FACEBOOK GETTY

Facebook users should be on the lookout for a new scam that involves stealing your identity.

Using a process known as "cloning", cybercriminals copy your name and profile pictures in order to set-up a brand-new but from the outside, identical Facebook account.

To make their cloned account appear as real as possible, scammers will even replicate your personal information and past status updates.

When the fake account is finished, the online criminals impersonate you and send friend requests to your friends and family.

The scam works because your nearest and dearest assume the Facebook account is genuine, and trust they are talking to you.

GETTY

A worrying number of users have reported false Facebook accounts asking for money after building up a level of trust and even engaging in conversations while pretending to be the true account holder.

While cloning is more sophisticated than some traditional online scams, the techniques used by these online scammers to fleece friends and family out of money can be a little rudimentary.

Some users have reported incidents of these cloned accounts claiming to have received a $50 million grant from the US government and they want to share the news on how others can receive the same.

One of the people whos account has been cloned for such uses is Yvonne Allen.

Getty

1 of 24

Facebook is the number one app. Every second 20,000 people are on Facebook

She told American media: I get upset because this is about the third time this has happened.

I didnt receive anything. If they want to send me $50 million, Ill take it."

Maybe theyre trying to get you to send them money, however other scammers are trying to do something a little more nefarious and thats steal your identity, Danielle Hatfield, owner of web hosting service Experience Farm warned.

When they finally get around to the scam of maybe asking for money, your friends and family will fall for it.

Its advised that Facebook users who believe theyre being targeted by what they suspect is a false account should simply search the social network to see if theyre already friends with the person theyre getting additional friend requests from.

Another way to protect yourself from Facebook cloning is to ensure your privacy settings are cranked up to 10 and only your approved friends can see your account.

Last month, aFacebook scam started doing the rounds claiming the social network was about to start charging users.

The rest is here:

Facebook scam lets hackers clone your account and STEAL money ... - Express.co.uk

JoVE Science Education Basic Biology Basic Methods in Cellular and Molecular Biology Molecular Cloning

Enter your email to receive a free trial:

A subscription to JoVE is required to view this article. You will only be able to see the first 20 seconds.

Molecular cloning is a set of techniques used to insert recombinant DNA from a prokaryotic or eukaryotic source into a replicating vehicle such as plasmids or viral vectors. Cloning refers to making numerous copies of a DNA fragment of interest, such as a gene. In this video you will learn about the different steps of molecular cloning, how to set up the procedure, and different applications of this technique.

At least two important DNA molecules are required before cloning begins. First, and most importantly, you need the DNA fragment you are going to clone, otherwise known as the insert. It can come from a prokaryote, eukaryote, an extinct organism, or it can be created artificially in the laboratory. By using molecular cloning we can learn more about the function of a particular gene.

Second, you need a vector. A vector is plasmid DNA used as a tool in molecular biology to make more copies of or produce a protein from a certain gene. Plasmids are an example of a vector, and are circular, extra chromosomal, DNA that is replicated by bacteria.

A plasmid typically has a multiple cloning site or MCS, this area contains recognition sites for different restriction endonucleases also known as restriction enzymes. Different inserts can be incorporated into the plasmid by a technique called ligation. The plasmid vector also contains an origin of replication, which allows it to be replicated in bacteria. In addition, the plasmid has an antibiotic gene. If bacteria incorporate the plasmid, it will survive in media that contains the antibiotic. This allows for the selection of bacteria that have been successfully transformed.

The insert and vector are cloned into a host cell organism, the most common used in molecular cloning is E. coli. E. coli grows rapidly, is widely available and has numerous different cloning vectors commercially produced. Eukaryotes, like, yeast can also be used as host organisms for vectors.

The first step of the general molecular cloning procedure is to obtain the desired insert, which can be derived from DNA or mRNA from any cell type. The optimal vector and its host organism are then chosen based they type of insert and what will ultimately be done with it. A polymerase chain reaction, or PCR based method is often used to replicate the insert.

Then by using a series of enzymatic reactions, the insert and digest are joined together and introduced into the host organism for mass replication. Replicated vectors are purified from bacteria, and following restriction digestion, analyzed on a gel. Gel-purified fragments are later sent for sequencing to verify that the inset is the desired DNA fragment.

Lets have a little more detailed look at how molecular cloning is conducted. Before beginning, you will want to plan out your cloning strategy, prior to making any cloning attempt at the bench. For example, any given plasmid vector, will provide you with a finite number of restriction sites to incorporate the insert via the multiple cloning site. Youll need to choose restriction sites that are not found in your insert so that you do not cleave it. You might be left with a situation where you are forced to join a blunt end fragment with one that has an overhang. If so, then using the klenow fragment to set up a blunt end ligation might be your only option to get the insert into your desired vector. Understanding the various molecular cloning tools at your disposal, as well as coming up with a careful strategy before you begin cloning can be an immense time saver.

The source of DNA for molecular cloning can be isolated from almost any type of cell or tissue sample through simple extraction techniques. Once isolated, PCR can be used to amplify the insert.

Once the insert is amplified both it and the vector are digested by restriction enzymes, also known as restriction endonucleases.

Once digested, the insert and vector can be run on a gel and purified by a process called gel purification. With respect to the vector, this step will help to purify linearized plasmid from uncut plasmid, which tends to appear as a high molecular weight smear on a gel.

After gel purifying the digests, the insert is ligated or joined to the plasmid, via an enzyme called DNA ligase.

Generally speaking, it is always a good idea to set up ligations, so that the ratio of insert to vector is 3 to 1, which ensures that only a small amount of vector will self-ligate. Once the ligation has been set up on ice, it is incubated anywhere from 14-25C from 1 hr to overnight.

Next, transformation is performed to introduce the plasmid vector into the host that will replicate it.

Following transformation bacteria are plated on agar plates with antibiotic and incubated overnight at 37C. Because the plasimid contains an antibiotic resistance gene, successful transformation will produce bacterial colonies when grown on agar plates in presence of antibiotics. Individual colonies can then be picked from the transformed plate, placed into liquid growth media in numbered tubes, and put into a shaking incubator for expansion. A small volume of liquid culture is added to a numbered agar plate, while the rest of the culture moves on to plasmid purification. The numbering scheme that denotes the identity of bacterial colonies from which the plasmids will eventually be purified is maintained throughout the plasmid purification process.

