What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
No live thylacine has been publicly demonstrated. Colossal Biosciences and its research partners have reported important advances in the technology needed for a de-extinction attempt: reconstructing an extinct genome, editing hundreds of genetic markers into living marsupial cells, and improving marsupial embryo culture and artificial-gestation systems.
Those are enabling milestones, not a resurrection. The public record reviewed here does not show a viable thylacine-like joey, a full-term engineered pregnancy, a breeding population, or approval to release an animal. The nearer-term result may be more practical: tools developed for the thylacine project are already being applied to conservation research on living Tasmanian devils.
What Colossal has—and has not—achieved
The thylacine, also called the Tasmanian tiger, was Australia’s only known marsupial apex predator. The last known individual died in captivity in 1936. Colossal’s project aims to recreate thylacine characteristics by combining ancient-genome analysis with genetic engineering, rather than by cloning an intact thylacine cell.
As of the public milestones reviewed for this report, the project has reached the cellular and reproductive-technology development stage. It has not reached the decisive biological milestone: producing and validating a living thylacine-like animal.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →#1 Best Overall
| Reported milestone | What it means | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|
| Thylacine genome reconstructed to more than 99.9% accuracy, according to a University of Melbourne announcement | Researchers have a substantially improved genetic reference for comparing the extinct animal with living relatives. | It does not recreate a living cell or capture every regulatory, developmental, behavioral, or epigenetic trait. |
| More than 300 genetic markers edited into fat-tailed dunnart cells | The team has demonstrated extensive cell-level engineering in a living marsupial model. | It does not mean that 300 genes were fully understood, that an embryo was edited, or that an animal with the intended phenotype exists. |
| Marsupial embryos cultured beyond halfway through pregnancy in an artificial-uterus device | Embryo culture and artificial-support systems have advanced for marsupial research. | The reported embryos were not thylacine embryos, and full-term artificial gestation has not been demonstrated. |
| Transfer of the technology to Tasmanian-devil disease research | The work is producing tools with a concrete application to living-species conservation. | It is not evidence that the de-extinction objective has been completed. |
How the proposed de-extinction process works
This is not conventional cloning. Conventional cloning generally starts with a living donor cell whose nucleus already contains the genome to be copied. No living thylacine cell is available. Colossal’s published plan instead uses the fat-tailed dunnart—a small living dasyurid marsupial—as the principal cellular and reproductive model.
- Reconstruct the extinct genome. Researchers sequence preserved thylacine material and assemble the DNA into a reference genome.
- Compare the thylacine with living relatives. The team sequences living marsupials and uses computational analysis to identify genetic differences that may be relevant to thylacine appearance, physiology, or other traits.
- Build usable marsupial cell systems. The proposed workflow includes dunnart cell lines and induced pluripotent stem cells, which can potentially be directed toward the cell types needed for reproduction and development.
- Edit selected thylacine-associated differences into dunnart cells. The goal is not to make a dunnart genetically identical to an extinct animal by changing an arbitrary number of genes. It is to identify and introduce changes believed to be important to a thylacine-like phenotype.
- Create an embryo. Colossal’s process pages describe transferring a modified nucleus into an egg, developing an embryo, and using a surrogate or artificial reproductive system.
- Support gestation and postnatal development. A successful embryo would still need to develop normally, be born, nurse, grow, and acquire the anatomy and behavior expected of a healthy marsupial.
Each step depends on the one before it. A better genome does not automatically reveal which DNA differences caused a striped coat, a particular skull shape, predator behavior, immune response, or reproductive pattern. Likewise, a successful edit in a dish does not establish that the edit will work in an embryo or produce the intended trait in an adult animal.
The genome milestone is substantial—but not a complete instruction manual
In October 2024, the University of Melbourne reported that its researchers had reconstructed a thylacine genome described as more than 99.9% accurate and the most complete and contiguous ancient genome of any species at that time. The announcement said the work used preserved thylacine material and represented a major improvement over the earlier reference genome.
This is a meaningful advance because ancient DNA is typically fragmented and damaged. A more contiguous reference can make it easier to compare the extinct animal with living marsupials and to design downstream cell and gene-editing work.
Recommended Free Tools
But the accuracy figure should be understood as a reported genome-assembly result, not as proof that every biologically important feature of the thylacine has been recovered. An independent 2025 preprint discussing thylacine gene loss pointed to continuing limitations, including incomplete long-read verification, the absence of a Y chromosome from a female-derived assembly, and the need for additional transcriptomic confirmation.
