Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 33

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Further evaluation of the efficacy of contamination removal from bone surfaces

Barta, Jodi Lynn, Monroe, Cara, Kemp, Brian M.·2013·Forensic Science International

Abstract

Studies of low copy number (LCN) and degraded DNA are prone to contamination from exogenous DNA sources that in some cases out-compete endogenous DNA in PCR amplification, thus leading to false positives and/or aberrant results. Particularly problematic is contamination that is inadvertently deposited on the surfaces of bones through direct handling. Whereas some previous studies have shown that contamination removal is possible by subjecting samples to sodium hypochlorite prior to DNA extraction, others caution that such treatment can destroy a majority of the molecules endogenous to the sample. To further explore this topic, we experimentally contaminated ancient northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) ribs with human DNA and treated them with sodium hypochlorite to remove that contamination. Our findings are consistent with previous studies that found sodium hypochlorite to be highly efficient (~81-99%) at contamination removal; however, there emerged no treatment capable of removing 100% of the contamination across all of the experiments. Moreover, the ability to estimate the degree of damage to endogenous northern fur seal molecules was compromised due to the inherent variability of preserved mtDNA across the bones, and the presence of co-extracted PCR inhibitors.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.06.004

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Pääbo, 1989, Ancient DNA: extraction, characterization, molecular cloning, and enzymatic amplification, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 86, 1939, 10.1073/pnas.86.6.1939 · DOI
  2. Pääbo, 1988, Mitochondrial DNA sequences from a 7000-year old brain, Nucleic Acids Res., 16, 9775, 10.1093/nar/16.20.9775 · DOI
  3. Hagelberg, 1991, Identification of the skeletal remains of a murder victim by DNA analysis, Nature, 352, 427, 10.1038/352427a0 · DOI
  4. Hagelberg, 1989, Ancient Bone DNA Amplified, Nature, 352, 427, 10.1038/352427a0 · DOI
  5. Jeffreys, 1992, Identification of the skeletal remains of Josef Mengele by DNA analysis, Forensic Sci. Int., 56, 65, 10.1016/0379-0738(92)90148-P · DOI
  6. Kemp, 2006, Repeat silica extraction: a simple technique for the removal of PCR inhibitors from DNA extracts, J. Archaeol. Sci., 33, 1680, 10.1016/j.jas.2006.02.015 · DOI
  7. Yang, 2003, Hypersensitive PCR, ancient human mtDNA, and contamination, Human Biol., 75, 355, 10.1353/hub.2003.0050 · DOI
  8. Kwok, 1989, Avoiding false positives with PCR, Nature, 339, 237, 10.1038/339237a0 · DOI
  9. Gilbert, 2007, Recharacterization of ancient DNA miscoding lesions: insights in the era of sequencing-by-synthesis, Nucleic Acids Res., 35, 1, 10.1093/nar/gkl483 · DOI
  10. Kemp, 2005, Use of bleach to eliminate contaminating DNA from the surfaces of bones and teeth, Forensic Sci. Int., 154, 53, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.11.017 · DOI
  11. Cooper, 2000, Ancient DNA: do it right or not at all, Science, 289, 1139, 10.1126/science.289.5482.1139b · DOI
  12. Kemp, 2010, Ancient DNA methodology: “thoughts from brian M. Kemp and David Glenn Smith on” mitochondrial DNA of protohistoric remains of an arikara population from South Dakota”, Human Biol., 82, 227
  13. Edson, 2004, Naming the dead-confronting the realities of rapid identification of degraded skeletal remains, Forensic Sci. Rev., 16, 64
  14. Yang, 2005, Contamination controls when preparing archaeological remains for ancient DNA analysis, J. Archaeol. Sci., 32, 331, 10.1016/j.jas.2004.09.008 · DOI
  15. NIJ, 1999, What every law enforcement officer should know about DNA evidence, Nat. Institue Justice
  16. Steadman, 2003, Latent print processing of human bones, J. Forensic Ident., 53, 556
  17. Mayo, 2004, Recovering human remains from clandestine graves, Evid. Technol. Mag., 2, 22
