Hansen Henrik B, Damgaard Peter B, Margaryan Ashot, Stenderup Jesper, Lynnerup Niels, Willerslev Eske, Allentoft Morten E
Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Unit of Forensic Anthropology, Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 27;12(1):e0170940. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170940. eCollection 2017.
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.
由于采样方法的改进,对古代人类群体进行大规模基因组分析已变得可行。目前,岩骨内部和牙根中的牙骨质层被认为是此类研究的最佳样本来源。我们对从同一人类头骨获取的这两种样本来源的DNA保存情况进行了比较分析,样本涵盖了不同年龄和保存环境。与顶骨(平均2.2%)相比,这两种样本来源的内源性DNA含量均显著更高(牙齿和岩骨的平均值分别为16.4%和40.0%)。尽管样本之间存在差异,但总体而言岩骨的表现优于牙骨质(p = 0.001)。然而,这种差异很大程度上是由来自一个特定地点的一组维京人骨骼所驱动的,这些骨骼的牙齿分子保存相对较差(内源性DNA<10%)。在其余骨骼中,这两种样本来源之间没有系统性差异。在DNA提取之前对每个样本进行粗略的保存情况(好/坏)评估,在80%的情况下能够预测内源性DNA阈值高于或低于10%。有趣的是,我们观察到与牙骨质相比,岩骨中的胞嘧啶到胸腺嘧啶的脱氨基损伤水平显著更高,线粒体/核DNA的比例更低。最后,我们表明来自古代火葬个体的岩骨中没有可测量水平的真实人类DNA。基于这些发现,我们讨论了采集不同样本来源的优缺点。