4.7 Article

The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1745

关键词

DNA degradation; aDNA; decay kinetics; DNA half-life

资金

  1. Hodgen (PV) family
  2. Giesen (BHV) family
  3. Earl (Rosslea) family
  4. Marsden Fund of the Royal Society of New Zealand [06-PAL-001-EEB]
  5. SYNTHESYS project
  6. European Community Research Infrastructure Action under the FP7 'Capacities' programme
  7. Danish Council for Independent Research [10-081390]
  8. Australian Research Council (Future Fellowship) [FT0991741]
  9. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G000204/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. NERC [NE/G000204/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Claims of extreme survival of DNA have emphasized the need for reliable models of DNA degradation through time. By analysing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 158 radiocarbon-dated bones of the extinct New Zealand moa, we confirm empirically a long-hypothesized exponential decay relationship. The average DNA half-life within this geographically constrained fossil assemblage was estimated to be 521 years for a 242 bp mtDNA sequence, corresponding to a per nucleotide fragmentation rate (k) of 5.50 x 10(-6) per year. With an effective burial temperature of 13.18 degrees C, the rate is almost 400 times slower than predicted from published kinetic data of in vitro DNA depurination at pH 5. Although best described by an exponential model (R-2 = 0.39), considerable sample-to-sample variance in DNA preservation could not be accounted for by geologic age. This variation likely derives from differences in taphonomy and bone diagenesis, which have confounded previous, less spatially constrained attempts to study DNA decay kinetics. Lastly, by calculating DNA fragmentation rates on Illumina HiSeq data, we show that nuclear DNA has degraded at least twice as fast as mtDNA. These results provide a baseline for predicting long-term DNA survival in bone.

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