↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Physical Anthropology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Comparison of two ancient DNA extraction protocols for skeletal remains from tropical environments
Published in
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.23472
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The tropics harbor a large part of the world's 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 semi-tropical sites in Tanzania, Mexico, and Puerto Rico (N = 12). All 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. No 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. Both 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.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 19%
Student > Master 11 10%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 40 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 15%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Arts and Humanities 6 6%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 41 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,627,635
of 29,695,593 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Physical Anthropology
#733
of 3,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,554
of 351,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Physical Anthropology
#15
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,695,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.