Monitoring DNA contamination in handled vs. directly excavated ancient human skeletal remains - PubMed (original) (raw)

Monitoring DNA contamination in handled vs. directly excavated ancient human skeletal remains

Elena Pilli et al. PLoS One. 2013.

Abstract

Bones, teeth and hair are often the only physical evidence of human or animal presence at an archaeological site; they are also the most widely used sources of samples for ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis. Unfortunately, the DNA extracted from ancient samples, already scarce and highly degraded, is widely susceptible to exogenous contaminations that can affect the reliability of aDNA studies. We evaluated the molecular effects of sample handling on five human skeletons freshly excavated from a cemetery dated between the 11 to the 14(th) century. We collected specimens from several skeletal areas (teeth, ribs, femurs and ulnas) from each individual burial. We then divided the samples into two different sets: one labeled as "virgin samples" (i.e. samples that were taken by archaeologists under contamination-controlled conditions and then immediately sent to the laboratory for genetic analyses), and the second called "lab samples"(i.e. samples that were handled without any particular precautions and subject to normal washing, handling and measuring procedures in the osteological lab). Our results show that genetic profiles from "lab samples" are incomplete or ambiguous in the different skeletal areas while a different outcome is observed in the "virgin samples" set. Generally, all specimens from different skeletal areas in the exception of teeth present incongruent results between "lab" and "virgin" samples. Therefore teeth are less prone to contamination than the other skeletal areas we analyzed and may be considered a material of choice for classical aDNA studies. In addition, we showed that bones can also be a good candidate for human aDNA analysis if they come directly from the excavation site and are accompanied by a clear taphonomic history.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: Co-author David Caramelli is a PLOS ONE Editorial Board member. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Richards M, Smalley K, Sykes B, Hedges R (1993) Archaeology and genetics: analysing DNA from skeletal remains. World Archaeol 25: 18–28. - PubMed
    1. Hofreiter M, Jaenicke V, Serre D, Haeseler AA, Pääbo S (2001) DNA sequences from multiple amplifications reveal artifacts induced by cytosine deamination in ancient. DNA Nucleic Acids Res 29: 4793–4799. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wandeler P, Smith S, Morin PA, Pettifor RA, Funk SM (2003) Patterns of nuclear DNA degeneration over time–a case study in historic teeth samples. Mol Ecol 12: 1087–1093. - PubMed
    1. Malmström H, Storå J, Dalén L, Holmlund G, Götherström A (2005) Extensive human DNA contamination in extracts from ancient dog bones and teeth. Mol Biol Evol 22: 2040–2047. - PubMed
    1. Salamon M, Tuross N, Arensburg B, Weiner S (2005) Relatively well preserved DNA is present in the crystal aggregates of fossil bones. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 13783–13788. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Grants and funding

This study was supported by MIUR grant #2008TE2B8S_002 and Progetti di ricerca fondamentale o di base Sardinia Region grant #CRP2_439 assigned to DC, and by FIRB grant #RBFR08U07M “Futuro in Ricerca” assigned to EP. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

LinkOut - more resources