Cited by 226Forensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic diversity and population structureArchaeology and ancient environmental studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Freshly excavated fossil bones are best for amplification of ancient DNA

Open access
Pruvost, Mélanie, Schwarz, Reinhard, Correia, Virginia Bessa, Champlot, Sophie, Braguier, Séverine, Morel, Nicolas, Fernandez-Jalvo, Yolanda, Grange, Thierry, Geigl, Eva-Maria·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Despite the enormous potential of analyses of ancient DNA for phylogeographic studies of past populations, the impact these analyses, most of which are performed with fossil samples from natural history museum collections, has been limited to some extent by the inefficient recovery of ancient genetic material. Here we show that the standard storage conditions and/or treatments of fossil bones in these collections can be detrimental to DNA survival. Using a quantitative paleogenetic analysis of 247 herbivore fossil bones up to 50,000 years old and originating from 60 different archeological and paleontological contexts, we demonstrate that freshly excavated and nontreated unwashed bones contain six times more DNA and yield twice as many authentic DNA sequences as bones treated with standard procedures. This effect was even more pronounced with bones from one Neolithic site, where only freshly excavated bones yielded results. Finally, we compared the DNA content in the fossil bones of one animal, a ≈3,200-year-old aurochs, excavated in two separate seasons 57 years apart. Whereas the washed museum-stored fossil bones did not permit any DNA amplification, all recently excavated bones yielded authentic aurochs sequences. We established that during the 57 years when the aurochs bones were stored in a collection, at least as much amplifiable DNA was lost as during the previous 3,200 years of burial. This result calls for a revision of the postexcavation treatment of fossil bones to better preserve the genetic heritage of past life forms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0610257104

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The variation in endogenous DNA content suggests significant influence of microenvironments in long-term DNA preservation across the Anzick-1 bone fragments.

    “This suggests significant influence of microenvironments in long-term DNA preservation across the Anzick-1 bone fragments15.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. 10.1038/35072071 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00046-X · DOI
  3. 10.1073/pnas.040453097 · DOI
  4. 10.1126/science.1067814 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.jas.2003.11.001 · DOI
  6. 10.1038/35071177 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/0379-0738(96)01984-6 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/s002230020045 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/1475-4754.t01-1-00066 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.jas.2003.11.003 · DOI
  11. 10.1073/pnas.0503718102 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.jas.2002.05.002 · DOI
  13. 10.2144/05384ST03 · DOI
  14. P Cordonnier Bull Soc Agric Sci Arts Sarthe LXV, 7–15 (1947).
  15. 10.1002/oa.642 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/1475-4754.t01-1-00078 · DOI
  17. Y Fernandez-Jalvo, MD Marin-Monfort Geobios, in press. (2007).
  18. 10.1021/bi00769a018 · DOI
  19. 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01807.x · DOI
  20. T Schultes, S Hummel, B Herrman Ancient Biomol 1, 227–231 (1997).
  21. 10.2108/zsj.19.485 · DOI
  22. S Anderson, MHL DeBruijn, AR Coulson, IC Eperon, F Sanger, ID Young J Mol Biol 10, 512–526 (1982).
  23. 10.1073/pnas.93.10.5131 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pruvost, M., Schwarz, R., Correia, V. B., Champlot, S., Braguier, S., Morel, N., Fernandez-Jalvo, Y., Grange, T., & Geigl, E.-M.
Affiliations
  • Institut Jacques Monod (FR)
  • Musée de Carnac, 10, Place de la Chapelle, 56340 Carnac, France; and
  • Musée Vert, 204, Avenue Jean Jaurès, 72000 Le Mans, France
  • Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutierrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain;
  • *Institut Jacques Monod, Tour 43, 2, Place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France;
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-01-16
Volume
104
Issue
3
Pages
739-744
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1968608712
Cited by
226
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
Keywords
ancient DNA, fossil bones, museum collections, DNA preservation, aurochs, Neolithic, DNA amplification, paleogenetics, storage conditions
MeSH terms
Animals, Base Sequence, Bone and Bones, Cattle, DNA, Fossils, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Mitochondria, Molecular Sequence Data, Time Factors, Polymerase Chain Reaction

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