Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum.

Large-scale genomic analyses of ancient human populations have become feasible partly due to refined sampling methods. The inner part of petrous bones and the cementum layer in teeth roots are currently recognized as the best substrates for such research. We present a comparative analysis of DNA pre...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Henrik B Hansen, Peter B Damgaard, Ashot Margaryan, Jesper Stenderup, Niels Lynnerup, Eske Willerslev, Morten E Allentoft
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2017-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5271384?pdf=render
id doaj-a7c47c59f9404553bb894507b676054c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a7c47c59f9404553bb894507b676054c2020-11-24T20:45:06ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032017-01-01121e017094010.1371/journal.pone.0170940Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum.Henrik B HansenPeter B DamgaardAshot MargaryanJesper StenderupNiels LynnerupEske WillerslevMorten E AllentoftLarge-scale genomic analyses of ancient human populations have become feasible partly due to refined sampling methods. The inner part of petrous bones and the cementum layer in teeth roots are currently recognized as the best substrates for such research. We present a comparative analysis of DNA preservation in these two substrates obtained from the same human skulls, across a range of different ages and preservation environments. Both substrates display significantly higher endogenous DNA content (average of 16.4% and 40.0% for teeth and petrous bones, respectively) than parietal skull bone (average of 2.2%). Despite sample-to-sample variation, petrous bone overall performs better than tooth cementum (p = 0.001). This difference, however, is driven largely by a cluster of viking skeletons from one particular locality, showing relatively poor molecular tooth preservation (<10% endogenous DNA). In the remaining skeletons there is no systematic difference between the two substrates. A crude preservation (good/bad) applied to each sample prior to DNA-extraction predicted the above/below 10% endogenous DNA threshold in 80% of the cases. Interestingly, we observe signficantly higher levels of cytosine to thymine deamination damage and lower proportions of mitochondrial/nuclear DNA in petrous bone compared to tooth cementum. Lastly, we show that petrous bones from ancient cremated individuals contain no measurable levels of authentic human DNA. Based on these findings we discuss the pros and cons of sampling the different elements.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5271384?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Henrik B Hansen
Peter B Damgaard
Ashot Margaryan
Jesper Stenderup
Niels Lynnerup
Eske Willerslev
Morten E Allentoft
spellingShingle Henrik B Hansen
Peter B Damgaard
Ashot Margaryan
Jesper Stenderup
Niels Lynnerup
Eske Willerslev
Morten E Allentoft
Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Henrik B Hansen
Peter B Damgaard
Ashot Margaryan
Jesper Stenderup
Niels Lynnerup
Eske Willerslev
Morten E Allentoft
author_sort Henrik B Hansen
title Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum.
title_short Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum.
title_full Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum.
title_fullStr Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum.
title_full_unstemmed Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum.
title_sort comparing ancient dna preservation in petrous bone and tooth cementum.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2017-01-01
description Large-scale genomic analyses of ancient human populations have become feasible partly due to refined sampling methods. The inner part of petrous bones and the cementum layer in teeth roots are currently recognized as the best substrates for such research. We present a comparative analysis of DNA preservation in these two substrates obtained from the same human skulls, across a range of different ages and preservation environments. Both substrates display significantly higher endogenous DNA content (average of 16.4% and 40.0% for teeth and petrous bones, respectively) than parietal skull bone (average of 2.2%). Despite sample-to-sample variation, petrous bone overall performs better than tooth cementum (p = 0.001). This difference, however, is driven largely by a cluster of viking skeletons from one particular locality, showing relatively poor molecular tooth preservation (<10% endogenous DNA). In the remaining skeletons there is no systematic difference between the two substrates. A crude preservation (good/bad) applied to each sample prior to DNA-extraction predicted the above/below 10% endogenous DNA threshold in 80% of the cases. Interestingly, we observe signficantly higher levels of cytosine to thymine deamination damage and lower proportions of mitochondrial/nuclear DNA in petrous bone compared to tooth cementum. Lastly, we show that petrous bones from ancient cremated individuals contain no measurable levels of authentic human DNA. Based on these findings we discuss the pros and cons of sampling the different elements.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5271384?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT henrikbhansen comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
AT peterbdamgaard comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
AT ashotmargaryan comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
AT jesperstenderup comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
AT nielslynnerup comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
AT eskewillerslev comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
AT morteneallentoft comparingancientdnapreservationinpetrousboneandtoothcementum
_version_ 1716815477623226368