970
Gold Member
- 3,500
- 5,479
T.I.L. Worms at Chernobyl -
I was going to put in Biology but I am getting a few contradictory statements IMO.
From the article https://phys.org/news/2024-03-tiny-worms-tolerate-chornobyl.html
"The researchers were surprised to find that using several different analyses, they could not detect a signature of radiation damage on the genomes of the worms from Chornobyl.
"This doesn't mean that Chornobyl is safe—it more likely means that nematodes are really resilient animals and can withstand extreme conditions,"
So resistant to radiation?
Later on in the article
"Their findings suggest that worms from Chornobyl are not necessarily more tolerant of radiation and the radioactive landscape has not forced them to evolve."
From the paper https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2314793121
"Chornobyl isolates were not systematically more resistant than strains from undisturbed habitats. In sum, the absence of mutational signatures does not reflect unique capacity for tolerating DNA damage."
Am I being a bit thick here? I do not have access to the full article so cannot read the conclusions/discussion.
I was going to put in Biology but I am getting a few contradictory statements IMO.
From the article https://phys.org/news/2024-03-tiny-worms-tolerate-chornobyl.html
"The researchers were surprised to find that using several different analyses, they could not detect a signature of radiation damage on the genomes of the worms from Chornobyl.
"This doesn't mean that Chornobyl is safe—it more likely means that nematodes are really resilient animals and can withstand extreme conditions,"
So resistant to radiation?
Later on in the article
"Their findings suggest that worms from Chornobyl are not necessarily more tolerant of radiation and the radioactive landscape has not forced them to evolve."
From the paper https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2314793121
"Chornobyl isolates were not systematically more resistant than strains from undisturbed habitats. In sum, the absence of mutational signatures does not reflect unique capacity for tolerating DNA damage."
Am I being a bit thick here? I do not have access to the full article so cannot read the conclusions/discussion.