Cargando…

Comparative analysis of DNA extraction protocols for ancient soft tissue museum samples

DNA studies of endangered or extinct species often rely on ancient or degraded remains. The majority of ancient DNA (aDNA) extraction protocols focus on skeletal elements, with skin and hair samples rarely explored. Similar to that found in bones and teeth, DNA extracted from historical or ancient s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Ming, Cao, Peng, Dai, Qing-Yan, Wang, Yong-Qiang, Feng, Xiao-Tian, Wang, Hong-Ru, Wu, Hong, Ko, Albert Min-Shan, Mao, Xiao-Wei, Liu, Yi-Chen, Yu, Li, Roos, Christian, Nadler, Tilo, Xiao, Wen, Bennett, E. Andrew, Fu, Qiao-Mei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Science Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8175948/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33855818
http://dx.doi.org/10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.377
_version_ 1783703155037437952
author Zhang, Ming
Cao, Peng
Dai, Qing-Yan
Wang, Yong-Qiang
Feng, Xiao-Tian
Wang, Hong-Ru
Wu, Hong
Ko, Albert Min-Shan
Mao, Xiao-Wei
Liu, Yi-Chen
Yu, Li
Roos, Christian
Nadler, Tilo
Xiao, Wen
Bennett, E. Andrew
Fu, Qiao-Mei
author_facet Zhang, Ming
Cao, Peng
Dai, Qing-Yan
Wang, Yong-Qiang
Feng, Xiao-Tian
Wang, Hong-Ru
Wu, Hong
Ko, Albert Min-Shan
Mao, Xiao-Wei
Liu, Yi-Chen
Yu, Li
Roos, Christian
Nadler, Tilo
Xiao, Wen
Bennett, E. Andrew
Fu, Qiao-Mei
author_sort Zhang, Ming
collection PubMed
description DNA studies of endangered or extinct species often rely on ancient or degraded remains. The majority of ancient DNA (aDNA) extraction protocols focus on skeletal elements, with skin and hair samples rarely explored. Similar to that found in bones and teeth, DNA extracted from historical or ancient skin and fur samples is also extremely fragmented with low endogenous content due to natural degradation processes. Thus, the development of effective DNA extraction methods is required for these materials. Here, we compared the performance of two DNA extraction protocols (commercial and custom laboratory aDNA methods) on hair and skin samples from decades-old museum specimens to Iron Age archaeological material. We found that apart from the impact sample-specific taphonomic and handling history has on the quantity and quality of DNA preservation, skin yielded more endogenous DNA than hair of the samples and protocols tested. While both methods recovered DNA from ancient soft tissue, the laboratory method performed better overall in terms of DNA yield and quality, which was primarily due to the poorer performance of the commercial binding buffer in recovering aDNA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8175948
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Science Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81759482021-06-10 Comparative analysis of DNA extraction protocols for ancient soft tissue museum samples Zhang, Ming Cao, Peng Dai, Qing-Yan Wang, Yong-Qiang Feng, Xiao-Tian Wang, Hong-Ru Wu, Hong Ko, Albert Min-Shan Mao, Xiao-Wei Liu, Yi-Chen Yu, Li Roos, Christian Nadler, Tilo Xiao, Wen Bennett, E. Andrew Fu, Qiao-Mei Zool Res Letter to the Editor DNA studies of endangered or extinct species often rely on ancient or degraded remains. The majority of ancient DNA (aDNA) extraction protocols focus on skeletal elements, with skin and hair samples rarely explored. Similar to that found in bones and teeth, DNA extracted from historical or ancient skin and fur samples is also extremely fragmented with low endogenous content due to natural degradation processes. Thus, the development of effective DNA extraction methods is required for these materials. Here, we compared the performance of two DNA extraction protocols (commercial and custom laboratory aDNA methods) on hair and skin samples from decades-old museum specimens to Iron Age archaeological material. We found that apart from the impact sample-specific taphonomic and handling history has on the quantity and quality of DNA preservation, skin yielded more endogenous DNA than hair of the samples and protocols tested. While both methods recovered DNA from ancient soft tissue, the laboratory method performed better overall in terms of DNA yield and quality, which was primarily due to the poorer performance of the commercial binding buffer in recovering aDNA. Science Press 2021-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8175948/ /pubmed/33855818 http://dx.doi.org/10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.377 Text en Editorial Office of Zoological Research, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Letter to the Editor
Zhang, Ming
Cao, Peng
Dai, Qing-Yan
Wang, Yong-Qiang
Feng, Xiao-Tian
Wang, Hong-Ru
Wu, Hong
Ko, Albert Min-Shan
Mao, Xiao-Wei
Liu, Yi-Chen
Yu, Li
Roos, Christian
Nadler, Tilo
Xiao, Wen
Bennett, E. Andrew
Fu, Qiao-Mei
Comparative analysis of DNA extraction protocols for ancient soft tissue museum samples
title Comparative analysis of DNA extraction protocols for ancient soft tissue museum samples
title_full Comparative analysis of DNA extraction protocols for ancient soft tissue museum samples
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of DNA extraction protocols for ancient soft tissue museum samples
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of DNA extraction protocols for ancient soft tissue museum samples
title_short Comparative analysis of DNA extraction protocols for ancient soft tissue museum samples
title_sort comparative analysis of dna extraction protocols for ancient soft tissue museum samples
topic Letter to the Editor
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8175948/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33855818
http://dx.doi.org/10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.377
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangming comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT caopeng comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT daiqingyan comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT wangyongqiang comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT fengxiaotian comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT wanghongru comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT wuhong comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT koalbertminshan comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT maoxiaowei comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT liuyichen comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT yuli comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT rooschristian comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT nadlertilo comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT xiaowen comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT bennetteandrew comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples
AT fuqiaomei comparativeanalysisofdnaextractionprotocolsforancientsofttissuemuseumsamples