A sample of purified plasmid is then cut with restriction enzymes. The digest is then loaded and run on the gel in order to check for the presence of insert, which will verify that the bacterial colony was transformed with a plasmid containing an insert and not self-ligated plasmid. Bacteria verified to have been transformed with an insert-containing plasmid, are expanded for further plasmid purification. Sequencing is used performed as a final verification step to confirm that your gene of interest has been cloned.

Molecular cloning can be used for a near limitless number of applications. For instance, when an mRNA template is reverse transcribed to form cDNA, or complementary DNA, by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase and then PCR is used to amplify the cDNA, molecular cloning can be used to create a cDNA library a library of all of the genes expressed by a given cell type.

Molecular cloning can also be employed to take a series of genes, or gene cluster from one bacterial strain, reorganize them into plasmids that are transformed in another strain, so an entire biosynthetic pathway can be recreated to produce a complex molecule.

Through molecular cloning, a mutant library can be generated by expressing a target plasmid in a special bacterial strain that uses an error prone polymerase when cultured at certain temperatures. The mutations can be characterized by sequencing. Bacteria transformed with mutant genes can then be tested with different drug or chemicals to see which bacterial colonies have evolved to have drug resistance.

Thanks to molecular cloning, reporter genes can be incorporated into DNA plasmids, a common reporter gene is green fluorescent protein or GFP, which emits a green fluorescence when exposed to UV light. A reporter gene can also be inserted into an alphavirus to show infection in mosquitoes and transmissibility in cells.

Youve just watched JoVEs video on molecular cloning. You should now understand how molecular cloning works and how the technique can be used in molecular biology. As always, thanks for watching!

Alphavirus Transducing System: Tools for Visualizing Infection in Mosquito Vectors

Isolation of Ribosome Bound Nascent Polypeptides in vitro to Identify Translational Pause Sites Along mRNA

Optimized Analysis of DNA Methylation and Gene Expression from Small, Anatomically-defined Areas of the Brain

Single Oocyte Bisulfite Mutagenesis

Large Insert Environmental Genomic Library Production

DNA Gel Electrophoresis

Bacterial Transformation: The Heat Shock Method

DNA Ligation Reactions

Restriction Enzyme Digests

Molecular cloning is a set of methods, which are used to insert recombinant DNA into a vector - a carrier of DNA molecules that will replicate recombinant DNA fragments in host organisms. The DNA fragment, which may be a gene, can be isolated from a prokaryotic or eukaryotic specimen. Following isolation of the fragment of interest, or insert, both the vector and insert must be cut with restriction enzymes and purified. The purified pieces are joined together though a technique called ligation. The enzyme that catalyzes the ligation reaction is known as ligase.

This video explains the major methods that are combined, in tandem, to comprise the overall molecular cloning procedure. Critical aspects of molecular cloning are discussed, such as the need for molecular cloning strategy and how to keep track of transformed bacterial colonies. Verification steps, such as checking purified plasmid for the presence of insert with restrictions digests and sequencing are also mentioned.

JoVE Science Education Database. Basic Methods in Cellular and Molecular Biology. Molecular Cloning. JoVE, Cambridge, MA, doi: 10.3791/5074 (2017).

JoVE Immunology and Infection

Aaron Phillips1, Eric Mossel1, Irma Sanchez-Vargas1, Brian Foy1, Ken Olson1

1Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University

Reporter constructs can be incorporated into DNA plasmids using molecular cloning. A common reporter gene is green fluorescent protein (GFP), which emits a green fluorescence when exposed to UV light. A reporter gene was inserted into an alphavirus to show viral infection in mosquitoes and viral transmissibility in cells.

JoVE Biology

Sujata S. Jha1, Anton A. Komar1

1Center for Gene Regulation in Health and Disease, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Cleveland State University

Here, molecular cloning is used to identify translation pause sites in mRNA in a gene of interest. The DNA template is transcribed and translated in vitro followed by the isolation and characterization of nascent polypeptides newly developed amino acid chains.

JoVE Neuroscience

Marc Bettscheider1, Arleta Kuczynska1, Osborne Almeida1, Dietmar Spengler1

1Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry

This video article shows a step-by-step protocol for examining the epigenetic modifications of genomic DNA isolated from the brains of differentially-aged mice through molecular cloning. Molecular cloning techniques are used to analyze DNA methylation of samples from the brain.

JoVE Biology

Michelle M. Denomme1,2,3, Liyue Zhang3, Mellissa R.W. Mann1,2,3

1Department of Obstretrics & Gynaecology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, 2Department of Biochemistry, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, 3Children's Health Research Institute

The goal of this experiment is to measure DNA methylation in a single oocyte, a female germ cell, with the use of molecular cloning. Nested PCR is used to amplify the regions of DNA followed by molecular cloning to show methylation at CpG dinucleotides, sites where cytosine is next to guanine.

JoVE Biology

Marcus Taupp1, Sangwon Lee1, Alyse Hawley1, Jinshu Yang1, Steven J. Hallam1

1Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of British Columbia - UBC

Here, researchers collected native biomass samples to isolate pieces of genomic DNA and use molecular cloning to ligate DNA fragments of appropriate size into fosmid vectors. Fosmids are cloning vectors that are based on the bacterial F (fertility)-plasmid, which can hold relatively large inserts . DNA from the transformed bacteria is packaged into virus particles to create a phage genomic DNA library.

JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments) is the worlds first PubMed-indexed scientific video journal. Its mission is to advance scientific research and education by increasing productivity, reproducibility, and efficiency of knowledge transfer for scientists, educators, and students worldwide through visual learning solutions.

