7 ms·
Greenland sharks maintain vision for centuries through DNA repair mechanism
- breve 10mo ago[flagged]
- dlahoda 10mo ago[flagged]
- chatmasta 10mo agoSharks are so cool, man. They’ve just been chilling on the planet for 400 million years, swimming the oceans while epochs passed them by in their periphery. Their entire biology is pretty much unchanged. They’ve been sharks the whole time.
- zaken 10mo agoSharks are older than trees
- colechristensen 10mo agoAnd the north star, Polaris, is a fraction the age of sharks at only 50-70 Mya (it's a trinary star system but the other two stars are much dimmer and not visible to the eye)
- echelon 10mo agoI love this fact. Also: life on earth is almost as old as the universe itself, within the same order of magnitude. 4.1 GYA (billion years ago) vs 13.8 GYA. We're old and intelligence is hard.
- baxtr 10mo agoI think there is a theory that we’re not seeing any aliens simply because life on Earth started so early.
- ssl-3 10mo agoOr there are many planets with life, with each harboring their own equivalent to our sharks. (And none of those shark-equivalents have developed a space program.)
- baxtr 10mo agoThat would be unfortunate. I’d love to see some space sharks!
- ssl-3 10mo agoWe'd almost certainly find some way to kill them if we ever ran across any of them. We're pretty good at accomplishing things like that. One day, there's some space sharks swimming in a sea of liquid helium and doing deep dives to get to the smaller creatures that devour the seabed of diamonds. The next day, we're figuring out how to use space shark squeezings in our fusion reactors. Unless, of course, the space sharks figure out how to kill us first. They will probably try if that's useful to then. It's the circle of life.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> We'd almost certainly find some way to kill them if we ever ran across any of them There is a credible argument that what the literature terms genocidal tendencies—where conflict isn’t resolved when it ends, but when the enemy is destroyed—is a precondition for conquering a world. So if we met space sharks, barring enlightenment, they’d probably seek to destroy us, too.
- computerex 10mo agoThere is life, then intelligent life like humans. Plus you have physical constraints like the speed of light.
- Ericson2314 10mo agoYes I love it too, wish more people appreciated it
- yread 10mo agoThat's not that early, no? There was probably enough C, H, N, O, P, S, Na atoms for life to start 10B years ago. You probably couldnt rely on iron being everywhere though but that's not such a hard requirement.
- echelon 10mo agoIt's fascinating to ponder, for sure. The universe still has plenty of time to burn, especially red dwarfs. It's sad to think about starless skies, though. The heme is pretty magical. Probably not a hard requirement, but it sure has been useful for us here.
- gusgus01 10mo agoAnother Fun Fact: the Appalachian mountains formed before sharks existed, the rings of Saturn existed, and before bones existed.
- sethammons 10mo agoI think you misstated your fun fact
- abc123abc123 10mo ago...but younger than the mountains. There you go!
- readthenotes1 10mo agoICYMI: https://youtu.be/IUmnTfsY3hI?si=WuUcwv_LLYh8gX4u https://youtu.be/IUmnTfsY3hI?si=WuUcwv_LLYh8gX4u Good call, abc123
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- dredmorbius 10mo agoBut they're (possibly) younger than the New River! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_River_(Kanawha_River_tributary)#Geology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_River_(Kanawha_River_tribu...> (Blew my mind when I first encountered this a few years back.)
- nine_k 10mo agoThey've found a local optimum, and stay in it. There's no easy way out anyway.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- echelon 10mo ago> There's no easy way out anyway. Evolution always finds new nooks and crannies of state space to explore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndbw7SQMCcQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndbw7SQMCcQ
- odyssey7 10mo agoYes, but maybe not from one specific lineage. E.g., extinction really is the end of the line for some species.
- maxbond 10mo agoNot always, species go extinct all the time. Evolution can get stuck in local optima. Consider the whiptail lizard, which has lost the ability to reproduce sexually. Will they be able to adapt to future changes of the environment? Maybe, but the chips are stacked against them.
- yetihehe 10mo agoNo one said that those nooks are not deadly. But evolution will explore them just in case.
- computerex 10mo agoEvolution doesn’t explore anything, mutations are random, selection pressure causes beneficial traits to become more common overtime.