  18. Rutty, 2000, Human DNA contamination of mortuaries: does it matter?, J. Pathol., 190, 410, 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(200003)190:4<410::AID-PATH532>3.0.CO;2-U · DOI
  19. Rutty, 2000, DNA contamination of mortuary instruments and work surfaces: a significant problem in forensic practice?, Int. J. Legal Med., 114, 56, 10.1007/s004140000142 · DOI
  20. Warrington, 2005, Who says you can’t do that? Crime scene contamination, Forensic Mag., 31
  21. Salamon, 2005, Relatively well preserved DNA is present in the crystal aggregates of fossil bones, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102, 13783, 10.1073/pnas.0503718102 · DOI
  22. Gilbert, 2006, Insights into the process behind the contamination of degraded human teeth and bone samples with exogenous sources of DNA, Int. J. Osteoaracheol., 16, 156, 10.1002/oa.832 · DOI
  23. Malmstrom, 2005, Extensive human DNA contamination in extracts from ancient dog bones and teeth, Mol. Biol. Evol., 22, 2040, 10.1093/molbev/msi195 · DOI
  24. Malmstrom, 2007, More on contamination: the use of asymmetric molecular behavior to identify authentic ancient human DNA, Mol. Biol. Evol., 24, 998, 10.1093/molbev/msm015 · DOI
  25. von Wurmb-Schwark, 2008, The impact of DNA contamination of bone samples in forensic case analysis and anthropological research, Leg. Med., 10, 125, 10.1016/j.legalmed.2007.10.001 · DOI
  26. Dissing, 2008, On the elimination of extraneous DNA in fossil human teeth with hypochlorite, J. Archaeol. Sci., 1445, 10.1016/j.jas.2007.10.009 · DOI
  27. Winters, 2011, To clone or not to clone: method analysis for retrieving consensus sequences in ancient DNA samples, PLoS ONE, 6, e21247, 10.1371/journal.pone.0021247 · DOI
  28. Barta, 2013, Mitochondrial DNA preservation across 3500 year old northern fur seal ribs is not related to bone density: implications for forensic investigations, Forensic Sci. Int.
  29. Kemp, 2007, Genetic analysis of early Holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implication for the settlement of the Americas, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 132, 605, 10.1002/ajpa.20543 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Anderson, 1981, Sequence and organization of the human mitochondrial genome, Nature, 290, 457, 10.1038/290457a0 · DOI
  31. Andrews, 1999, Reanalysis and revision of the Cambridge reference sequence for human mitochondrial DNA, Nat. Genet., 23, 147, 10.1038/13779 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Schwarz, 2009, New insights from old bones: DNA preservation and degradation in permafrost preserved mammoth remains, Nucleic Acids Res., 37, 3215, 10.1093/nar/gkp159 · DOI
  33. Pääbo, 2004, Genetic analyses from ancient DNA, Annu. Rev. Genet., 38, 645, 10.1146/annurev.genet.37.110801.143214 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Poinar, 2006, Metagenomics to paleogenomics: large-scale sequencing of mammoth DNA, Science, 311, 392, 10.1126/science.1123360 · DOI
  35. Garcia-Garcera, 2011, Fragmentation of contaminant and endogenous DNA in ancient samples determined by shotgun sequencing; prospects for human palaeogenomics, PLoS ONE, 6, e24161, 10.1371/journal.pone.0024161 · DOI
  36. Prince, 1992, PCR how to kill unwanted DNA, Biotechniques, 12, 358

Cited by

See all 33

Metadata

Authors
Barta, J. L., Monroe, C., & Kemp, B. M.
Venue
Forensic Science International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
231
Issue
1-3
Pages
340-348
ISSN
0379-0738
Cited by
33
References
2
Language
en
Funders
  • Office of Justice Programs
  • U.S. Department of Justice
  • National Institute of Justice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Further evaluation of the efficacy of contamination removal from bone surfaces. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.06.004
The paper
Barta, J. L., Monroe, C., & Kemp, B. M. (2013). Further evaluation of the efficacy of contamination removal from bone surfaces. Forensic Science International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.06.004