See the original post here:

Molecular Cloning: Basics and Applications | Protocol

A mammoth is any species of the extinct genus Mammuthus, proboscideans commonly equipped with long, curved tusks and, in northern species, a covering of long hair. They lived from the Pliocene epoch (from around 5million years ago) into the Holocene at about 4,500 years ago[1][2] in Africa, Europe, Asia, and North America. They were members of the family Elephantidae, which also contains the two genera of modern elephants and their ancestors. Mammoths stem from an ancestral species called M. africanavus, the African mammoth. These mammoths lived in northern Africa and disappeared about 3 or 4 million years ago. Descendants of these mammoths moved north and eventually covered most of Eurasia. These were M. meridionalis, the 'southern mammoths'.[3]

The earliest known proboscideans, the clade that contains the elephants, existed about 55 million years ago around the Tethys Sea area. The closest relatives of the Proboscidea are the sirenians and the hyraxes. The family Elephantidae is known to have existed six million years ago in Africa, and includes the living elephants and the mammoths. Among many now extinct clades, the mastodon is only a distant relative of the mammoths, and part of the separate Mammutidae family, which diverged 25 million years before the mammoths evolved.[4]

The following cladogram shows the placement of the genus Mammuthus among other proboscideans, based on hyoid characteristics:[5]

Since many remains of each species of mammoth are known from several localities, it is possible to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the genus through morphological studies. Mammoth species can be identified from the number of enamel ridges on their molars; the primitive species had few ridges, and the amount increased gradually as new species evolved and replaced the former ones. At the same time, the crowns of the teeth became longer, and the skulls become higher from top to bottom and shorter from the back to the front over time to accommodate this.[6]

The first known members of the genus Mammuthus are the African species M. subplanifrons from the Pliocene and M. africanavus from the Pleistocene. The former is thought to be the ancestor of later forms. Mammoths entered Europe around 3 million years ago; the earliest known type has been named M. rumanus, which spread across Europe and China. Only its molars are known, which show it had 810 enamel ridges. A population evolved 1214 ridges and split off from and replaced the earlier type, becoming M. meridionalis. In turn, this species was replaced by the steppe mammoth, M. trogontherii, with 1820 ridges, which evolved in East Asia ca. 1 million years ago. Mammoths derived from M. trogontherii evolved molars with 26 ridges 200,000 years ago in Siberia, and became the woolly mammoth, M. primigenius.[6] The Columbian mammoth, M. columbi, evolved from a population of M. trogontherii that had entered North America. A 2011 genetic study showed that two examined specimens of the Columbian mammoth were grouped within a subclade of woolly mammoths. This suggests that the two populations interbred and produced fertile offspring. It also suggested that a North American form known as "M. jeffersonii" may be a hybrid between the two species.[7]

By the late Pleistocene, mammoths in continental Eurasia had undergone a major transformation, including a shortening and heightening of the cranium and mandible, increase in molar hypsodonty index, increase in plate number, and thinning of dental enamel. Due to this change in physical appearance, it became customary to group European mammoths separately into distinguishable clusters:

There is speculation as to what caused this variation within the three chronospecies. Variations in environment, climate change, and migration surely played roles in the evolutionary process of the mammoths. Take M. primigenius for example: Woolly mammoths lived in opened grassland biomes. The cool steppe-tundra of the Northern Hemisphere was the ideal place for mammoths to thrive because of the resources it supplied. With occasional warmings during the ice age, climate would change the landscape, and resources available to the mammoths altered accordingly.[6][8][9]

The word mammoth was first used in Europe during the early 1600s, when referring to maimanto tusks discovered in Siberia.[10] John Bell,[11] who was on the Ob River in 1722, said that mammoth tusks were well known in the area. They were called "mammon's horn" and were often found in washed-out river banks. Some local people claimed to have seen a living mammoth, but they only came out at night and always disappeared under water when detected. He bought one and presented it to Hans Sloan who pronounced it an elephant's tooth.

The folklore of some native peoples of Siberia, who would routinely find mammoth bones, and sometimes frozen mammoth bodies, in eroding river banks, had various interesting explanations for these finds. Among the Khanty people of the Irtysh River basin, a belief existed that the mammoth was some kind of a water spirit. According to other Khanty, the mammoth was a creature that lived underground, burrowing its tunnels as it went, and would die if it accidentally came to the surface.[12] The concept of the mammoth as an underground creature was known to the Chinese, who received some mammoth ivory from the Siberian natives; accordingly, the creature was known in China as yn sh , "the hidden rodent".[13]

Thomas Jefferson, who famously had a keen interest in paleontology, is partially responsible for transforming the word mammoth from a noun describing the prehistoric elephant to an adjective describing anything of surprisingly large size. The first recorded use of the word as an adjective was in a description of a large wheel of cheese (the "Cheshire Mammoth Cheese") given to Jefferson in 1802.[14]

Like their modern relatives, mammoths were quite large. The largest known species reached heights in the region of 4m (13ft) at the shoulder and weights of up to 8 tonnes (8.8 short tons), while exceptionally large males may have exceeded 12 tonnes (13 short tons). However, most species of mammoth were only about as large as a modern Asian elephant (which are about 2.5 m to 3 m high at the shoulder, and rarely exceeding 5 tonnes). Both sexes bore tusks. A first, small set appeared at about the age of six months, and these were replaced at about 18 months by the permanent set. Growth of the permanent set was at a rate of about 2.5 to 15.2cm (1 to 6in) per year.[15]

Based on studies of their close relatives, the modern elephants, mammoths probably had a gestation period of 22 months, resulting in a single calf being born. Their social structure was probably the same as that of African and Asian elephants, with females living in herds headed by a matriarch, whilst bulls lived solitary lives or formed loose groups after sexual maturity.[16]

Scientists discovered and studied the remains of a mammoth calf, and found that fat greatly influenced its form, and enabled it to store large amounts of nutrients necessary for survival in temperatures as low as 50C (58F).[17] The fat also allowed the mammoths to increase their muscle mass, allowing the mammoths to fight against enemies and live longer.[18]

Depending on the species or race of mammoth, the diet differed somewhat depending on location, although all mammoths ate similar things. For the Columbian mammoth, M. columbi, the diet was mainly grazing. American Columbian mammoths fed primarily on cacti leaves, trees, and shrubs. These assumptions were based on mammoth feces and mammoth teeth. Mammoths, like modern day elephants, have hypsodont molars. These features also allowed mammoths to live an expansive life because of the availability of grasses and trees.[19]

For the Mongochen mammoth, its diet consisted of herbs, grasses, larch, and shrubs, and possibly alder. These inferences were made through the observation of mammoth feces, which scientists observed contained non-arboreal pollen and moss spores.[20]

European mammoths had a major diet of C3 carbon fixation plants. This was determined by examining the isotopic data from the European mammoth teeth.[21]

The Yamal baby mammoth Lyuba, found in 2007 in the Yamal Peninsula in Western Siberia, suggests that baby mammoths, as do modern baby elephants, ate the dung of adult animals. The evidence to show this is that the dentition (teeth) of the baby mammoth had not yet fully developed to chew grass. Furthermore, there was an abundance of ascospores of coprophilous fungi from the pollen spectrum of the baby's mother. Coprophilous fungi are fungi that grow on animal dung and disperse spores in nearby vegetation, which the baby mammoth would then consume. Spores might have gotten into its stomach while grazing for the first few times. Coprophagy may be an adaptation, serving to populate the infant's gut with the needed microbiome for digestion.

