Cited by 80Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesForensic and Genetic ResearchEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies

Optimization of DNA Recovery and Amplification from Non-Carbonized Archaeobotanical Remains

Open access
Wales, Nathan, Andersen, Kenneth, Cappellini, Enrico, Ávila-Arcos, María C., Gilbert, M. Thomas P.·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Ancient DNA (aDNA) recovered from archaeobotanical remains can provide key insights into many prominent archaeological research questions, including processes of domestication, past subsistence strategies, and human interactions with the environment. However, it is often difficult to isolate aDNA from ancient plant materials, and furthermore, such DNA extracts frequently contain inhibitory substances that preclude successful PCR amplification. In the age of high-throughput sequencing, this problem is even more significant because each additional endogenous aDNA molecule improves analytical resolution. Therefore, in this paper, we compare a variety of DNA extraction techniques on primarily desiccated archaeobotanical remains and identify which method consistently yields the greatest amount of purified DNA. In addition, we test five DNA polymerases to determine how well they replicate DNA extracted from non-charred ancient plant remains. Based upon the criteria of resistance to enzymatic inhibition, behavior in quantitative real-time PCR, replication fidelity, and compatibility with aDNA damage, we conclude these polymerases have nuanced properties, requiring researchers to make educated decisions as to which one to use for a given task. The experimental findings should prove useful to the aDNA and archaeological communities by guiding future research methodologies and ensuring precious archaeobotanical remains are studied in optimal ways, and may thereby yield important new perspectives on the interactions between humans and past plant communities.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0086827

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Previous studies have reported lower error rates and higher extension termination rates for Pfu-based polymerases (such as Phusion) compared to Taq-based and other uracil-tolerant polymerases.

    “Previous studies have reported lower error rates and higher extension termination rates for Pfu‐based polymerases (such as Phusion) compared to Taq‐based and other uracil‐tolerant polymerases (Heyn et al., 2010; Ginolhac et al., 2011; Wales et al., 2014).”

    From Successful enrichment and recovery of whole mitochondrial genomes from ancient human dental calculus (2016) · cites this paper as Wales et al., 2014

    The Results (DNA Polymerases, Fidelity) report significantly lower substitution error rates for Phusion than for the other tested polymerases. The Results (Compatibility with damaged DNA) and Discussion say Phusion stalls at uracil in damaged templates while the others read through it, but the paper does not report comparative extension-termination rates. It also identifies PfuTurbo Cx as a uracil-tolerant comparator, so the finding should not be generalized to all Pfu-based polymerases. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [10]Wales N, Allaby RG, Willerslev E, Gilbert MTP (2013) Ancient Plant DNA. In: Elias SA, editor. Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science, vol. 2. Oxford: Elsevier. 705–715.
  2. [12]Willerslev E, Cooper A (2005) Ancient DNA. Proc Biol Sci 272(1558): 3– 16. 15875564 PMC1634942
  3. [30]Hofreiter M, Serre D, Poinar HN, Kuch M, Pääbo S (2001) Ancient DNA. Nat Rev Genet 2(5): 353– 359. 11331901
  4. [33]Allaby RG, O’Donoghue K, Sallares R, Jones MK, Brown TA (1997) Evidence for the survival of ancient DNA in charred wheat seeds from European archaeological sites. Anc Biomol 1(2): 119– 129.
  5. [34]Brown TA, Allaby RG, Sallares R, Jones G (1998) Ancient DNA in charred wheats: Taxonomic identification of mixed and single grains. Anc Biomol 2(2): 185– 193.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wales, N., Andersen, K., Cappellini, E., Ávila-Arcos, M. C., & Gilbert, M. T. P.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
  • Wales, Nathan
  • Andersen, Kenneth
  • Cappellini, Enrico
  • Gilbert, M. Thomas P.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-01-27
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
e86827
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052673034
Cited by
80
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2
FWCI
4.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • American-Scandinavian Foundation
  • Arizona State University
  • University of Connecticut
  • National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
  • National Research Foundation
  • Danmarks Grundforskningsfond (DNRF94)
  • Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond (10‐081390)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Keywords
ancient DNA, archaeological plant remains, DNA extraction, PCR amplification, DNA polymerase, enzyme inhibition, DNA damage, replication fidelity
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Base Sequence, Botany, DNA-Directed DNA Polymerase, Molecular Sequence Data, Paleontology, Plants, DNA, Plant, Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques, 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