In a recent study, researchers examined the ancient microbial DNA of 483 mammoths, preserved for over a million years. This included 440 newly analyzed unpublished samples from Steppe Mammoths dating back 1.1 million years. Through metagenome screening, contaminant filtering, damage pattern analysis, and phylogenetic inference, they identified 310 microorganisms linked to various mammoth tissues.
Ginet et al. Partial genome reconstruction of erysipelothrix, representing the oldest confirmed host-related microbial DNA from the oldest mammoth samples. Image credit: Ginet et al., doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.08.003.
“Envision a mammoth tooth from a million years ago,” stated Dr. Benjamin Ginette, a postdoctoral researcher at Stockholm’s Paleogenetic Centre and the Swedish Museum of Natural History.
“Imagine if it still harbors traces of ancient microorganisms that existed alongside this mammoth?”
“Our findings push the boundaries of microbial DNA research beyond a million years, unlocking new avenues for understanding how host-associated microorganisms evolved in tandem with their hosts.”
The team discovered six microbial groups consistently linked to mammoth hosts, including relatives of Actinobacillus, Pasturella, Streptococcus, and erysipelothrix. Some of these microbes may have been pathogenic.
For instance, one Pasturella bacteria identified in this study is closely related to the pathogens responsible for a fatal outbreak among African elephants.
Given that African and Asian elephants are the closest living relatives of mammoths, these results raise concerns about whether mammoths could also be susceptible to similar infectious diseases.
Remarkably, scientists have reconstructed a partial genome of erysipelothrix from a Steppe Mammoth that lived 1.1 million years ago, marking the oldest known host-related microbial DNA ever recovered.
This advances our understanding of the interactions between ancient hosts and their microbiota.
“As microorganisms evolved rapidly, acquiring reliable DNA data spanning over a million years has felt like tracing a path that continually rewrites itself,” noted Dr. Tom van der Bark of the Paleobiological Centre and the Museum of Natural History in Sweden.
“Our discoveries illustrate that ancient artifacts can retain biological insights far beyond the host genome, offering a perspective on how microorganisms influenced Pleistocene ecosystem adaptation, disease, and extinction.”
Determining the exact impact of the identified microorganisms on mammoth health is challenging due to DNA degradation and limited comparative data, but this study provides an unparalleled view into the microbiota of extinct megafaunas.
The findings suggest that multiple microbial lines coexisted with mammoths for hundreds of thousands of years, spanning vast geographical areas and evolutionary timescales, from the extinction of woolly mammoths on Lengel Island over a million years ago to their decline around 4,000 years ago.
“This research opens a new chapter in understanding the biology of extinct species,” says Professor Love Darren, a researcher at the Swedish Museum of Natural History and the Paleogenetic Centre at Stockholm University.
“Not only can researchers study the mammoth genome itself, but they can also begin to explore the microbial communities that cohabited with it.”
This study was published this week in the journal Cell.
____
Benjamin Ginet et al. Ancient host-related microorganisms recovered from mammoths. Cell published online on September 2, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.08.003
In my view, the Stern-Gerlach experiment was a pivotal moment that introduced the findings of quantum mechanics to the scientific community. Proposed by Otto Stern and carried out by Walther Gerlach in 1922, this experiment demonstrated that atoms possess quantum properties. It revealed that electrons must adhere to quantum principles. The Stern-Gerlach experiments underscore the unusual aspects of the quantum realm, suggesting that observers seem to influence the properties that particles exhibit. Measuring the quantum characteristic known as spin appears to alter the possible spin values particles can possess subsequently. Essentially, the act of observation influences the future states of a particle.
In physics, we are conditioned to perceive ourselves as separate from the physical systems we study. This experiment challenges that separation. My experience shows that students often accept this premise as an undeniable truth. However, after contemplating it multiple times, they find it at odds with their intuitive understanding of reality. Coming to terms with these outcomes is a surreal journey—wonderful and extraordinary.
When I reflect on how to articulate witnessing the decline of American science in real-time, “surreal” is the best descriptor. It does not resemble the surrealism of the Stern-Gerlach experiment; instead, it feels like a reawakening to a tangible reality. I recognize that I once harbored an illusion about the world, but the emerging reality is intriguing and exhilarating.
Our current political climate resembles a reckoning with a previously held false sense of security. It seems that although the US government might support science today, there won’t be a transformative reality waiting for us tomorrow. Instead, the government continues to squander taxpayer-funded culture, casting it into oblivion. This metaphor carries weight: when an object crosses a black hole’s event horizon, it reaches a point of no return. The object is lost forever.
We find ourselves in a similar predicament. The universe remains to be explored, but the impairments to our research capabilities are enduring, altering the trajectory permanently. The number of master’s and doctoral programs has already diminished the availability of opportunities. Aspiring professors are not receiving the same level of training, which will affect not only future scientists but also science communicators.
The US government discards publicly funded culture, casting it into voids of neglect.
