Cited by 572Forensic and Genetic ResearchGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesPaleopathology and ancient diseases

Partial uracil–DNA–glycosylase treatment for screening of ancient DNA

Open access
Rohland, Nadin, Harney, Eadaoin, Mallick, Swapan, Nordenfelt, Susanne, Reich, David·2015·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

The challenge of sequencing ancient DNA has led to the development of specialized laboratory protocols that have focused on reducing contamination and maximizing the number of molecules that are extracted from ancient remains. Despite the fact that success in ancient DNA studies is typically obtained by screening many samples to identify a promising subset, ancient DNA protocols have not, in general, focused on reducing the time required to screen samples. We present an adaptation of a popular ancient library preparation method that makes screening more efficient. First, the DNA extract is treated using a protocol that causes characteristic ancient DNA damage to be restricted to the terminal nucleotides, while nearly eliminating it in the interior of the DNA molecules, allowing a single library to be used both to test for ancient DNA authenticity and to carry out population genetic analysis. Second, the DNA molecules are ligated to a unique pair of barcodes, which eliminates undetected cross-contamination from this step onwards. Third, the barcoded library molecules include incomplete adapters of short length that can increase the specificity of hybridization-based genomic target enrichment. The adapters are completed just before sequencing, so the same DNA library can be used in multiple experiments, and the sequences distinguished. We demonstrate this protocol on 60 ancient human samples.

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/rstb.2013.0624

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • The study treated libraries with Uracil-DNA glycosylase (UDG) to reduce characteristic ancient DNA damage at all but the first and last nucleotides.

    “We treated the libraries with Uracil–DNA glycosylase (UDG) to reduce characteristic ancient DNA damage at all but the first and last nucleotides29”

    From Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation (2018) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Effectiveness of partial uracil-DNA-glycosylase treatment passage says partial UDG removes uracils within ancient DNA molecules while preserving substantial damage at the terminal bases. But it also says terminal-base damage is reduced compared with untreated libraries; the Library construction passage quantifies that reduction at about threefold. Thus the first and last nucleotides are not wholly exceptions to the reduction described in the claim. The indexed copy provides no page number for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • We assessed the quality of each library at the screening stage using three standard methods for determining ancient DNA authenticity: mitochondrial genome matching rate, C-to-T substitution rate, and X-chromosome contamination.

    “We assessed the quality of each library at the screening stage using three standard methods for determining ancient DNA authenticity.”

    From Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation (2018) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Introduction describes C-to-T mismatches and mitochondrial consensus mismatches as evidence of ancient DNA authenticity. The sequencing and analysis section also reports mitochondrial contamination estimates, but our copy does not describe X-chromosome contamination as a screening method. It therefore supports some, but not all, of the three methods attributed to it. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The study evaluated each individual for evidence of authentic ancient DNA by limiting to libraries with a minimum of 3% cytosine-to-thymine errors at the final nucleotide, requiring X-to-Y-chromosome ratio characteristic of sex, >95% matching to mtDNA consensus, and <2% contamination for males.

    “We evaluated each individual for evidence of authentic ancient DNA by limiting to libraries with a minimum of 3% cytosine-to-thymine errors at the final nucleotide29, by requiring that the ratio of X-to-Y-chromosome sequences was characteristic of either a male or a female, by requiring >95% matching to the consensus sequence of mitochondrial DNA30, and by requiring (for males) a lack of variation”
  • To reduce potential errors in obtained DNA sequences, DNA damage from cytosine deamination was partially removed using uracil-DNA glycosylase and endonuclease VIII, retaining damage at terminal positions as a measure of aDNA authentication.

    “To reduce potential errors in the obtained DNA sequences, we partially removed DNA damage resulting from cytosine deamination using uracil-DNA glycosylase and endonuclease VIII as previously reported (31). In this procedure, the damage is retained in the terminal positions of the DNA fragments and can be leveraged as a measure of aDNA authentication.”

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
Rohland, N., Harney, E., Mallick, S., Nordenfelt, S., & Reich, D.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
Corresponding author
Rohland, Nadin
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2015-01-19
Volume
370
Issue
1660
Pages
20130624
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2154930815
Cited by
572
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Paleopathology and ancient diseases
Keywords
ancient DNA, library preparation, sample screening, barcoding, cross-contamination, ancient human remains, population genetics
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, DNA, Fossils, Genetic Testing, Genetics, Population, Humans, Molecular Sequence Data, Gene Library, Sequence Analysis, DNA, History, Ancient, Uracil-DNA Glycosidase, DNA Barcoding, Taxonomic

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