- 10mo ago
- Fnoord 10mo agoWhen they lose a tooth, they just grow a new one. How conveniently cool!
- starkeeper 10mo agoThis is so messed up harvesting the eye from a creature that lives hundreds of years. I guess they put the shark down. RIP one eye.
- dlahoda 10mo agois future possible cure for humans worth one shark eye? how many fish, water mammals and may be humans shark killed for hundred years? did shark thought about their eyes?* *except in sence that eyeballs are very delicios
- seszett 10mo agoGreenland sharks don't kill humans, they're not more "responsible" for what white sharks do than you as a mammal are responsible for tigers killing their prey.
- ulrikrasmussen 10mo agoI would agree, but then I read the Wikipedia page which says that around 10 of these animals are caught every day as bycatch, so I assume the shark that was studied came from one of these. This shark takes 150 years to reach sexual maturity and gestates for 8-18 years. It's pretty fucked up that bycatch at this rate is just accepted because it surely is going to lead the species to extinction. Humans are pretty fucking arrogant. If these sharks were not caught at this rate then I would agree that they shouldn't be studied in ways that require killing them, but since they are, I think it is better to at least get some knowledge out of it and possibly raise awareness of the problem. Edit: read the article, and it actually says it was caught by the scientists and not as bycatch. Still, this catch is negligible compared to the 3500 that are caught, killed and thrown out again (I assume) each year
- andrewflnr 10mo ago> The Greenland sharks used in her co-study were caught between 2020 and 2024 using scientific long lines off the coast of the University of Copenhagen's Arctic Station on Disko Island, Greenland. But I guess a few sharks for scientific sampling are probably still negligible compared to bycatch.
- bikeshaving 10mo agoIt’s sinful to fish and kill these ancient creatures up from the deep for minor scientific progress.
- derektank 10mo agoThey’re predatory scavengers that wouldn’t hesitate to eat you if it had the opportunity. I would much rather conduct biomedical research on sharks than mice or rats.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- jaccola 10mo agoAh yes potentially getting us one step closer to immortality, hardly worth killing an animal! I mostly eat vegan because I do have a strong dislike of factory farming and the way animals are treated there. But killing animals is a fact of life and I think scientific progress is a very valid reason to do so. To put it in perspective, a lot of shark young will kill each other in the womb such that only the strongest is birthed. These animals eat other animals alive, etc.. etc.. My point being it is not like the option is between a rosy utopia or human-inflicted suffering.
- arter45 10mo agoI'm not against scientific research per se or living a bit more but... is immortality (or living for, say, 200 years or more) really something we should strive for? Many aspects of human society assume, one way or another, that our life expectancy is fairly limited. From politics (even absolute monarchs or dictators eventually die), to economics (think about retirement, for example), demographics (if everyone is immortal and everyone keeps having children, what happens?), even psychology ("everything passes"). Are we willing to throw these implications away? What would be the purpose?
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> Many aspects of human society assume, one way or another, that our life expectancy is fairly limited Assumptions can change. Each of our technological shifts was more upending than longer healthspans would be—most of the West is already a gerontocracy. > What would be the purpose? To not die horribly.
- jonplackett 10mo agoSo wait did they just catch a 200 year old shark and cut its eye ball out to have a look?
- imcritic 10mo agoYeah, the article both mentions it and leaves any details out! Did they kill the shark or did they only collect its eyeball??
- internet_points 10mo agoHighly recommend the book "Shark Drunk: The Art of Catching a Large Shark from a Tiny Rubber Dinghy in a Big Ocean" by Morten Strøksnes if you're interested in old sharks, small boats or deep oceans https://bookshop.org/p/books/shark-drunk-the-art-of-catching-a-large-shark-from-a-tiny-rubber-dinghy-in-a-big-ocean-morten-stroksnes/99a31d12a1277272?ean=9781101972939&next=t https://bookshop.org/p/books/shark-drunk-the-art-of-catching...
- MagicMoonlight 10mo agoI’m starting to realise we don’t really want a cure to aging. Imagine a world where people like Stalin never die. People like bill gates never have to pretend to be a nice person… If there’s no chance of death, there will never be any progress in society. People in power would just establish a tighter and tighter grip. All the boomers would be immune to death and disease, but the treatment would be banned for the young because they haven’t done enough to earn it.
