Cited by 61

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A fossil protein chimera; difficulties in discriminating dinosaur peptide sequences from modern cross-contamination

Buckley, Michael, Warwood, Stacey, van Dongen, Bart, Kitchener, Andrew C., Manning, Phillip L.·2017·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

A decade ago, reports that organic-rich soft tissue survived from dinosaur fossils were apparently supported by proteomics-derived sequence information of exceptionally well-preserved bone. This initial claim to the sequencing of endogenous collagen peptides from an approximately 68 Myr Tyrannosaurus rex fossil was highly controversial, largely on the grounds of potential contamination from either bacterial biofilms or from laboratory practice. In a subsequent study, collagen peptide sequences from an approximately 78 Myr Brachylophosaurus canadensis fossil were reported that have remained largely unchallenged. However, the endogeneity of these sequences relies heavily on a single peptide sequence, apparently unique to both dinosaurs. Given the potential for cross-contamination from modern bone analysed by the same team, here we extract collagen from bone samples of three individuals of ostrich, Struthio camelus . The resulting LC–MS/MS data were found to match all of the proposed sequences for both the original Tyrannosaurus and Brachylophosaurus studies. Regardless of the true nature of the dinosaur peptides, our finding highlights the difficulty of differentiating such sequences with confidence. Our results not only imply that cross-contamination cannot be ruled out, but that appropriate measures to test for endogeneity should be further evaluated.

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 · 10.1098/rspb.2017.0544

Cites

4 of 4 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 survival of ancient proteins in deep time has been linked to mineralized substrates.

    “what is known is that the survival of ancient proteins in deep time has been linked to mineralized substrates.”

    From Ancient protein analysis in archaeology (2021) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) links mineralized hadrosaur tissue with possible persistence of organic material. It says the evidence was for protein breakdown products, not surviving protein sequences, so it does not establish the claimed link between mineralized substrates and the survival of ancient proteins. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. 10.1126/science.1108397 · DOI
  2. 10.1126/science.1154284 · DOI
  3. 10.1126/science.1137614 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1126/science.1147046 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Manning PL, 2009, Mineralized soft-tissue structure and chemistry in a mummified hadrosaur from the Hell Creek Formation, North Dakota (USA), Proc. R. Soc. B, 273, 2777
  6. 10.1002/ajpa.1330860308 · DOI
  7. 10.1021/pr900349r · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1371/journal.pone.0002808 · DOI
  9. 10.1126/science.1155006 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1021/pr200721u · DOI
  11. 10.1002/rcm.6821 · DOI
  12. 10.1126/science.1165069 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1016/j.jas.2009.08.020 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1002/rcm.7445 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1038/nature12323 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1098/rspb.2015.0015 · DOI
  17. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b00675 · DOI
  18. 10.1371/journal.pone.0013334 · DOI
  19. 10.1371/journal.pone.0020381 · DOI
  20. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00873 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010 · DOI
  22. 10.1111/bor.12225 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Buckley M Warwood S Kitchener AC Manning PL. 2017 Data from: A fossil protein chimera; difficulties in discriminating dinosaur peptide sequences from modern cross-contamination. PRIDE Proteomics Data Repository. (doi:10.6019/PXD006360) · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Buckley, M., Warwood, S., van Dongen, B., Kitchener, A. C., & Manning, P. L.
Affiliations
  • Faculty of Science and Engineering, The University of Manchester, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, Manchester M1 7DN, UK
  • Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Michael Smith Building, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
  • School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Interdisciplinary Centre for Ancient Life, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
  • Department of Natural Sciences, National Museums Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, UK
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2017-05-31
Volume
284
Issue
1855
Pages
20170544
ISSN
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
Cited by
61
References
4
Language
en
Funders
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/M001814/1)
  • Royal Society (UF120473)

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