There is also a difference between having a highly detailed DNA sequence and understanding how that sequence operated inside a living animal. Gene regulation, developmental timing, epigenetic states, interactions among many genes, and environmental effects can all influence the final phenotype. The genome is necessary for the project, but it is not by itself a blueprint that identifies every trait with certainty.
What the 300-plus edits in dunnart cells show
The October 2024 University of Melbourne announcement reported that more than 300 genetic markers had been edited into fat-tailed dunnart cells, describing the result as the most edited animal cell at that time.
That should be called what it is: a major cell-engineering milestone. It is not a birth announcement. The public report does not establish that the edited cells were converted into a viable embryo, carried to term, or shown to produce a thylacine-like animal.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteThe wording also matters. “More than 300 genetic markers” should not automatically be translated into “more than 300 genes that make a thylacine.” Some changes may be associated with regions or variants whose biological effects are complex or uncertain. The number of edits says something about the scale of the engineering effort; it does not, by itself, tell us whether the right changes were selected, whether they work together, or whether they are sufficient.
The fat-tailed dunnart is useful because it is a living dasyurid marsupial with relevant reproductive biology. However, it is evolutionarily distant from the thylacine. That distance creates a central scientific question: how many differences matter for the desired phenotype, and how can researchers distinguish changes that are genuinely thylacine-specific from changes that are shared across marsupials or shaped by development?
For that reason, any eventual animal would need careful description. It would be more accurate initially to discuss a reconstructed thylacine-like animal or an engineered proxy unless and until researchers demonstrate that its genome, anatomy, physiology, behavior, and developmental biology justify a stronger species-level claim.
Marsupial embryo and artificial-gestation work
Genetic engineering is only one part of the challenge. The edited genetic material must support normal embryonic development, and the resulting young animal must survive the unusual reproductive biology of a marsupial.
The University of Melbourne reported that the team had optimized a method to induce ovulation in a dunnart and had cultured fertilized single-cell marsupial embryos beyond halfway through pregnancy in an artificial-uterus device. This is useful progress in reproductive technology, but the statement did not identify those embryos as thylacine embryos, did not report a live birth, and did not demonstrate full-term artificial gestation.
Colossal’s 2026 account of its artificial-womb work describes a dialysis-like support system with automated monitoring and algorithmic control of gases, nutrients, and chemical signals. The company presents the system as approaching industrial-scale reproductive production. That description remains a company-reported claim about the technology’s direction and capability; it is not a demonstration that a thylacine has completed gestation in an artificial womb.
Even a full-term birth would not end the scientific work. A marsupial newborn depends on appropriate nursing, pouch conditions, immune development, temperature control, nutrition, and maternal or artificial care. Researchers would then need to determine whether the animal’s bones, organs, nervous system, reproductive system, immune function, and behavior develop normally.
The latest related development is conservation work on Tasmanian devils
In the latest directly relevant public update identified for this report, dated July 13, 2026, Colossal Foundation and the University of Tasmania described applying thylacine-related marsupial husbandry, reproductive science, and dunnart-model technology to Tasmanian devil conservation.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsThe work addresses devil facial tumour disease and has two reported components:
- support for an oral-vaccine program; and
- investigation of the LZTR1 gene and mutations that may be associated with natural resistance to the disease.
A dedicated fat-tailed dunnart colony is being established as a safer research model before possible interventions are tested in endangered Tasmanian devils. This is important because Tasmanian devils are living animals facing an active conservation threat. A dunnart model may allow researchers to investigate delivery methods, immune responses, and gene-related questions without immediately placing endangered devils at the front of the experimental process.
The conservation work does not demonstrate a resurrected thylacine. It does show why the project’s technology may have value even if de-extinction proves biologically or ethically impractical. Marsupial cell culture, assisted reproduction, embryo support, genomic analysis, and disease research can benefit living species independently of whether an extinct predator is ever recreated.
The major hurdles still ahead
1. Knowing which genetic differences actually matter
A genome comparison can identify differences, but it cannot always reveal which differences caused a particular trait. Traits such as body size, coat pattern, jaw structure, metabolism, reproductive timing, and behavior are likely to involve many interacting regions of the genome. Ancient-DNA damage and assembly uncertainty can also lead to incorrect inferences if not checked with additional evidence.
2. Turning edited cells into a competent embryo
Cells can carry edits and still fail to reprogram correctly. The team must show that edited cells can be used to create embryos with the right chromosomal state, imprinting, gene expression, and developmental potential. The public milestones reviewed here establish cell editing and partial embryo-culture progress, not a complete chain from edited cell to healthy birth.
