Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China.
CAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Beijing 100044, China.
Zool Res. 2021 May 18;42(3):280-286. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.377.
DNA studies of endangered or extinct species often rely on ancient or degraded remains. The majority of ancient DNA (aDNA) extraction protocols focus on skeletal elements, with skin and hair samples rarely explored. Similar to that found in bones and teeth, DNA extracted from historical or ancient skin and fur samples is also extremely fragmented with low endogenous content due to natural degradation processes. Thus, the development of effective DNA extraction methods is required for these materials. Here, we compared the performance of two DNA extraction protocols (commercial and custom laboratory aDNA methods) on hair and skin samples from decades-old museum specimens to Iron Age archaeological material. We found that apart from the impact sample-specific taphonomic and handling history has on the quantity and quality of DNA preservation, skin yielded more endogenous DNA than hair of the samples and protocols tested. While both methods recovered DNA from ancient soft tissue, the laboratory method performed better overall in terms of DNA yield and quality, which was primarily due to the poorer performance of the commercial binding buffer in recovering aDNA.
对濒危或灭绝物种的 DNA 研究通常依赖于古老或退化的遗骸。大多数古 DNA（aDNA）提取方案侧重于骨骼元素，很少探索皮肤和毛发样本。与在骨骼和牙齿中发现的情况类似，从历史或古代皮肤和皮毛样本中提取的 DNA 由于自然降解过程也极其碎片化，内源含量低。因此，需要为这些材料开发有效的 DNA 提取方法。在这里，我们比较了两种 DNA 提取方案（商业和定制实验室 aDNA 方法）在来自数十年前博物馆标本的毛发和皮肤样本以及铁器时代考古材料上的性能。我们发现，除了样本特定的埋藏和处理历史对 DNA 保存的数量和质量的影响外，皮肤比所测试的毛发样本提供了更多的内源 DNA。虽然两种方法都从古代软组织中回收了 DNA，但实验室方法在 DNA 产量和质量方面总体表现更好，这主要是由于商业结合缓冲液在回收 aDNA 方面的性能较差。
