Cargando…
A comparison of proteomic, genomic, and osteological methods of archaeological sex estimation
Sex estimation of skeletons is fundamental to many archaeological studies. Currently, three approaches are available to estimate sex–osteology, genomics, or proteomics, but little is known about the relative reliability of these methods in applied settings. We present matching osteological, shotgun-...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7368048/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32681049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68550-w |
_version_ | 1783560538475724800 |
---|---|
author | Buonasera, Tammy Eerkens, Jelmer de Flamingh, Alida Engbring, Laurel Yip, Julia Li, Hongjie Haas, Randall DiGiuseppe, Diane Grant, Dave Salemi, Michelle Nijmeh, Charlene Arellano, Monica Leventhal, Alan Phinney, Brett Byrd, Brian F. Malhi, Ripan S. Parker, Glendon |
author_facet | Buonasera, Tammy Eerkens, Jelmer de Flamingh, Alida Engbring, Laurel Yip, Julia Li, Hongjie Haas, Randall DiGiuseppe, Diane Grant, Dave Salemi, Michelle Nijmeh, Charlene Arellano, Monica Leventhal, Alan Phinney, Brett Byrd, Brian F. Malhi, Ripan S. Parker, Glendon |
author_sort | Buonasera, Tammy |
collection | PubMed |
description | Sex estimation of skeletons is fundamental to many archaeological studies. Currently, three approaches are available to estimate sex–osteology, genomics, or proteomics, but little is known about the relative reliability of these methods in applied settings. We present matching osteological, shotgun-genomic, and proteomic data to estimate the sex of 55 individuals, each with an independent radiocarbon date between 2,440 and 100 cal BP, from two ancestral Ohlone sites in Central California. Sex estimation was possible in 100% of this burial sample using proteomics, in 91% using genomics, and in 51% using osteology. Agreement between the methods was high, however conflicts did occur. Genomic sex estimates were 100% consistent with proteomic and osteological estimates when DNA reads were above 100,000 total sequences. However, more than half the samples had DNA read numbers below this threshold, producing high rates of conflict with osteological and proteomic data where nine out of twenty conditional DNA sex estimates conflicted with proteomics. While the DNA signal decreased by an order of magnitude in the older burial samples, there was no decrease in proteomic signal. We conclude that proteomics provides an important complement to osteological and shotgun-genomic sex estimation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7368048 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73680482020-07-22 A comparison of proteomic, genomic, and osteological methods of archaeological sex estimation Buonasera, Tammy Eerkens, Jelmer de Flamingh, Alida Engbring, Laurel Yip, Julia Li, Hongjie Haas, Randall DiGiuseppe, Diane Grant, Dave Salemi, Michelle Nijmeh, Charlene Arellano, Monica Leventhal, Alan Phinney, Brett Byrd, Brian F. Malhi, Ripan S. Parker, Glendon Sci Rep Article Sex estimation of skeletons is fundamental to many archaeological studies. Currently, three approaches are available to estimate sex–osteology, genomics, or proteomics, but little is known about the relative reliability of these methods in applied settings. We present matching osteological, shotgun-genomic, and proteomic data to estimate the sex of 55 individuals, each with an independent radiocarbon date between 2,440 and 100 cal BP, from two ancestral Ohlone sites in Central California. Sex estimation was possible in 100% of this burial sample using proteomics, in 91% using genomics, and in 51% using osteology. Agreement between the methods was high, however conflicts did occur. Genomic sex estimates were 100% consistent with proteomic and osteological estimates when DNA reads were above 100,000 total sequences. However, more than half the samples had DNA read numbers below this threshold, producing high rates of conflict with osteological and proteomic data where nine out of twenty conditional DNA sex estimates conflicted with proteomics. While the DNA signal decreased by an order of magnitude in the older burial samples, there was no decrease in proteomic signal. We conclude that proteomics provides an important complement to osteological and shotgun-genomic sex estimation. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-07-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7368048/ /pubmed/32681049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68550-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Buonasera, Tammy Eerkens, Jelmer de Flamingh, Alida Engbring, Laurel Yip, Julia Li, Hongjie Haas, Randall DiGiuseppe, Diane Grant, Dave Salemi, Michelle Nijmeh, Charlene Arellano, Monica Leventhal, Alan Phinney, Brett Byrd, Brian F. Malhi, Ripan S. Parker, Glendon A comparison of proteomic, genomic, and osteological methods of archaeological sex estimation |
title | A comparison of proteomic, genomic, and osteological methods of archaeological sex estimation |
title_full | A comparison of proteomic, genomic, and osteological methods of archaeological sex estimation |
title_fullStr | A comparison of proteomic, genomic, and osteological methods of archaeological sex estimation |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of proteomic, genomic, and osteological methods of archaeological sex estimation |
title_short | A comparison of proteomic, genomic, and osteological methods of archaeological sex estimation |
title_sort | comparison of proteomic, genomic, and osteological methods of archaeological sex estimation |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7368048/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32681049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68550-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT buonaseratammy acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT eerkensjelmer acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT deflaminghalida acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT engbringlaurel acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT yipjulia acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT lihongjie acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT haasrandall acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT digiuseppediane acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT grantdave acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT salemimichelle acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT nijmehcharlene acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT arellanomonica acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT leventhalalan acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT phinneybrett acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT byrdbrianf acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT malhiripans acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT parkerglendon acomparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT buonaseratammy comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT eerkensjelmer comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT deflaminghalida comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT engbringlaurel comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT yipjulia comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT lihongjie comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT haasrandall comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT digiuseppediane comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT grantdave comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT salemimichelle comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT nijmehcharlene comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT arellanomonica comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT leventhalalan comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT phinneybrett comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT byrdbrianf comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT malhiripans comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation AT parkerglendon comparisonofproteomicgenomicandosteologicalmethodsofarchaeologicalsexestimation |