3. Completing gestation and raising a healthy joey
Marsupial reproduction does not end at birth. The animal would need suitable gestational support, a functional pouch or artificial equivalent, nutrition, immune protection, and careful postnatal care. Developmental abnormalities might not be visible at the embryo stage and could emerge during growth or adulthood.
4. Demonstrating the intended phenotype
Even if an animal survives, researchers would need to test whether it has the relevant thylacine-like characteristics rather than simply being a heavily edited dunnart. That would involve anatomy, physiology, sensory systems, movement, diet, social behavior, reproduction, and welfare. Behavior is especially difficult to reconstruct because it depends on both biology and learning from other animals.
5. Creating enough genetic diversity
One engineered animal is not a restored species. A viable population would need sufficient genetic diversity to reduce inbreeding and support long-term health. Reconstructing that diversity from limited preserved material and uncertain extinct variation is a major unresolved problem. Independent discussion has questioned how a genetically and demographically sustainable population could be created and managed.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
6. Deciding whether release would be responsible
Reintroduction would require much more than a successful birth. Authorities and independent experts would need to assess habitat, prey availability, disease, predators, competition, human conflict, animal welfare, biosecurity, and possible ecological effects. There is no public evidence of authorization for thylacine reintroduction, and no public demonstration that a reconstructed animal is ready for release.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What should count as the next decisive evidence?
Readers can use the following evidence ladder to separate an enabling-technology announcement from an actual de-extinction result:
- Edited cells: the intended changes are present and stable in cells.
- Developmentally competent embryos: edited cells produce embryos that develop normally through defined stages.
- Full-term pregnancy or gestation: an engineered embryo survives to birth using a surrogate or artificial system.
- A healthy juvenile and adult: the animal shows normal growth, organ function, immune health, and welfare.
- Validated phenotype: independent testing shows that relevant thylacine-like traits are present and not merely cosmetic.
- Reproductive success: the animals can reproduce and maintain health across generations.
- Ecological and regulatory clearance: independent risk assessment supports any carefully controlled conservation or reintroduction plan.
Colossal’s reported work has advanced the first part of this ladder and is developing tools relevant to the next stages. It has not publicly demonstrated the later stages.
Bottom line
Colossal’s thylacine program is no longer just a conceptual proposal. The reported genome reconstruction, extensive dunnart-cell editing, marsupial embryo work, and reproductive technology are substantial enabling advances. The project is also generating tools with a more immediate application in Tasmanian-devil disease research.
Best Value
But the accurate headline is still progress toward a possible thylacine-like animal, not “the thylacine has been brought back.” A viable embryo, full-term birth, healthy development, sufficient genetic diversity, ecological validation, and regulatory approval all remain outstanding. Until those steps are demonstrated publicly, the project should be understood as an ambitious genetic-engineering and marsupial-conservation program—not a completed resurrection.
Source note: This report reflects the University of Melbourne’s October 2024 milestone announcement, Colossal Biosciences’ published thylacine and artificial-womb materials, the 2025 independent preprint discussing ancient-genome limitations, and the July 2026 conservation update involving the Colossal Foundation and the University of Tasmania.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Colossal Biosciences brought back a living thylacine?
No. The public evidence reviewed here shows genome reconstruction, cell-level editing, and partial marsupial reproductive-technology progress. It does not show a viable thylacine-like joey, a full-term engineered pregnancy, or a living animal ready for release.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Is Colossal cloning the thylacine?
Not in the conventional sense. Because no living thylacine cell is available, the proposed approach uses a fat-tailed dunnart cell and reproductive system, then introduces selected thylacine-associated genetic differences.
What does editing more than 300 markers into dunnart cells mean?
It is a significant cell-engineering result. It does not prove that more than 300 genes have been fully understood or that the edits will produce a viable embryo or a thylacine-like animal.
Could this research help living Australian wildlife even if de-extinction fails?
Yes. The reported application to Tasmanian-devil facial tumour disease uses dunnart husbandry, genomic research, and reproductive tools developed or supported by the broader program. That conservation benefit is more immediate and concrete than a completed thylacine resurrection.
The Bottom Line
Colossal has reported meaningful progress in the technology stack needed for a thylacine de-extinction attempt, but no live thylacine or thylacine-like animal has been publicly demonstrated. The strongest near-term outcome may be the transfer of these marsupial tools to conservation work on Tasmanian devils and other living species.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
