Sign in
GeneticsAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology
Peer-reviewed journal article

Comparison of two ancient DNA extraction protocols for skeletal remains from tropical environments

María A. Nieves-ColóniD, Andrew T. OzgaiD, William J. PestleiD, Andrea CucinaiD, Vera G. TiesleriD, Travis W. StantoniD, Anne C. StoneiD

Abstract

ObjectivesThe tropics harbor a large part of the worlds 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 semitropical sites in Tanzania, Mexico, and Puerto Rico (N=12).\n\nMaterials 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.\n\nResultsNo 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.\n\nDiscussionBoth 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.

PDFDOI

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers
Citations
22
FWCI
1.38
Field percentile
top 19%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISHarney '20Damgaard '15Dağtaş '26Davidson '24Parker '20Saupe '26
76% semantic matchEvolutionary Biology
E. Harney, O. Cheronet, D. M. Fernandes+38 more·bioRxiv·Aug 19, 2020