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-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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