4.7 Article

Experimental conditions improving in-solution target enrichment for ancient DNA

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY RESOURCES
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 508-522

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12595

关键词

ancient DNA; capture; enrichment; in-solution

资金

  1. Fundacion UNAM
  2. Marie-Curie Intra-European Fellowship Program [FP7-IEF-328024]
  3. Villum Fonden Blokstipendier grant
  4. SYNTHESYS Project - European Community Research Infrastructure Action under the FP7 'Capacities' Program
  5. Danish Council for Independent Research, Natural Sciences [4002-00152B]
  6. Danish National Research Foundation [DNRF94]
  7. International Research Group Program, Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University [IRG14-08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-throughput sequencing has dramatically fostered ancient DNA research in recent years. Shotgun sequencing, however, does not necessarily appear as the best-suited approach due to the extensive contamination of samples with exogenous environmental microbial DNA. DNA capture-enrichment methods represent cost-effective alternatives that increase the sequencing focus on the endogenous fraction, whether it is from mitochondrial or nuclear genomes, or parts thereof. Here, we explored experimental parameters that could impact the efficacy of MYbaits in-solution capture assays of similar to 5000 nuclear loci or the whole genome. We found that varying quantities of the starting probes had only moderate effect on capture outcomes. Starting DNA, probe tiling, the hybridization temperature and the proportion of endogenous DNA all affected the assay, however. Additionally, probe features such as their GC content, number of CpG dinucleotides, sequence complexity and entropy and self-annealing properties need to be carefully addressed during the design stage of the capture assay. The experimental conditions and probe molecular features identified in this study will improve the recovery of genetic information extracted from degraded and ancient remains.

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