1994
DOI: 10.1007/bf01225603
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of DNA extraction and amplification from ancient human bone and mummified soft tissue

Abstract: South american precolumbian male mummies were employed as source material for a comparative investigation of bone and soft tissues by DNA analysis. The suitability of the DNA extracts from both sources was tested and evaluated by their effectiveness as target DNA in PCR amplifications. The results suggest that skeletal material should be given preference over soft tissues for PCR analysis if the material is severely degraded. This seems to be independent of the specific anatomical origin of the samples.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
1
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
10
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Light, moisture and temperature fluctuations are known to be particularly detrimental to DNA. Studies on ancient human DNA have shown that bones and teeth are the specimens most likely to yield amplifiable DNA and mummified tissue has been shown to be an extremely poor source (Lassen et al, 1994). However, MTB DNA was isolated consistently from the mummified tissues examined here.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…Light, moisture and temperature fluctuations are known to be particularly detrimental to DNA. Studies on ancient human DNA have shown that bones and teeth are the specimens most likely to yield amplifiable DNA and mummified tissue has been shown to be an extremely poor source (Lassen et al, 1994). However, MTB DNA was isolated consistently from the mummified tissues examined here.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…Species determination was successfully performed with DNA extracts from bones, whereas muscle fibres did not yield similar outcomes. This has already been proven by Lassen et al (1994). They compared DNA extracts from ancient bones and mummified soft tissues by PCR analysis and came to the result that skeletal material should be given the preference for DNA investigations.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The results of molecular analysis provided evidence for an equivalent balance of both sexes (Lassen et al, 1997(Lassen et al, , 2000, and even revealed a disproportion of male individuals that died during the last trimester of pregnancy, similar to observations found in modern populations (e.g., Bartels et al, 1990). For the molecular sex determination performed in those studies, the amelogenin gene (Nakahori et al, 1991;Mannucci et al, 1994;Bailey et al, 1992;Lassen et al, 1995;Stone et al, 1996) was amplified, exhibiting a length dimorphism for the Xand Y-chromosome (106 and 112 bp). Here, the advantage over earlier attempts to determine sex from archaeological samples focusing on Y-specific markers (e.g., Hummel and Herrmann, 1991;Honda et al, 2001) was in the simultaneous detection of both an X-and Y-chromosomal sequence.…”
mentioning
confidence: 73%