Mammoths alive in the Arctic during the Last Glacial Maximum consumed mainly forbs, such as Artemisia; graminoids were only a minor part of their diet.[22]

The woolly mammoth (M. primigenius) was the last species of the genus. Most populations of the woolly mammoth in North America and Eurasia, as well as all the Columbian mammoths (M. columbi) in North America, died out around the time of the last glacial retreat, as part of a mass extinction of megafauna in northern Eurasia and the Americas. Until recently, the last woolly mammoths were generally assumed to have vanished from Europe and southern Siberia about 12,000 years ago, but new findings show some were still present there about 10,000 years ago. Slightly later, the woolly mammoths also disappeared from continental northern Siberia.[23] A small population survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, up until 3750BC,[2][24][25] and the small[26] mammoths of Wrangel Island survived until 1650BC.[27][28] Recent research of sediments in Alaska indicates mammoths survived on the American mainland until 10,000 years ago.[29]

A definitive explanation for their extinction has yet to be agreed. The warming trend (Holocene) that occurred 12,000 years ago, accompanied by a glacial retreat and rising sea levels, has been suggested as a contributing factor. Forests replaced open woodlands and grasslands across the continent. The available habitat would have been reduced for some megafaunal species, such as the mammoth. However, such climate changes were nothing new; numerous very similar warming episodes had occurred previously within the ice age of the last several million years without producing comparable megafaunal extinctions, so climate alone is unlikely to have played a decisive role.[30][31] The spread of advanced human hunters through northern Eurasia and the Americas around the time of the extinctions, however, was a new development, and thus might have contributed significantly.[30][31]

Whether the general mammoth population died out for climatic reasons or due to overhunting by humans is controversial.[32] During the transition from the Late Pleistocene epoch to the Holocene epoch, there was shrinkage of the distribution of the mammoth because progressive warming at the end of the Pleistocene epoch changed the mammoth's environment. The mammoth steppe was a periglacial landscape with rich herb and grass vegetation that disappeared along with the mammoth because of environmental changes in the climate. Mammoths had moved to isolated spots in Eurasia, where they disappeared completely. Also, it is thought that Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic human hunters might have affected the size of the last mammoth populations in Europe.[citation needed] There is evidence to suggest that humans did cause the mammoth extinction, although there is no definitive proof. It was found that humans living south of a mammoth steppe learned to adapt themselves to the harsher climates north of the steppe, where mammoths resided. It was concluded that if humans could survive the harsh north climate of that particular mammoth steppe then it was possible humans could hunt (and eventually extinguish) mammoths everywhere. Another hypothesis suggests mammoths fell victim to an infectious disease. A combination of climate change and hunting by humans may be a possible explanation for their extinction. Homo erectus is known to have consumed mammoth meat as early as 1.8 million years ago,[33] though this may mean only successful scavenging, rather than actual hunting. Later humans show greater evidence for hunting mammoths; mammoth bones at a 50,000-year-old site in South Britain suggest that Neanderthals butchered the animals,[34] while various sites in Eastern Europe dating from 15,000 to 44,000 years old suggest humans (probably Homo sapiens) built dwellings using mammoth bones (the age of some of the earlier structures suggests that Neanderthals began the practice).[35] However, the American Institute of Biological Sciences also notes bones of dead elephants, left on the ground and subsequently trampled by other elephants, tend to bear marks resembling butchery marks, which have previously been misinterpreted as such by archaeologists.[citation needed]

Many hypotheses also seek to explain the regional extinction of mammoths in specific areas. Scientists have speculated that the mammoths of Saint Paul Island, an isolated enclave where mammoths survived until about 8,000 years ago, died out as the island shrank by 8090% when sea levels rose, eventually making it too small to support a viable population.[36] Similarly, genome sequences of the Wrangel Island mammoths indicate a sharp decline in genetic diversity, though the extent to which this played a role in their extinction is still unclear.[37] Another hypothesis, said to be the cause of mammoth extinction in Siberia, comes from the idea that many may have drowned. While traveling to the Northern River, many of these mammoths broke through the ice and drowned. This also explains bones remains in the Arctic Coast and islands of the New Siberian Group.[citation needed]

Dwarfing occurred with the pygmy mammoth on the outer Channel Islands of California, but at an earlier period. Those animals were very likely killed by early Paleo-Native Americans, and habitat loss caused by a rising sea level that split Santa Rosae into the outer Channel Islands.[38]

The use of preserved genetic material to create living mammoth specimens, particularly in regard to the woolly mammoth, has long been discussed theoretically but has only recently become the subject of formal effort. As of 2015, there are three major ongoing projects, one led by Akira Iritani of Japan, another by Hwang Woo-suk of South Korea, and the Long Now Foundation,[39][40] attempting to create a mammoth-elephant hybrid.[41] An estimated 150 million mammoths are buried in the Siberian tundra.[42]

In April 2015, Swedish scientists published the complete genome (complete DNA sequence) of the woolly mammoth.[43] Meanwhile, a Harvard University team is already attempting to study the animals' characteristics by inserting some mammoth genes into Asian elephant stem cells.[44] So far, the team placed mammoth genes involved in blood, fat and hair into elephant stem cells in order to study the effects of these genes in laboratory cultured cells. It is still unknown if the actual cloning of a living woolly mammoth is possible.[44]

The projects are based on finding suitable mammoth DNA in frozen bodies, sequencing its genome and, if possible, gradually combining the DNA with elephant cells.[39][40][45][46] If the cells turn viable in laboratory tests, the next challenge would be creating a viable "mammoth" hybrid embryo by inseminating an elephant egg in vitro. The percent mammoth contribution to the genome would be gradually increased on each hybrid embryo produced in vitro. If a viable hybrid embryo is obtained, it may be possible to implant it into a female Asian elephant housed in a zoo.[39] With the current knowledge and technology, it is still unlikely that the hybrid embryo would be carried through the two-year gestation.[47]

The dictionary definition of mammoth at Wiktionary

See the rest here:

Mammoth - Wikipedia

Latest Articles

Here's a selection of Science desk reporters' most memorable stories of the year, with a focus on archaeology, biology and space.

