Hunting the tardigrade: one small step in sequencing DNA of all life on Earth 22%

By Patrick Barkham0%

7/3/2026, 10:00:06 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 20.3% saturation with 197 hits. Analysis detected 1,207 faulty-reasoning hits from 972 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.3% and a BS Rank of 22% (17,272 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.90% of the article peer group.

Witek Morek is closely inspecting an old brick-and-flint wall on the Cambridgeshire campus of the Wellcome Sanger Institute. 
“We are going to use a very advanced tool designed by bioengineers and evolved over millions of years  the human hand  and grab some moss, and put it in an envelope,” he says. 
This is tardigrade hunting, the first small step in a gargantuan, wildly ambitious scientific undertaking: to sequence the genomes of all life on Earth. 
Accompanied by Prof Mark Blaxter, who leads the institute’s Tree of Life programme, Morek, a postdoctoral researcher and tardigrade expert, goes on to collect lichen from a walnut tree on the lush campus, before returning to the lab with his samples. 
Sequencing genomes used to take years. 
Blaxter sequenced 18 genomes over 25 years of study in his early career. 
Now, the Tree of Life programme is sequencing 48 each week, thanks to advances in sequencing technology. 
It has sequenced 2,600 genomes so far, from whales to fungi, mostly focusing on British and Irish species. 
And now it is the turn of microscopic tardigrades  the popular winner of last year’s Guardian invertebrate of the year contest. 
About 1,500 species of tardigrade  the name means “slow stepper”  have been identified around the world so far. 
They are famously indestructible, able to survive searing heat, extreme cold and even a spell in outer space. 
This is because of their ability to dessicate and enter a suspended animation, until they are reawakened by water. 
Morek makes a temporary slide  putting the tardigrade between glass  to confirm its taxonomy as closely as possible. 
It has to be temporary because the water will evaporate and the tardigrade could be crushed by the glass. 
The tardigrade is kept alive and transferred to a barcoded plastic tube. 
This is frozen for later sequencing  kept in the lab’s special double-doored freezers set at -71C. 
There are four high-quality tardigrade genomes deposited in public databases, Morek is closely working on another 14, and there are approximately 50 species in the freezer awaiting sequencing. 
Before extracting the DNA for sequencing, Witek must “manually disrupt” his specimen. 
He can cut a 200-micrometre tardigrade by hand or use a form of mashing within a block of ice when frozen. 
A tardigrade contains a tiny amount of DNA, just 200 to 500 picograms (one picogram is one trillionth of a gram). 
In the old days, researchers would need to pool 1,000 tardigrades to obtain enough DNA, an arduous process which was impossible with rare or hard-to-find species. 
Another strategy is to use a single female to produce large numbers of genetic clones. 
But the Wellcome Sanger Institute deploys a different approach: the picogram inputi multimodal sequencing protocol. 
With this technique, genomic DNA and RNA are extracted from the tardigrade and separated into two tubes. 
Researchers then use a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify these fragments to create enough material. 
The quality of the DNA produced is checked and samples are handed to the institute’s scientific operations team. 
After it is sequenced, the data is available on the institute’s computer cluster. 
The sequence itself is millions-long strings of the four types of bases found in a DNA molecule: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine (ACTG). 
Fortunately for tardigrade researchers, tardigrade genomes are small  30 times smaller than the human genome. 
Although the PCR process is complex, scientists require less data to assemble the genome of a tardigrade. 
For Morek, the sequencing of tardigrades will help reveal how species are related to each other. 
Incredibly, some tardigrades are separated by 550m years of evolution. 
But genome sequencing could also reveal how the tardigrades’ superpowers  such as resistance to freezing (cryobiosis), resistance to a lack of oxygen (anoxybiosis) and the ability to repeatedly survive desiccation (anhydrobiosis)  may help us. 
“And, because most of life on this planet is small, like the tardigrades, this new approach to genome sequencing promises to open the gates to sequencing all of life,” says Blaxter. 
“These genomes will in turn open up new ideas and opportunities in biomedicine and biotechnology.” 
Through sequencing, scientists can pinpoint the genes and proteins required for these processes. 
If a certain protein is crucial in anhydrobiosis, can we use it to produce vaccines which are dry, or add it to crops to make them more drought-resistant? 
“There are a lot of research questions,” says Morek. 
“The more we know, the more questions we are asking. 
It’s a never-ending story.” 
Invertebrate of the year is here for 2026 
The tardigrade won last year, but who will triumph in 2026? 
The whistle has been blown to launch the third invertebrate of the year contest. 
We, creatures with spines, are a tiny minority in the animal world. 
Humans, dogs, cows, birds, fish  we may think we’re the planetary rulers but we’re not. 
We make up barely 5% of animal life on Earth; but on the other side there are at least 1.3 million invertebrate species to choose from. 
We want you to nominate your favourite spineless creature for the hugely popular annual Guardian jamboree which celebrates the wonder and importance of the world’s invertebrates. 
Without the unseen labours of our unheralded neighbours  the snails, spiders, sponges, corals, bivalves, wasps and crabs  the grandiose edifice that is human civilisation would crumble. 
These are our pollinators, soil-makers, fertility-bringers, water-cleaners, predator- and plague-controllers. 
A few invertebrates may still wreak havoc in the human world but as the legendary biologist EO Wilson put it: “The truth is that we need invertebrates but they don’t need us.” 
Please nominate your favourite invertebrate here. 
Our writers will choose a shortlist of 10 and profile them and on 17 August we will announce your favourite. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.4%Patrick Barkham: 0.8%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias4.4%This article: 1.3%Patrick Barkham: 2.2%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias1.3%This article: 6.2%Patrick Barkham: 1.7%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic6.2%This article: 5.0%Patrick Barkham: 1.2%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Patrick Barkham: 0.9%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias1.3%This article: 8.0%Patrick Barkham: 6.5%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 1.3%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Patrick Barkham: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.7%This article: 20.3%Patrick Barkham: 8.8%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias20.3%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.6%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Patrick Barkham: 4.3%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Patrick Barkham: 0.7%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Patrick Barkham: 3.7%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Patrick Barkham: 1.2%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias3.8%This article: 2.1%Patrick Barkham: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 1.9%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.9%Patrick Barkham: 4.3%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority6.9%This article: 3.2%Patrick Barkham: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma3.2%This article: 6.6%Patrick Barkham: 2.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope6.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.6%Patrick Barkham: 4.6%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization6.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.1%Patrick Barkham: 4.6%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon1.1%This article: 8.6%Patrick Barkham: 8.6%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion8.6%This article: 2.9%Patrick Barkham: 0.7%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question2.9%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.5%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division1.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 1.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 3.3%Patrick Barkham: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman3.3%This article: 1.6%Patrick Barkham: 0.7%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.3%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.9%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.4%Patrick Barkham: 11.5%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice7.4%This article: 6.5%Patrick Barkham: 8.4%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination6.5%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.4%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Barkham: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Patrick Barkham: 3.2%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.5%

972 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers14%attributed speech836writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWitek Morek • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageMark Blaxter • 31 words • 100.0% coverageMark Blaxter • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWitek Morek • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWitek Morek • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWitek Morek • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageEO Wilson • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mark Blaxter

100%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words34% of attributed speech62% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Indoctrination+63.6 ptsWriter: 3.8%Mark Blaxter: 67.4%67.4%Biased Writer Voice-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%Mark Blaxter: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Mark Blaxter: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.