Cited by 1,669Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesForensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic diversity and population structure

mapDamage2.0: fast approximate Bayesian estimates of ancient DNA damage parameters

Open access
Jónsson, Hákon, Ginolhac, Aurélien, Schubert, Mikkel, Johnson, Philip L. F., Orlando, Ludovic·2013·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation: Ancient DNA (aDNA) molecules in fossilized bones and teeth, coprolites, sediments, mummified specimens and museum collections represent fantastic sources of information for evolutionary biologists, revealing the agents of past epidemics and the dynamics of past populations. However, the analysis of aDNA generally faces two major issues. Firstly, sequences consist of a mixture of endogenous and various exogenous backgrounds, mostly microbial. Secondly, high nucleotide misincorporation rates can be observed as a result of severe post-mortem DNA damage. Such misincorporation patterns are instrumental to authenticate ancient sequences versus modern contaminants. We recently developed the user-friendly mapDamage package that identifies such patterns from next-generation sequencing (NGS) sequence datasets. The absence of formal statistical modeling of the DNA damage process, however, precluded rigorous quantitative comparisons across samples. Results: Here, we describe mapDamage 2.0 that extends the original features of mapDamage by incorporating a statistical model of DNA damage. Assuming that damage events depend only on sequencing position and post-mortem deamination, our Bayesian statistical framework provides estimates of four key features of aDNA molecules: the average length of overhangs (λ), nick frequency (ν) and cytosine deamination rates in both double-stranded regions () and overhangs (). Our model enables rescaling base quality scores according to their probability of being damaged. mapDamage 2.0 handles NGS datasets with ease and is compatible with a wide range of DNA library protocols. Availability: mapDamage 2.0 is available at ginolhac.github.io/mapDamage/ as a Python package and documentation is maintained at the Centre for GeoGenetics Web site (geogenetics.ku.dk/publications/mapdamage2.0/). Contact: jonsson.hakon@gmail.com Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt193

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • By characterizing damage patterns, users can distinguish authentic aDNA from modern contaminants, thereby ensuring the integrity of the dataset.

    “By characterizing damage patterns, users can distinguish authentic aDNA from modern contaminants, thereby ensuring the integrity of the dataset (Jónsson et al. 2013, Skoglund et al. 2014).”

    From Unravelling reference bias in ancient DNA datasets (2024) · cites this paper as Jónsson et al. 2013

    The Abstract says damage-related misincorporation patterns are instrumental in authenticating ancient sequences versus modern contaminants, and the Introduction says mapDamage identifies these patterns. The Conclusion describes reducing errors in downstream analyses, but the paper does not establish that characterizing damage patterns ensures the integrity of a dataset. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Authentic ancient DNA exhibits characteristic damage including short DNA fragment lengths, a high rate of cytosine deamination at the termini of DNA fragments, and an enrichment of purine bases at DNA breakage sites.

    “Briefly, authentic ancient DNA is known to exhibit characteristic damage that includes short DNA fragment lengths, a high rate of cytosine deamination at the termini of DNA fragments, and an enrichment of purine bases at DNA breakage sites.”

    From Successful enrichment and recovery of whole mitochondrial genomes from ancient human dental calculus (2016) · cites this paper as Jonsson et al., 2013

    The Introduction reports elevated cytosine deamination at 5′ overhangs and damage-related substitutions near read ends, supporting the terminal-deamination part of the claim. It also mentions strand breaks, but our copy does not state that ancient DNA fragments are characteristically short or that purines are enriched at breakage sites. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Reads mapped with vg continue to show terminal deamination damage, which is used as a standard diagnostic for the presence of true ancient DNA, as seen in mapDamage plots, although levels are slightly reduced.

    “Finally, reads mapped with vg continue to show terminal deamination damage, which is used as a standard diagnostic for the presence of true ancient DNA, as seen in mapDamage [28] plots, although levels are slightly reduced (Additional file 1: Fig. S12).”
  • The authenticity of the human reads obtained from archaeological dental calculus and dentine was assessed by examining damage patterns typical of ancient DNA.

    “The authenticity of the human reads obtained from archaeological dental calculus and dentine was assessed by examining damage patterns typical of ancient DNA (Briggs et al., 2007; Ginolhac et al., 2011; Jonsson et al., 2013).”
  • Ancient DNA damage patterns were assessed on unmerged reads using MapDamage 2.0, and read quality scores were modified with the rescale option to account for post-mortem damage.

    “Ancient DNA damage patterns were assessed on unmerged reads using MapDamage 2.0 (Jonsson et al., 2013), and read quality scores were modified with the rescale option to account for post‐mortem damage.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jónsson, H., Ginolhac, A., Schubert, M., Johnson, P. L. F., & Orlando, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Jónsson, Hákon
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2013-04-23
Volume
29
Issue
13
Pages
1682-1684
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2150163641
Cited by
1,669
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 185 · 2025: 207 · 2024: 178 · 2023: 187 · 2022: 156 · 2021: 196 · 2020: 137 · 2019: 103 · 2018: 119 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 4
FWCI
17.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission (299176, 293845)
  • Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • 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
Keywords
ancient DNA, Bayesian model, cytosine deamination, overhang length, contamination detection
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Cytosine, Deamination, DNA Damage, Fossils, Humans, Software, Sequence Analysis, DNA, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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