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Apparently not. A Times science writer learns how to tell the difference between a Finn-Dorset and a Lleyn.

By JOANNA KLEIN

Scientists have answered a longstanding question about whether cloned animals age prematurely.

By JOANNA KLEIN

The companies behind it, Boyalife Group and Soaam Biotech, must contend with consumers in a country where food safety is a near obsession.

By OWEN GUO

The retraction by Science of a study of changing attitudes on gay marriage is the latest in a growing number of prominent withdrawals of the results of studies from scientific literature.

By MICHAEL ROSTON

Scientists have moved a step closer to the goal of creating stem cells perfectly matched to a patients DNA in order to treat diseases, they announced on Thursday, creating patient-specific cell lines out of the skin cells of two adult men.

Nearly a decade after his downfall for faking research, the South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk has won patents for his work in an attempt to resume studying human stem cells.

Bringing extinct animals back to life is really happening and its going to be very, very cool. Unless it ends up being very, very bad.

By NATHANIEL RICH

Dr. Hwang Woo-suk of South Korea received the patent for the method by which he claimed in 2004 to have extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos.

In 1997, Scottish scientists revealed they had cloned a sheep and named her Dolly, sending waves of future shock around the world that continue to shape frontiers of science today.

Retro Report

The uproar over Dolly the sheep and human embryonic stem cells, revisited in a Retro Report video, shows how emotions can cloud understanding of science.

By NICHOLAS WADE

Researchers fused skin cells with donated human eggs to create human embryos that were genetically identical to the person who provided the skin cells.

By ANDREW POLLACK

It could be years before scientists succeed in bringing species back from extinction, but they are thinking of ways to give new life to creatures like woolly mammoths and weird frogs.

By GINA KOLATA

Dr. Campbell, a British cell biologist, helped create Dolly, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult animal.

Shinya Yamanaka and John B. Gurdon, the two scientists who were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine on Monday, helped lay the foundation for regenerative medicine.

I Cloned My Pet 2 is about three dog owners contemplating the costly procedure to genetically recreate their beloved dead pets.

Surprisingly, it's possible to take ''I Cloned My Pet 2'' seriously for almost its entire length. Right up until the moment when one pet owner consults a medium to find out her dead dog's opinion on whether she should clone him. The show, Monday on TLC, is a follow-up to an installment broadcast in January. Three cases occupy the hour: a Florida couple, Edgar and Nina Otto, who had their Labrador retriever cloned; a Beverly Hills cosmetic surgeon, Dr. George Semel, who wants his Chihuahua back; and a Los Angeles woman named Myra who was so fond of a basenji named Kabuki that she saved his blankets and such in hermetically sealed bags.

Amy Finkel lives in an apartment in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn, that does not allow pets. But she does have a groundhog (Chompers), an armadillo (Fleischesser) and a boar (Angel). They are all, however, dead and stuffed - and in the case of the boar, it is just the head.

A plan hatched by tree enthusiasts hopes to clone and mass-produce colossal redwoods, the tallest living things on earth.

Here's a selection of Science desk reporters' most memorable stories of the year, with a focus on archaeology, biology and space.

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Apparently not. A Times science writer learns how to tell the difference between a Finn-Dorset and a Lleyn.

By JOANNA KLEIN

Scientists have answered a longstanding question about whether cloned animals age prematurely.

By JOANNA KLEIN

The companies behind it, Boyalife Group and Soaam Biotech, must contend with consumers in a country where food safety is a near obsession.

By OWEN GUO

The retraction by Science of a study of changing attitudes on gay marriage is the latest in a growing number of prominent withdrawals of the results of studies from scientific literature.

By MICHAEL ROSTON

Scientists have moved a step closer to the goal of creating stem cells perfectly matched to a patients DNA in order to treat diseases, they announced on Thursday, creating patient-specific cell lines out of the skin cells of two adult men.

Nearly a decade after his downfall for faking research, the South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk has won patents for his work in an attempt to resume studying human stem cells.

Bringing extinct animals back to life is really happening and its going to be very, very cool. Unless it ends up being very, very bad.

By NATHANIEL RICH

Dr. Hwang Woo-suk of South Korea received the patent for the method by which he claimed in 2004 to have extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos.

In 1997, Scottish scientists revealed they had cloned a sheep and named her Dolly, sending waves of future shock around the world that continue to shape frontiers of science today.

Retro Report

The uproar over Dolly the sheep and human embryonic stem cells, revisited in a Retro Report video, shows how emotions can cloud understanding of science.

By NICHOLAS WADE

Researchers fused skin cells with donated human eggs to create human embryos that were genetically identical to the person who provided the skin cells.

By ANDREW POLLACK

It could be years before scientists succeed in bringing species back from extinction, but they are thinking of ways to give new life to creatures like woolly mammoths and weird frogs.

By GINA KOLATA

Dr. Campbell, a British cell biologist, helped create Dolly, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult animal.

Shinya Yamanaka and John B. Gurdon, the two scientists who were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine on Monday, helped lay the foundation for regenerative medicine.

I Cloned My Pet 2 is about three dog owners contemplating the costly procedure to genetically recreate their beloved dead pets.

Surprisingly, it's possible to take ''I Cloned My Pet 2'' seriously for almost its entire length. Right up until the moment when one pet owner consults a medium to find out her dead dog's opinion on whether she should clone him. The show, Monday on TLC, is a follow-up to an installment broadcast in January. Three cases occupy the hour: a Florida couple, Edgar and Nina Otto, who had their Labrador retriever cloned; a Beverly Hills cosmetic surgeon, Dr. George Semel, who wants his Chihuahua back; and a Los Angeles woman named Myra who was so fond of a basenji named Kabuki that she saved his blankets and such in hermetically sealed bags.

Amy Finkel lives in an apartment in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn, that does not allow pets. But she does have a groundhog (Chompers), an armadillo (Fleischesser) and a boar (Angel). They are all, however, dead and stuffed - and in the case of the boar, it is just the head.

