4.7 Article

Proteome degradation in ancient bone: Diagenesis and phylogenetic potential

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2014.06.026

关键词

Ancient proteins; Palaeoproteomics; Fetuin-A; Albumin; Secreted phosphoprotein 24; Non-collagenous proteins

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (UK) [NE/H015132/1, NE/J500057/1]
  2. Stacey Warwood
  3. University of Manchester's Faculty of Life Sciences' Proteomics Core Facility
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/H015132/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. NERC [NE/J500057/1, NE/H015132/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The species composition of vertebrate remains found on archaeological and palaeontological sites has proved to be a valuable source of information for reconstructions of past animal husbandry practices as well as for recovering palaeobiological and palaeoecological information. Molecular analyses provide an objective alternative method of species identification to traditional morphological approaches, particularly useful with fragmentary material; the most well-known being the analysis of DNA. However, more recent proteomics techniques are proving to offer powerful new approaches for obtaining molecular species identification and molecular phylogenies from much deeper within the archaeological record. Collagen is the most abundant and stable protein that can survive for millions of years in biomineralised tissues, but it has been well established for several decades that many other, potentially more informative, non-collagenous proteins (NCPs) also survive long into the archaeological and even geological records. This study investigates the potential mechanisms for biomolecule survival in ancient bone, as well as the extent to which the NCPs that do survive over hundreds of thousands of years yield useful phylogenetic information. Some of these NCPs are shown to yield species-specific information making them ideal for palaeoenvironmental inferences. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据