Search This Blog

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Starchild DNA Results Evaluated with Mixed Results



We diverge from bigfoot a bit to consider another hot cryptozoological project. The Starchild Project  has produced some DNA results worth taking a good look at. They are quite astonishing. The website (http://starchildproject.com/ )gives good background information on the unusual skull found in Mexico alongside a normal looking skull in the 1930s. Also to be found there are two sequences:  a 167 bp mtDNA sequence, and a 211 bp purported FOXP2 gene sequence.  The Starchild project has involved many different kinds of analysis over 13 years. Of course, the central question is what is the genetic origin of the skull? Is it human, nonhuman, alien, or some combination. DNA sequencing is just the technique to answer these questions, but extraction from ancient material 900 years old can be difficult. Elimination of possible modern human contamination can be even more difficult for a specimen handled casually many times since its discovery. That being said, we took the DNA sequences at face value to verify the interpretations of their anonymous geneticist. The mtDNA conclusions are believable; the FOXP2 gene results are not.



Mitochondrial DNA

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited from the mother. It has up to 10,000 times more copies in a cell than the single copy of nDNA and hence is easier to extract and sequence. A short 167 bp sequence was obtained (the complete human mitochondrial genome is 15,569 bp) and put to the test of a BLAST™ search, finding that it matched human mtDNA but with way more mutations(17) than are found among the human population for this sequence (0-1). Table 1. shows our results for aligning this sequence against the NCBI reference genomic sequences database.


Table 1.  Starchild mtDNA Comparisons






Homo sapiens
LEN(bp)
%ID
SCORE
NCBI Accession
modern human
170
89.41
181
NC_012920.1
mtDNA
Neanderthal
170
88.82
176
NC_011137.1
mtDNA
Altai (Denisovan)
170
88.24
172
NC_013993.1
mtDNA
Other Chordates
Heidelberg Man
170
88.24
172
NC_023100.1
mtDNA
pygmy chimpanzee
170
86.47
158
NW_003870568.1
nuclear
chimpanzee
170
85.88
154
NC_001643.1
mtDNA
orangutan
170
84.12
140
NW_002981604.1
nuclear
red-cheeked gibbon
171
80.7
120
NC_018753.1
mtDNA
gorilla
84
89.29
96.9
NW_004001282.1
nuclear

SP Website
human
167
89.82
mtDNA



FOXP2 Gene: nDNA


In contrast to the above mitochondrial sequence, which shows a relationship to primates, the nuclear sequence matches everything under the sun about equally. It’s pure junk sequence, intergene spacer. Foerster’s geneticist claimed a match to the nuclear gene FOXP2. “Not even close,” says Garry Nolan on the website. I concur. Table 2 shows our search results.



 Table 2.  “FOXP2” Nuclear DNA Comparisons




vs. Bacteria

Length

%ID

SCORE

NCBI Accession

Xanthomonas campestris pv. raphani 756C,

201

90.05

   269

NC_017271.1

Advenella kashmirensis W13003

200

89.00

   262

NZ_KI650980.1

Cellulophaga geojensis KL-A

199

88.94

260

NZ_ARZX01000003.1

Pseudoxanthomonas spadix BD-a59

193

89.64

255

NC_016147.2

Vibrio parahaemolyticus 863

195

88.72

250

NZ_AOOY01000020.1

Paenibacillus sp. A9

191

88.48

244

NZ_AOIG01000002.1

Vibrio halioticoli NBRC 102217

192

88.54

246

NZ_BAUJ01000029.1

Pseudomonas sp. CFII68

191

88.48

244

NZ_ATLN01000099.1

Vibrio alginolyticus E0666

192

88.54

246

NZ_AMPD01000075.1

Photobacterium damselae subsp. damselae CIP

191

88.48

   244

   NZ_ADBS01000002.1

vs. Other nonchordata

mulberry

198

92.42

   289

   NW_010362274.1

sugar beet

189

93.65

   288

   NC_025816.1

black-legged tick

198

91.98

   286

  NW_002562430.1

tobacco

196

92.35

   286

  NW_008904058.1

vs. Chordata

collared flycatcher

198

93.43

  298

NC_021700.1

Norway rat

196

91.84

  280

AC_000070.1

Bactrian camel

199

90.45

  273

NW_006213244.1

large yellow croaker

199

90.45

  273

NW_011323673.1

Starchild "FOXP2"

Starchild vs. SP FOXP2

211

73.5

Starchild website

Starchild vs. SP FOXP2

173

80.3

159

From BLAST™

Starchild vs human FOXP2

122

86.1

143

NC_018918.2

Starchild vs. best human (from BLAST)

193

82.9

197

NC_018921.2
SP = Starchild Project Website


From Table 2 it is clearly seen that the purported Starchild FOXP2 sequence is a poor match to human FOXP2 or any other human sequence. It matches better a wide variety of plants and animals. Because of these widely diverse species matches, the sequence cannot be coding, and must be called intergene junk sequence, probably from an unknown/unsequenced species. As before, none of these matches would identify a species, genus, or family. The best human match by score is even on a different chromosome (10) than the FOXP2 gene (chr. 11). Alternatively the Starchild sequence could contain multiple sequencing errors due to small amount of DNA and/or contamination. Much more DNA must be collected and analyzed before a definite statement of its origin can be made.

With a whole skull, researchers should be able to collect enough DNA to do repeatable sequencing. After all, the whole nuclear genomes of the Neanderthal and Denisovan were sequenced from small bone fragments. But this takes experience with ancient DNA, and I do not see that in the present investigators. I do believe that the overall project is worthy of support. 


Anonymity in Science

As with Melba Ketchum’s genetics consultants in the Sasquatch Genome Project, the Starchild Project geneticist has chosen to remain anonymous, ostensibly for “security reasons.” Security of his/her reputation, no doubt. Anonymity has no place in science, which is self-correcting by crosschecking and debating results. Anonymous researchers hope to claim fame if their work is accepted, but protect themselves from criticism by remaining anonymous. This is not acceptable. It allows those they work for to say that they’re the experts and their word should not be challenged, especially by other scientists from different fields. The result is propagation of false conclusions, as seen here and in the Sasquatch Genome Project.

1 comment:

  1. Do you know if there have been any new dna studies on this creature?
    Amazing that it is so difficult to not contaminate.

    ReplyDelete