Cited by 118Forensic and Genetic ResearchGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Selective enrichment of damaged DNA molecules for ancient genome sequencing

Open access
Gansauge, Marie-Theres, Meyer, Matthias·2014·Genome Research

Abstract

Contamination by present-day human and microbial DNA is one of the major hindrances for large-scale genomic studies using ancient biological material. We describe a new molecular method, U selection, which exploits one of the most distinctive features of ancient DNA—the presence of deoxyuracils—for selective enrichment of endogenous DNA against a complex background of contamination during DNA library preparation. By applying the method to Neanderthal DNA extracts that are heavily contaminated with present-day human DNA, we show that the fraction of useful sequence information increases ∼10-fold and that the resulting sequences are more efficiently depleted of human contamination than when using purely computational approaches. Furthermore, we show that U selection can lead to a four- to fivefold increase in the proportion of endogenous DNA sequences relative to those of microbial contaminants in some samples. U selection may thus help to lower the costs for ancient genome sequencing of nonhuman samples also.

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 · 10.1101/gr.174201.114

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Single-stranded preparation enables molecular selection of DNA templates carrying post-mortem DNA damage, increasing fraction of endogenous DNA and reducing downstream sequencing costs.

    “Another advantage of the single-stranded preparation method is that it enables the molecular selection of DNA templates carrying evidence of post-mortem DNA damage, which can increase the fraction of endogenous DNA incorporated into sequencing libraries, and thus reduce downstream sequencing costs 43 .”

    From Ancient DNA analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [43]

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: 25

  1. 10.1073/pnas.0704665104 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1126/science.1174462 · DOI
  3. 10.1093/nar/gkp1163 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1126/science.1188046 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.10.002 · DOI
  6. Dabney, 2012, Length and GC-biases during sequencing library amplification: a comparison of various polymerase-buffer systems with ancient and modern DNA sequencing libraries, Biotechniques, 52, 87, 10.2144/000113809 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1016/j.cub.2008.09.028 · DOI
  8. 10.1038/nprot.2013.038 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1126/science.1159750 · DOI
  10. 10.1086/515805 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.cell.2008.06.021 · DOI
  12. 10.1126/science.1188021 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.068 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1038/nature08976 · DOI
  15. 10.1093/molbev/msi094 · DOI
  16. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1093/nar/gkm1095 · DOI
  18. 10.1038/nature12960 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1101/gr.163592.113 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1038/nprot.2007.247 · DOI
  21. 10.1126/science.1236573 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1016/j.apradiso.2004.08.008 · DOI
  23. 10.1126/science.1216304 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Skoglund, 2014, Accurate sex identification of ancient human remains using DNA shotgun sequencing, J Archaeol Sci, 40, 4477, 10.1016/j.jas.2013.07.004 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1038/nrg3029 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gansauge, M.-T., & Meyer, M.
Affiliations
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Gansauge, Marie-Theres
  • Meyer, Matthias
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2014-07-31
Volume
24
Issue
9
Pages
1543-1549
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W7095237570
Cited by
118
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
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 › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Keywords
ancient DNA, DNA contamination, Neanderthal DNA, human contamination, microbial contamination, DNA library preparation
MeSH terms
Animals, Base Sequence, Deoxyuracil Nucleotides, Humans, Molecular Sequence Data, Sensitivity and Specificity, Genome, Sequence Analysis, DNA, DNA Contamination, Neanderthals

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