Studies of ancient DNA have attracted considerable attention in scientific
journals and the popular pre-ss. Several of the more extreme claims for anc
ient DNA have been questioned on biochemical grounds (i.e.. DNA surviving l
onger than expected) and evolutionary grounds (i.e., nucleotide substitutio
n patterns not matching theoretical expectations for ancient DNA). A recent
letter to Nature from Vreeland et al. (2000). however. tops all others wit
h respect to age and condition of the specimen. These researchers extracted
and cultured a bacterium from an inclusion body from what they claim is a
250 million-year (Myr)-old salt crystal. If substantiated, this observation
could fundamentally alter views about bacterial physiology, ecology and ev
olution. Here we report on molecular evolutionary analyses of the 16S rDNA
from this specimen. We find that 2-9-3 differs from a modern halophile, Sal
ibacillus marismortui, by just 3 unambiguous bp in 16S rDNA, versus the sim
ilar to 59 bp that would be expected if these bacteria evolved at the same
rate as other bacteria. We show. using a Poisson distribution, that unless
it can be shown that S. marismortui evolves 5 to 10 times more slowly than
other bacteria for which 16S rDNA substitution rates have been established.
Vreeland et al.'s claim would be rejected at the 0.05 level. Also, a molec
ular clock test and a relative rates test fail to substantiate Vreeland et
al.'s claim that strain 2-9-3 is a 250-Myr-old bacterium. The report of Vre
eland et al. thus falls into a long series of suspect ancient DNA studies.