A plan hatched by tree enthusiasts hopes to clone and mass-produce colossal redwoods, the tallest living things on earth.

Read the original:

Cloning - The New York Times

Cloning is the process of creating an identical copy of an original organism or thing.

A cloning in the biological sense, therefore, is a molecule, single cell (like bacteria, lymphocytes etc.) or multi-cellular organism that has been directly copied from and is therefore genetically identical to another living organism.

Sometimes this term can refer to "natural" clones made either when an organism is asexually reproduced by chance (as with identical twins), but in common parlance, a clone is an identical copy created intentionally.

Molecular cloning refers to the procedure of isolating a DNA sequence of interest and obtaining multiple copies of it in an organism.

Cloning is frequently employed to amplify DNA fragments containing genes, an essential step in their subsequent analysis.

Frequently, the term cloning is misleadingly used to refer to the identification of the chromosomal location of a gene associated with a particular phenotype of interest.

In practice, localisation of the gene does not always enable one to amplify the relevant genomic sequence.

Cloning of any DNA sequence involves the following four steps: amplification, ligation, transfection, and screening / selection.

More:

Cloning - Science Daily

Screw god, you can't force a religion on me that tells me what's right or wrong. We need to clone humans in order to progress as the human race! It's just like when people get all touchy on the subject of stem cells or abortion - your religion, not mine. If you don't like it to bad for you, we need to be able to create a person who is genetically identical to the person who was cloned. Think of all the uses the cloned body would have. If you needed a new set of lungs, well what do you know... A brand new set. These people would not be living, they would be vegetables who do not have a personality nor would they feel pain. We ned to boot morality out the door and focus on curing diseases that kill millions of people each year. If we had human test subjects that weren't 'living' we could solve problems faster! It's all of you softies that think it's inhumane. You want to know what I find inhuman, letting people in our own countries starve whilst we save those in Africa. Call me a monster but human cloning is the way to go and I'll stick by my argument till the day I die.

Dolly took 267 tries before she was made and she still had problems, and lived a much shorter life than all other sheep. There could also be overpopulation and a major shortage of food. This is a big problem for all humanity and the Government should ban it very soon.

It is a right that people of America should have. If someone has a failing heart they can reproduce them. If someone is hurting over a death, they can reproduce the child. It is smart and a futuristic idea. Right now it usually ends in failures but sooner or later it may just be another race in the world.

We are in charge of our own fates, so why would we leave it to chance? Hypothetically, if god gave us the disease, with today's modern science, he's giving us the chance to change it. Why would we leave life threatening diseases in the hands of some higher power when the cure is right in front of us?

I dont believe in it. Its not up to people to clone, only God can create life. You cannot reproduce a soul. It is impossible and the technology today wouldnt be able to do it. Maybe one day they can complete the task of cloning it would just be a blob of skin because there wouldn't be a soul to control the body.

I'm assuming that you are talking about therapeutic cloning, which is the process where you clone a human to get a human embryo so you can harvest stem cells so you can make organs and transplant those organs to people that need them. Of course this process kills the embryo. I view this like I view abortion, the embryo is not a person yet, not technically. They don't have any thoughts or experiences, they are living, but their life force, is nothing more than a flower or a blade of grass. And to kill a blade of grass so you can get an organ to save a life, is okay. Of course the cons to therapeutic cloning is how much it costs, but this debate is more about ethics than anything else, and killing a human embryo to save a life IS ethical.

It can save lives due to the possibility of cloning organs such as hearts. And any one with religious arguments (life is sacred don't play god etc etc.), shut up, okay? Religion is an excuse to justify the un-justifiable. And even then it is a bad excuse. If god has spoken to you...You have ADD and you're hearing things that aren't there. God speaking is a medical DISABILITY.

Human cloning is not bad because it is purely for science, religion is a whole other topic then cloning because although I respect your religion and your beliefs, your statement isn't what I would call correct. Human cloning already happens naturally for all those people who don't know that. There is something called human twins, duh, they are technically under the category of cloning. So, it is naturally and religion shouldn't be pulled into pure science.

It isn't certain that the clones will have the same personality as the original, and also it is not playing god because then wouldn't doctors also be playing god because they save lives and change fate that may not need to be changed. Doctors give drugs so that people feel better and could be saved.

We already play god; curing diseases, hospitals, reviving people who die of heart attacks, implanting embryos, etc. Why should cloning be treated any differently? The people arguing against human cloning speak about the cloned people as if they wouldn't be human. They could have every opportunity for intelligence as the person they were cloned from. They'd be nothing less than a younger identical twin. So why not clone? Even organ cloning would be incredibly helpful to humans as a species, if you could clone healthy heart or liver cells and implant them into the heart or liver of the person who gave the healthy, but needed the cloned ones to cure a disease or just an injury, they could live longer, because of a few cloned cells. How is that "wrong"?

Read more here:

Is human cloning wrong? | Debate.org

Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells

The term cloning is used by scientists to describe many different processes that involve making duplicates of biological material. In most cases, isolated genes or cells are duplicated for scientific study, and no new animal results. The experiment that led to the cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997 was different: It used a cloning technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer and resulted in an animal that was a genetic twin -- although delayed in time -- of an adult sheep. This technique can also be used to produce an embryo from which cells called embryonic stem (ES) cells could be extracted to use in research into potential therapies for a wide variety of diseases.

Thus, in the past five years, much of the scientific and ethical debate about somatic cell nuclear transfer has focused on its two potential applications: 1) for reproductive purposes, i.e., to produce a child, or 2) for producing a source of ES cells for research.

The technique of transferring a nucleus from a somatic cell into an egg that produced Dolly was an extension of experiments that had been ongoing for over 40 years. In the simplest terms, the technique used to produce Dolly the sheep - somatic cell nuclear transplantation cloning - involves removing the nucleus of an egg and replacing it with the diploid nucleus of a somatic cell. Unlike sexual reproduction, during which a new organism is formed when the genetic material of the egg and sperm fuse, in nuclear transplantation cloning there is a single genetic "parent." This technique also differs from previous cloning techniques because it does not involve an existing embryo. Dolly is different because she is not genetically unique; when born she was genetically identical to an existing six-year-old ewe. Although the birth of Dolly was lauded as a success, in fact, the procedure has not been perfected and it is not yet clear whether Dolly will remain healthy or whether she is already experiencing subtle problems that might lead to serious diseases. Thus, the prospect of applying this technique in humans is troubling for scientific and safety reasons in addition to a variety of ethical reasons related to our ideas about the natural ordering of family and successive generations.

