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