Journal
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 166, Issue 4, Pages 824-836Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.23472
Keywords
ancient DNA; DNA extraction; next-generation sequencing; skeletal remains; tropics
Categories
Funding
- National Science Foundation [BCS-1622479, BCS-0612727]
- Rust Family Foundation
- Leakey Foundation
- Arizona State University Strategic Initiative Funds
- Fundacion Roberto Hernandez
- Fundacion Pedro y Elena Hernandez
- Selz Foundation
- Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
- Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [1622479] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
Ask authors/readers for more resources
ObjectivesThe tropics harbor a large part of the world's biodiversity and have a long history of human habitation. However, paleogenomics research in these climates has been constrained so far by poor ancient DNA yields. Here we compare the performance of two DNA extraction methods on ancient samples of teeth and petrous portions excavated from tropical and semi-tropical sites in Tanzania, Mexico, and Puerto Rico (N=12). Materials and MethodsAll samples were extracted twice, built into double-stranded sequencing libraries, and shotgun sequenced on the Illumina HiSeq 2500. The first extraction protocol, Method D, was previously designed for recovery of ultrashort DNA fragments from skeletal remains. The second, Method H, modifies the first by adding an initial EDTA wash and an extended digestion and decalcification step. ResultsNo significant difference was found in overall ancient DNA yields or post-mortem damage patterns recovered from samples extracted with either method, irrespective of tissue type. However, Method H samples had higher endogenous content and more mapped reads after quality-filtering, but also higher clonality. In contrast, samples extracted with Method D had shorter average DNA fragments. DiscussionBoth methods successfully recovered endogenous ancient DNA. But, since surviving DNA in ancient or historic remains from tropical contexts is extremely fragmented, our results suggest that Method D is the optimal choice for working with samples from warm and humid environments. Additional optimization of extraction conditions and further testing of Method H with different types of samples may allow for improvement of this protocol in the future.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available