The entirety of our future appears discarded. While Donald Trump has suggested cuts to NASA’s astrophysics budget and the National Science Foundation’s physics funding, these reductions in mathematics and astronomy will not prevent global hindrances to science, and will lead to far-reaching repercussions. The US plays a crucial role as a global investor in particle physics, cosmology, and investigations into fundamental truths.
While attending the 2025 Natural Philosophy Symposium at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, we were alerted to devastating budget cuts to NASA’s funding. The event started with an engaging talk by philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers, followed by insights from philosopher Sandra Mitchell on human reasoning, and a discussion with theoretical physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed.
We discussed questions that have captivated humanity for millennia. What is reality, and how can one engage in researching that reality? Such events emphasize the potential outcomes when provided with the necessary time, space, and resources to explore ideas.
During this gathering, NASA’s Astrophysics department appeared to be on the brink of obliteration. The repercussions of this shift will echo for decades. In 1922, Germany stood at the forefront of scientific understanding. However, after the Nazis subverted German science for their propaganda, the field never fully recovered.
This narrative may seem like a dramatic tale about a specific group of individuals. Yet, it’s essential to remember that these discussions lead to real publications. I benefited from Government Pell Grants for economically disadvantaged undergraduates and the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship. The research discussed in this article has been financed through several federal agencies.
This disconcerting moment affects not only scientists in the US but resonates worldwide. Much of the science we engage with originates from American institutions, making this issue pertinent to all of us.
Chanda’s Week
What I’m reading
I’m currently delving into Ricky Fein’s intriguing debut novel. The devil has three times.
What I’m watching
I’ve enjoyed Mission: Impossible, and I’ve seen all of the films at least once in the past two weeks.
What I’m working on
I’ve drafted my third book, The Universe is a Black Aesthetic (Coming soon from Duke University Press).
Chanda Prescod-Weinstein serves as an associate professor of physics and astronomy, as well as a core faculty member of women’s studies at the University of New Hampshire. Her latest book is The Disturbed Cosmos: A Journey to Dark Matter, Space, and Dreams.
Elon Musk and Donald Trump have ended their friendship. Tensions flared between them mid-week, with both exchanging sharp criticisms. Four days after their public clash, I declare Musk the loser of this battle; the seemingly unstoppable force has met its match with the immovable object.
According to colleagues Hugo Lowell and Andrew Ross: On Thursday, Elon Musk mocked Donald Trump’s bounce by commenting on his connection with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The US president threatened to revoke federal contracts and tax incentives for Musk’s companies during this extraordinary social media spat that erupted among his former allies. This latest jab at Trump highlights Musk’s criticism of a Republican spending bill.
“Without me, Trump would lose the election, the Democrats would gain control of the House, and Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk tweeted on X.
The repercussions were swift. Tesla’s stock, already grappling with difficulties, plunged 15%, wiping approximately $150 billion off the market. The implications for Trump and the Republican Party could take longer to unfold, as the midterm elections for the US Congress won’t occur until later next year.
When Trump and Musk were allies, many liberals predicted a tumultuous public fallout. I didn’t anticipate such an outcome. Musk appeared robust and allied with the formidable Trump. The Republican campaign needed a substantial cash influx, which Musk could provide.
However, Trump revealed last week that several of his closest advisers have left dramatically, victims of what he termed “Trump craziness.” Musk seems to follow a similar pattern. A notable example is Steve Bannon, once a top strategist for Trump, who was ousted from the White House but is now hosting a podcast scrutinizing Trump’s actions. Bannon spent last week calling for Musk’s ousting. Trump, not realizing he is often the common denominator in these fiery departures, appears similar to Musk; by Sunday, he had tweeted about the Los Angeles riots, retweeting Vice President JD Vance with patriotic emojis while targeting California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The conflict between Musk and Trump underlined America’s dependency on a single company for its space capabilities. During his outburst, Musk threatened to dismantle SpaceX’s Dragon Rocket. What would the nation do without him? In a pinch, perhaps another billionaire with a rocket could suffice, even with a pop star on board.
Trump and Musk will shake hands at the NCAA Division I Wrestling Championship in Philadelphia on March 22nd. Photo: Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
This spat has also brought to light Musk’s relative vulnerabilities. Musk threatened to dismantle the Dragon Rocket and quickly backed down from his ultimatum regarding requests on X. Meanwhile, Trump has remained silent online, not retaliating against Musk. This indicates the overarching theme of his second administration; Musk often targets those with less power and wealth, but when faced with significant challenges, he retreats. Recall his enthusiastic challenge to Mark Zuckerberg about arranging a cage fight in 2023. Zuckerberg responded, both intrigued and more robust, while Musk seemed outmatched. He eventually backed down. As for Trump, he claims he could save money by canceling government contracts with Musk. Musk replied, “Make my day,” but subsequently scaled back his threats.
