Next Article in Journal
Special Issue: Coevolution of Hosts and Their Microbiome
Next Article in Special Issue
What Is the Giant Wall Gecko Having for Dinner? Conservation Genetics for Guiding Reserve Management in Cabo Verde
Previous Article in Journal
Assembly of a Complete Mitogenome of Chrysanthemum nankingense Using Oxford Nanopore Long Reads and the Diversity and Evolution of Asteraceae Mitogenomes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Population Connectivity and Traces of Mitochondrial Introgression in New Zealand Black-Billed Gulls (Larus bulleri)
Open AccessReview


by Ben Jacob Novak 1,2,3
Revive & Restore, Sausalito, CA 94965, USA
Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Newcomb, Victoria 3220, Australia
Genes 2018, 9(11), 548;
Received: 26 September 2018 / Revised: 1 November 2018 / Accepted: 7 November 2018 / Published: 13 November 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Conservation Genetics and Genomics)
De-extinction projects for species such as the woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon have greatly stimulated public and scientific interest, producing a large body of literature and much debate. To date, there has been little consistency in descriptions of de-extinction technologies and purposes. In 2016, a special committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published a set of guidelines for de-extinction practice, establishing the first detailed description of de-extinction; yet incoherencies in published literature persist. There are even several problems with the IUCN definition. Here I present a comprehensive definition of de-extinction practice and rationale that expounds and reconciles the biological and ecological inconsistencies in the IUCN definition. This new definition brings together the practices of reintroduction and ecological replacement with de-extinction efforts that employ breeding strategies to recover unique extinct phenotypes into a single “de-extinction” discipline. An accurate understanding of de-extinction and biotechnology segregates the restoration of certain species into a new classification of endangerment, removing them from the purview of de-extinction and into the arena of species’ recovery. I term these species as “evolutionarily torpid species”; a term to apply to species falsely considered extinct, which in fact persist in the form of cryopreserved tissues and cultured cells. For the first time in published literature, all currently active de-extinction breeding programs are reviewed and their progress presented. Lastly, I review and scrutinize various topics pertaining to de-extinction in light of the growing body of peer-reviewed literature published since de-extinction breeding programs gained public attention in 2013. View Full-Text
Keywords: de-extinction; precise hybridization; evolutionarily torpid species; proxy; passenger pigeon; woolly mammoth; heath hen; revive & restore de-extinction; precise hybridization; evolutionarily torpid species; proxy; passenger pigeon; woolly mammoth; heath hen; revive & restore
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Novak, B.J. De-Extinction. Genes 2018, 9, 548.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Search more from Scilit
Back to TopTop