Several important concerns remain about the science and safety of nuclear transfer cloning using adult cells as the source of nuclei. To date, five mammalian species -- sheep, cattle, pigs, goats, and mice -- have been used extensively in reproductive cloning studies. Data from these experiments illustrate the problems involved. Typically, very few cloning attempts are successful. Many cloned animals die in utero, even at late stages or soon after birth, and those that survive frequently exhibit severe birth defects. In addition, female animals carrying cloned fetuses may face serious risks, including death from cloning-related complications.

An additional concern focuses on whether cellular aging will affect the ability of somatic cell nuclei to program normal development. As somatic cells divide they progressively age, and there is normally a defined number of cell divisions that can occur before senescence. Thus, the health effects for the resulting liveborn, having been created with an "aged" nucleus, are unknown. Recently it was reported that Dolly has arthritis, although it is not yet clear whether the five-and-a-half-year-old sheep is suffering from the condition as a result of the cloning process. And, scientists in Tokyo have shown that cloned mice die significantly earlier than those that are naturally conceived, raising an additional concern that the mutations that accumulate in somatic cells might affect nuclear transfer efficiency and lead to cancer and other diseases in offspring. Researchers working with clones of a Holstein cow say genetic programming errors may explain why so many cloned animals die, either as fetuses or newborns.

The announcement of Dolly sparked widespread speculation about a human child being created using somatic cell nuclear transfer. Much of the perceived fear that greeted this announcement centered on the misperception that a child or many children could be produced who would be identical to an already existing person. This fear is based on the idea of "genetic determinism" -- that genes alone determine all aspects of an individual -- and reflects the belief that a person's genes bear a simple relationship to the physical and psychological traits that compose that individual. Although genes play an essential role in the formation of physical and behavioral characteristics, each individual is, in fact, the result of a complex interaction between his or her genes and the environment within which he or she develops. Nonetheless, many of the concerns about cloning have focused on issues related to "playing God," interfering with the natural order of life, and somehow robbing a future individual of the right to a unique identity.

Several groups have concluded that reproductive cloning of human beings creates ethical and scientific risks that society should not tolerate. In 1997, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended that it was morally unacceptable to attempt to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning and suggested that a moratorium be imposed until safety of this technique could be assessed. The commission also cautioned against preempting the use of cloning technology for purposes unrelated to producing a liveborn child.

Similarly, in 2001 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report stating that the United States should ban human reproductive cloning aimed at creating a child because experience with reproductive cloning in animals suggests that the process would be dangerous for the woman, the fetus, and the newborn, and would likely fail. The report recommended that the proposed ban on human cloning should be reviewed within five years, but that it should be reconsidered "only if a new scientific review indicates that the procedures are likely to be safe and effective, and if a broad national dialogue on societal, religious and ethical issues suggests that reconsideration is warranted." The panel concluded that the scientific and medical considerations that justify a ban on human reproductive cloning at this time do not apply to nuclear transplantation to produce stem cells. Several other scientific and medical groups also have stated their opposition to the use of cloning for the purpose of producing a child.

The cloning debate was reopened with a new twist late in 1998, when two scientific reports were published regarding the successful isolation of human stem cells. Stem cells are unique and essential cells found in animals that are capable of continually reproducing themselves and renewing tissue throughout an individual organism's life. ES cells are the most versatile of all stem cells because they are less differentiated, or committed, to a particular function than adult stem cells. These cells have offered hope of new cures to debilitating and even fatal illness. Recent studies in mice and other animals have shown that ES cells can reduce symptoms of Parkinson's disease in mouse models, and work in other animal models and disease areas seems promising.

In the 1998 reports, ES cells were derived from in vitro embryos six to seven days old destined to be discarded by couples undergoing infertility treatments, and embryonic germ (EG) cells were obtained from cadaveric fetal tissue following elective abortion. A third report, appearing in the New York Times, claimed that a Massachusetts biotechnology company had fused a human cell with an enucleated cow egg, creating a hybrid clone that failed to progress beyond an early stage of development. This announcement served as a reminder that ES cells also could be derived from embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer, or cloning. In fact, several scientists believed that deriving ES cells in this manner is the most promising approach to developing treatments because the condition of in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos stored over time is questionable and this type of cloning could overcome graft-host responses if resulting therapies were developed from the recipient's own DNA.

For those who believe that the embryo has the moral status of a person from the moment of conception, research or any other activity that would destroy it is wrong. For those who believe the human embryo deserves some measure of respect, but disagree that the respect due should equal that given to a fully formed human, it could be considered immoral not to use embryos that would otherwise be destroyed to develop potential cures for disease affecting millions of people. An additional concern related to public policy is whether federal funds should be used for research that some Americans find unethical.

Since 1996, Congress has prohibited researchers from using federal funds for human embryo research. In 1999, DHHS announced that it intended to fund research on human ES cells derived from embryos remaining after infertility treatments. This decision was based on an interpretation "that human embryonic stem cells are not a human embryo within the statutory definition" because "the cells do not have the capacity to develop into a human being even if transferred to the uterus, thus their destruction in the course of research would not constitute the destruction of an embryo." DHHS did not intend to fund research using stem cells derived from embryos created through cloning, although such efforts would be legal in the private sector.

In July 2001, the House of Representatives voted 265 to 162 to make any human cloning a criminal offense, including cloning to create an embryo for derivation of stem cells rather than to produce a child. In August 2002, President Bush, contending with a DHHS decision made during the Clinton administration, stated in a prime-time television address that federal support would be provided for research using a limited number of stem cell colonies already in existence (derived from leftover IVF embryos). Current bills before Congress would ban all forms of cloning outright, prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes, and impose a moratorium on cloning to derive stem cells for research, or prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes while allowing cloning for therapeutic purposes to go forward. As of late June, the Senate has taken no action. President Bush's Bioethics Council is expected to recommend the prohibition of reproductive cloning and a moratorium on therapeutic cloning later this summer.

Prepared by Kathi E. Hanna, M.S., Ph.D., Science and Health Policy Consultant

Last Reviewed: April 2006

Read this article:

Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells - National Human Genome Research ...

