↓ Skip to main content

Empirical Evaluation of Bone Extraction Protocols

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
Title
Empirical Evaluation of Bone Extraction Protocols
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0031443
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy P. Cleland, Kristyn Voegele, Mary H. Schweitzer

Abstract

The application of high-resolution analytical techniques to characterize ancient bone proteins requires clean, efficient extraction to obtain high quality data. Here, we evaluated many different protocols from the literature on ostrich cortical bone and moa cortical bone to evaluate their yield and relative purity using the identification of antibody-antigen complexes on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and gel electrophoresis. Moa bone provided an ancient comparison for the effectiveness of bone extraction protocols tested on ostrich bone. For the immunological part of this study, we focused on collagen I, osteocalcin, and hemoglobin because collagen and osteocalcin are the most abundant proteins in the mineralized extracellular matrix and hemoglobin is common in the vasculature. Most of these procedures demineralize the bone first, and then the remaining organics are chemically extracted. We found that the use of hydrochloric acid, rather than ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, for demineralization resulted in the cleanest extractions because the acid was easily removed. In contrast, the use of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid resulted in smearing upon electrophoretic separation, possibly indicating these samples were not as pure. The denaturing agents sodium dodecyl sulfate, urea, and guanidine HCl have been used extensively for the solubilization of proteins in non-biomineralized tissue, but only the latter has been used on bone. We show that all three denaturing agents are effective for extracting bone proteins. One additional method tested uses ammonium bicarbonate as a solubilizing buffer that is more appropriate for post-extraction analyses (e.g., proteomics) by removing the need for desalting. We found that both guanidine HCl and ammonium bicarbonate were effective for extracting many bone proteins, resulting in similar electrophoretic patterns. With the increasing use of proteomics, a new generation of scientists are now interested in the study of proteins from not only extant bone but also from ancient bone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 24%
Researcher 28 21%
Student > Master 22 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 18 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 14%
Chemistry 12 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 7%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Other 30 22%
Unknown 23 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 June 2023.
All research outputs
#6,823,830
of 25,587,485 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#96,504
of 223,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,539
of 259,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#988
of 3,563 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,587,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 259,151 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,563 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.