- maipen 10mo agoDictators die all the time and most often not of old age. As we get older our flexibility to adapt to change also starts to diminish. You will eventually be outperformed. We can’t account for what we don’t know.
- quesera 10mo agoPerhaps, but the power conferred by the miracle of compound interest does not require performance.
- EugeneOZ 10mo agoPeople like Einstein would find a solution.
- derektank 10mo agoIf your thesis was correct, we would presumably not treat children for cancer. Since that’s evidently not the case, I’m not sure how you’re coming to this conclusion
- ricardo81 10mo agoReminds me of the film 'In Time' where the rich can be immortal. It does seem that nature has it 'programmed in' that we are to die due to telomere shortening and for natural selection to take place. Our modern and constantly changing society likely means that any kind of evolutionary adaptation doesn't have long enough to prove itself. Interestingly how people would handle immortality could change that.
- keiferski 10mo agoUnfortunately it also seems like these sharks are plagued by parasites in their eyes: The shark is often infested by the copepod Ommatokoita elongata, a crustacean that attaches itself to the shark's eyes.[17] The copepod may display bioluminescence, thus attracting prey for the shark in a mutualistic relationship, but this hypothesis has not been verified.[18] These parasites can cause multiple forms of damage to the sharks' eyes, such as ulceration, mineralization, and edema of the cornea, leading to almost complete blindness.[11] This does not seem to reduce the life expectancy or predatory ability of Greenland sharks, due to their strong reliance on smell and hearing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_shark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_shark
- ricardo81 10mo agoAre they parasites though? It may be symbiotic, especially if the relationship between the species has spanned over many years. e.g. their presence may promote the production of rhodopsin. OTOH it may be natures way of allowing natural selection to take place in the sharks since their lifespan is so long. The wiki article seems to imply that's not the case though.
- oncallthrow 10mo ago> These parasites can cause multiple forms of damage to the sharks' eyes, such as ulceration, mineralization, and edema of the cornea, leading to almost complete blindness.
- xeetzer 10mo agoWould it be fucked up? Yes. But, that doesn't contradict a possible symbiotic relationship.
- ricardo81 10mo agoIt's one of those 'invisible hand' things where killing off older sharks may be advantageous in the long run. One of many possibilities. One idea behind that is that any environment has a carrying capacity, limitations on food etc. It may be the parasites favour older sharks etc etc.
- androiddrew 10mo agoSoon to be America sharks.
- simoes 10mo agoAnyone else surprised to see a Greenland headline without Trump involved?
- mlrtime 10mo agoGodwins law v2
- qq540738209 10mo agoThis shark is really an amazing creature.
- csr86 10mo agoI have permanent damage on my retina of other eye. I hope one day humans could regenerate their retinas as sharks and zebrafish can do. Seems strange, that fish living in deep dark oceans can fix their eyes, while most mammals who rely on vision a lot more cannot.
- aziaziazi 10mo agoThe article talk about DNA repairs, helping the eye to maintain its function in the long run. It's not a repair after injurie. I also hope for progress in human eye medecine.
- hearsathought 10mo agoThought we'd have replaceable eyes, teeth, hair, etc by now. When your vision goes, instead of getting new contacts or glasses, just replace your eyes with a new pair. You have cavities, just replace your tooth with another. The promise of genetic sequencing and research just hasn't panned out.
- yread 10mo agoGive it time reprogramming stem cells without the source code or even disassemblers is hard
- 1970-01-01 10mo agoIf it happens to humans, we all could look forward to relaxing the high power laser laws (pun intended).
- old_bayes 10mo agoSo how did they get the Greenland shark eyeballs to dissect for the research paper?
- imcritic 10mo agoI hate this stupid style of writing. So did they find out anything new besides the fact that a shark supposedly still sees the light? Did this particular shark get a parasite on its eyes or not? Not a single word about DNA repair mechanisms except for in the baity title. Awful. TL;DR: we think sharks eyes can still see light even if the sharks a centuries old, please fund us for further research!
- arbuge 10mo agoI had no idea they could live for 400 years... I actually now realize that I never thought about the lifespan of a shark before, but I would have guessed (prior to this education) around 25 years or so.
- cubefox 10mo agoThis article contains basically no information about the topic mentioned in the headline, just vaguely related chitchat.