In the long term, what does this tragic unraveling of alliances mean for Trump and Musk? To date, Musk has reportedly lost about $90 billion in net worth, an astounding figure according to the Bloomberg Billionaire Index. He remains the world’s wealthiest individual with nearly $100 billion.
Perhaps the bigger loser is democracy itself. Recently, he polled his followers about establishing a centrist political party he wants to call the “American Party.” He possesses the resources to make it a reality but has not indicated any centrist political inclinations over the past two years. His presence in political gatherings has proven more repulsive than magnetic, significantly affecting key elections like the Wisconsin Supreme Court contest earlier this year.
Read more about how the Trump-Musk feud reveals the perils of concentrating power in one individual here.
Read more about the mutual damage inflicted by Trump and Musk here.
Discover more about the economic consequences of their feud concerning Tesla here.
AI isn’t as capable of making movies as executives claim
Director John Wick and Chad Stahelsky. Photo: David Lee/Thunder Road Pictures/Allstar
Last Thursday, I attended a showcase featuring eight short films generated using the Runway Artificial Intelligence tool. In a pre-screening discussion, Runway’s co-founder and chief design officer Alejandro Matamala-Ortiz stated that the two-hour AI-generated film was “close.” Lionsgate executives explained to New York Magazine that there are many invisible production processes beyond just the final footage shown in theaters. Lionsgate has entered a contract with Runway, using some of its archives to train AI for cutting-edge projects.
The film I observed had a quality that echoed the executives’ comments on AI. Six of the eight shorts evoked little emotion. They lacked character and depth, resembling placeholders. While AI can create any imaginable image, the film lacked true creativity. The smooth, composite textures from multiple AI-generated images rendered them as intriguing and stylish as a basic first draft. If directors don’t take the time to elevate their work beyond a typical mid-journey output, why would anyone want to watch them? One film, an anime revenge story centered around cherry blossom trees, made me chuckle. Another claimed to document the sporadic emergence of cicadas but primarily featured lens flares. It felt reminiscent of a mid-tier student film; most entries were muddled, and the cinematography lacked distinct perspectives. Runway claimed to have received 6,000 submissions from 300 creators in 2022. I shiver at the thought of a Clockwork Orange-style scenario where someone had to view all those entries.
After viewing these shorts, I believed they resembled student films, potentially due to the early stages of production techniques that filmmakers are grappling with. Since its submission to the IT Film Festival in April, Runway has introduced new features to its tools, with Google recently releasing its own video generation tool, Veo 3. The output is more refined compared to what I viewed last week.
The remaining two films ventured into compelling territories. One was a video essay titled Total Pixel Space, which proved to be thought-provoking. This meditation on the nature of AI-generated images emphasized how few images we encounter in realistic situations versus those that never happened, offering unfortunate insights into our visual culture.
“Total Pixel Space represents both ultimate determinism and ultimate freedom, laden with possibilities that await consciousness to shape meaning through choices,” the film’s narration stated. I noted that it highlights AI-rendered images confined to pixel parameters on screens but unable to exist physically. Considering our mortality, the film poses a poignant question: how will you utilize your time and choices? What do you choose to imbue with meaning?
“Total Pixel Space” won the Grand Prize in the contest. While it was a triumph, the film poses a specific challenge to Matamala-Ortiz’s viewpoint. If one extrapolates from the film festival output, will you really witness a two-hour video essay delineating the trajectory AI films will take? It’s rather rare for such a film to maintain interest for that long.
Another editor developed a character and her inner life—a fundamental requirement for live-action films—yet this seems an insurmountable hurdle in AI-produced cinema. AI struggles to recreate consistent facial expressions across various scenarios. Despite these limitations, I still advocate for short films. Occasionally, a surge of creativity produces stunning montages, capable of suggesting interdimensional travel. AI can produce hundreds of diverse backgrounds in seconds, achieving scenes that would otherwise require significant budgets. Editing can utilize these capabilities for impactful effects. Perhaps that’s the ultimate goal of AI: serving as an enhancer rather than a sole creator. Lionsgate’s VP remarked on similar ideas, indicating that AI tools can make a $100 million film appear even larger and more cinematic. “We amplify elements, ensuring a more significant, filmic experience,” he told New York.
This week’s AI News
What do you want to share with us?
Photo: Guardian
The Guardian has introduced a new feature within its app, developed in collaboration with computer scientists from Cambridge University.
The secure messaging function allows you to send messages to Guardian staff directly through the app, presenting a potential channel for news stories. To utilize this feature, tap on the three bars located at the bottom right of the Guardian app, scroll down to “More From the Guardian,” and select “Secure Messaging.” By saving a passphrase—consisting of randomly generated words—you can then create a secure channel for your messages. Sending a message to the Guardian operates similarly to ordinary app traffic, providing a layer of anonymity not found in traditional texting. Unlike conventional messages, secure messaging masks your activity on your device, making it appear as though you’re simply browsing the news.
For more detailed information about secure messaging, click here.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