Cloning is the process of creating a copy of a biological entity. In genetics, it refers to the process of making an identical copy of the DNA of an organism. Are you interested in understanding the pros and cons of cloning?

Advertisement

When Dolly, the first cloned sheep came in the news, cloning interested the masses. Not only researchers but even common people became interested in knowing about how cloning is done and what pros and cons it has. Everyone became more curious about how cloning could benefit the common man. Most of us want to know the pros and cons of cloning, its advantages and its potential risks to mankind. Let us understand them.

Cloning finds applications in genetic fingerprinting, amplification of DNA and alteration of the genetic makeup of organisms. It can be used to bring about desired changes in the genetic makeup of individuals thereby introducing positive traits in them, as also for the elimination of negative traits. Cloning can also be applied to plants to remove or alter defective genes, thereby making them resistant to diseases. Cloning may find applications in the development of human organs, thus making human life safer. Here we look at some of the potential advantages of cloning.

Organ Replacement

If vital organs of the human body can be cloned, they can serve as backups. Cloning body parts can serve as a lifesaver. When a body organ such as a kidney or heart fails to function, it may be possible to replace it with the cloned body organ.

Substitute for Natural Reproduction

Cloning in human beings can prove to be a solution to infertility. It can serve as an option for producing children. With cloning, it would be possible to produce certain desired traits in human beings. We might be able to produce children with certain qualities. Wouldn't that be close to creating a man-made being?!

Help in Genetic Research

Cloning technologies can prove helpful to researchers in genetics. They might be able to understand the composition of genes and the effects of genetic constituents on human traits, in a better manner. They will be able to alter genetic constituents in cloned human beings, thus simplifying their analysis of genes. Cloning may also help us combat a wide range of genetic diseases.

Obtain Specific Traits in Organisms

Cloning can make it possible for us to obtain customized organisms and harness them for the benefit of society. It can serve as the best means to replicate animals that can be used for research purposes. It can enable the genetic alteration of plants and animals. If positive changes can be brought about in living beings with the help of cloning, it will indeed be a boon to mankind.

Like every coin has two sides, cloning has its flip side too. Though cloning may work wonders in genetics, it has some potential disadvantages. Cloning, as you know, is copying or replicating biological traits in organisms. Thus it might reduce the diversity in nature. Imagine multiple living entities like one another! Another con of cloning is that it is not clear whether we will be able to bring all the potential uses of cloning into reality. Plus, there's a big question of whether the common man will afford harnessing cloning technologies to his benefit. Here we look at the potential disadvantages of cloning.

Detrimental to Genetic Diversity

Cloning creates identical genes. It is a process of replicating a genetic constitution, thus hampering the diversity in genes. In lessening genetic diversity, we weaken our ability of adaptation. Cloning is also detrimental to the beauty that lies in diversity.

Invitation to Malpractices

While cloning allows man to tamper with genes in human beings, it also makes deliberate reproduction of undesirable traits, a possibility. Cloning of body organs may invite malpractices in society.

Will it Reach the Common Man?

In cloning human organs and using them for transplant, or in cloning human beings themselves, technical and economic barriers will have to be considered. Will cloned organs be cost-effective? Will cloning techniques really reach the common man?

Man, a Man-made Being?

Moreover, cloning will put human and animal rights at stake. Will cloning fit into our ethical and moral principles? It will make man just another man-made being. Won't it devalue mankind? Won't it demean the value of human life?

Cloning is equal to emulating God. Is that easy? Is it risk-free? Many are afraid it is not.

Manali Oak

Last Updated: August 8, 2016

Don't Miss

The Legal and Ethical Issues of Cloning That Make it Controversial

Human Cloning Facts

Human Cloning Benefits

Human Cloning: The Pros and Cons Highlight Its Risk

Is Cloning Good or Bad?

More From Buzzle

Cloning: The Intriguing Recent History of Human Cloning

Raising Awareness About the Risks of Cloning

See the article here:

Pros and Cons of Cloning - Buzzle

Many people first heard of cloning when Dolly the Sheep showed up on the scene in 1997. Artificial cloning technologies have been around for much longer than Dolly, though.

There are two ways to make an exact genetic copy of an organism in a lab: artificial embryo twinning and somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Artificial embryo twinning is a relatively low-tech way to make clones. As the name suggests, this technique mimics the natural process that creates identical twins.

In nature, twins form very early in development when the embryo splits in two. Twinning happens in the first days after egg and sperm join, while the embryo is made of just a small number of unspecialized cells. Each half of the embryo continues dividing on its own, ultimately developing into separate, complete individuals. Since they developed from the same fertilized egg, the resulting individuals are genetically identical.

Artificial embryo twinning uses the same approach, but it is carried out in a Petri dish instead of inside the mother. A very early embryo is separated into individual cells, which are allowed to divide and develop for a short time in the Petri dish. The embryos are then placed into a surrogate mother, where they finish developing. Again, since all the embryos came from the same fertilized egg, they are genetically identical.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), also called nuclear transfer, uses a different approach than artificial embryo twinning, but it produces the same result: an exact genetic copy, or clone, of an individual. This was the method used to create Dolly the Sheep.

What does SCNT mean? Let's take it apart:

Somatic cell: A somatic cell is any cell in the body other than sperm and egg, the two types of reproductive cells. Reproductive cells are also called germ cells. In mammals, every somatic cell has two complete sets of chromosomes, whereas the germ cells have only one complete set.

Nuclear: The nucleus is a compartment that holds the cell's DNA. The DNA is divided into packages called chromosomes, and it contains all the information needed to form an organism. It's small differences in our DNA that make each of us unique.

Transfer: Moving an object from one place to another. To make Dolly, researchers isolated a somatic cell from an adult female sheep. Next they removed the nucleus and all of its DNA from an egg cell. Then they transferred the nucleus from the somatic cell to the egg cell. After a couple of chemical tweaks, the egg cell, with its new nucleus, was behaving just like a freshly fertilized egg. It developed into an embryo, which was implanted into a surrogate mother and carried to term. (The transfer step is most often done using an electrical current to fuse the membranes of the egg and the somatic cell.)

The lamb, Dolly, was an exact genetic replica of the adult female sheep that donated the somatic cell. She was the first-ever mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell.

Excerpt from:

What is Cloning? - Learn Genetics