Cargando…

Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum

Large-scale genomic analyses of ancient human populations have become feasible partly due to refined sampling methods. The inner part of petrous bones and the cementum layer in teeth roots are currently recognized as the best substrates for such research. We present a comparative analysis of DNA pre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hansen, Henrik B., Damgaard, Peter B., Margaryan, Ashot, Stenderup, Jesper, Lynnerup, Niels, Willerslev, Eske, Allentoft, Morten E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5271384/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28129388
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170940
_version_ 1782501341664378880
author Hansen, Henrik B.
Damgaard, Peter B.
Margaryan, Ashot
Stenderup, Jesper
Lynnerup, Niels
Willerslev, Eske
Allentoft, Morten E.
author_facet Hansen, Henrik B.
Damgaard, Peter B.
Margaryan, Ashot
Stenderup, Jesper
Lynnerup, Niels
Willerslev, Eske
Allentoft, Morten E.
author_sort Hansen, Henrik B.
collection PubMed
description Large-scale genomic analyses of ancient human populations have become feasible partly due to refined sampling methods. The inner part of petrous bones and the cementum layer in teeth roots are currently recognized as the best substrates for such research. We present a comparative analysis of DNA preservation in these two substrates obtained from the same human skulls, across a range of different ages and preservation environments. Both substrates display significantly higher endogenous DNA content (average of 16.4% and 40.0% for teeth and petrous bones, respectively) than parietal skull bone (average of 2.2%). Despite sample-to-sample variation, petrous bone overall performs better than tooth cementum (p = 0.001). This difference, however, is driven largely by a cluster of viking skeletons from one particular locality, showing relatively poor molecular tooth preservation (<10% endogenous DNA). In the remaining skeletons there is no systematic difference between the two substrates. A crude preservation (good/bad) applied to each sample prior to DNA-extraction predicted the above/below 10% endogenous DNA threshold in 80% of the cases. Interestingly, we observe signficantly higher levels of cytosine to thymine deamination damage and lower proportions of mitochondrial/nuclear DNA in petrous bone compared to tooth cementum. Lastly, we show that petrous bones from ancient cremated individuals contain no measurable levels of authentic human DNA. Based on these findings we discuss the pros and cons of sampling the different elements.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5271384
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52713842017-02-06 Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum Hansen, Henrik B. Damgaard, Peter B. Margaryan, Ashot Stenderup, Jesper Lynnerup, Niels Willerslev, Eske Allentoft, Morten E. PLoS One Research Article Large-scale genomic analyses of ancient human populations have become feasible partly due to refined sampling methods. The inner part of petrous bones and the cementum layer in teeth roots are currently recognized as the best substrates for such research. We present a comparative analysis of DNA preservation in these two substrates obtained from the same human skulls, across a range of different ages and preservation environments. Both substrates display significantly higher endogenous DNA content (average of 16.4% and 40.0% for teeth and petrous bones, respectively) than parietal skull bone (average of 2.2%). Despite sample-to-sample variation, petrous bone overall performs better than tooth cementum (p = 0.001). This difference, however, is driven largely by a cluster of viking skeletons from one particular locality, showing relatively poor molecular tooth preservation (<10% endogenous DNA). In the remaining skeletons there is no systematic difference between the two substrates. A crude preservation (good/bad) applied to each sample prior to DNA-extraction predicted the above/below 10% endogenous DNA threshold in 80% of the cases. Interestingly, we observe signficantly higher levels of cytosine to thymine deamination damage and lower proportions of mitochondrial/nuclear DNA in petrous bone compared to tooth cementum. Lastly, we show that petrous bones from ancient cremated individuals contain no measurable levels of authentic human DNA. Based on these findings we discuss the pros and cons of sampling the different elements. Public Library of Science 2017-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5271384/ /pubmed/28129388 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170940 Text en © 2017 Hansen et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hansen, Henrik B.
Damgaard, Peter B.
Margaryan, Ashot
Stenderup, Jesper
Lynnerup, Niels
Willerslev, Eske
Allentoft, Morten E.
Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum
title Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum
title_full Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum
title_fullStr Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum
title_full_unstemmed Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum
title_short Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum
title_sort comparing ancient dna preservation in petrous bone and tooth cementum
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5271384/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28129388
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170940
work_keys_str_mv AT hansenhenrikb comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
AT damgaardpeterb comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
AT margaryanashot comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
AT stenderupjesper comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
AT lynnerupniels comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
AT willersleveske comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
AT allentoftmortene comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum