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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |