4.7 Article

Combining bleach and mild predigestion improves ancient DNA recovery from bones

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY RESOURCES
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 742-751

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12623

关键词

ancient DNA; Atlantic cod; contamination; DNA extraction; high-throughput sequencing; horse

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway projects 'Tracking Viking-assisted dispersal using ancient DNA' [230821/F20]
  2. Fisheries induced evolution in Atlantic cod investigated by ancient and historic samples [203850/E40]
  3. Aqua Genome Project [221734/O30]
  4. Leverhulme Trust
  5. Danish Council for Independent Research, Natural Sciences [4002-00152B]
  6. Initiative d'Excellence Chaires d'attractivite, Universite de Toulouse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The feasibility of genome-scale studies from archaeological material remains critically dependent on the ability to access endogenous, authentic DNA. In the majority of cases, this represents a few per cent of the DNA extract, at most. A number of specific pre-extraction protocols for bone powder aimed to improve ancient DNA recovery before library amplification have recently been developed. Here, we test the effects of combining two of such protocols, a bleach wash and a predigestion step, on 12 bone samples of Atlantic cod and domestic horse aged 750-1350 cal. years before present. Using high-throughput sequencing, we show that combined together, bleach wash and predigestion consistently yield DNA libraries with higher endogenous content than either of these methods alone. Additionally, the molecular complexity of these libraries is improved and endogenous DNA templates show larger size distributions. Other library characteristics, such as DNA damage profiles or the composition of microbial communities, are little affected by the pre-extraction protocols. Application of the combined protocol presented in this study will facilitate the genetic analysis of an increasing number of ancient remains and will reduce the cost of whole-genome sequencing.

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