Cryptic contamination and phylogenetic nonsense.

Ancient human DNA has been treated cautiously ever since the problems related to this type of material were exposed in the early 1990s, but as sequential genetic data from ancient specimens have been key components in several evolutionary and ecological studies, interest in ancient human DNA is on t...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Anna Linderholm, Helena Malmström, Kerstin Lidén, Gunilla Holmlund, Anders Götherström
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2008
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/90be4e6d42a24d73aecbc427d377cd02
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:90be4e6d42a24d73aecbc427d377cd02
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:90be4e6d42a24d73aecbc427d377cd022021-11-25T06:12:18ZCryptic contamination and phylogenetic nonsense.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0002316https://doaj.org/article/90be4e6d42a24d73aecbc427d377cd022008-05-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/18509458/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203Ancient human DNA has been treated cautiously ever since the problems related to this type of material were exposed in the early 1990s, but as sequential genetic data from ancient specimens have been key components in several evolutionary and ecological studies, interest in ancient human DNA is on the increase again. It is especially tempting to approach archaeological and anthropological questions through this type of material, but DNA from ancient human tissue is notoriously complicated to work with due to the risk of contamination with modern human DNA. Various ways of authenticating results based on ancient human DNA have been developed to circumvent the problems. One commonly used method is to predict what the contamination is expected to look like and then test whether the ancient human DNA fulfils this prediction. If it does, the results are rejected as contamination, while if it does not, they are often considered authentic. We show here that human contamination in ancient material may well deviate from local allele frequencies or the distributions to be found among the laboratory workers and archaeologists. We conclude that it is not reliable to authenticate ancient human DNA solely by showing that it is different from what would be expected from people who have handled the material.Anna LinderholmHelena MalmströmKerstin LidénGunilla HolmlundAnders GötherströmPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 3, Iss 5, p e2316 (2008)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Anna Linderholm Helena Malmström Kerstin Lidén Gunilla Holmlund Anders Götherström Cryptic contamination and phylogenetic nonsense.
description	Ancient human DNA has been treated cautiously ever since the problems related to this type of material were exposed in the early 1990s, but as sequential genetic data from ancient specimens have been key components in several evolutionary and ecological studies, interest in ancient human DNA is on the increase again. It is especially tempting to approach archaeological and anthropological questions through this type of material, but DNA from ancient human tissue is notoriously complicated to work with due to the risk of contamination with modern human DNA. Various ways of authenticating results based on ancient human DNA have been developed to circumvent the problems. One commonly used method is to predict what the contamination is expected to look like and then test whether the ancient human DNA fulfils this prediction. If it does, the results are rejected as contamination, while if it does not, they are often considered authentic. We show here that human contamination in ancient material may well deviate from local allele frequencies or the distributions to be found among the laboratory workers and archaeologists. We conclude that it is not reliable to authenticate ancient human DNA solely by showing that it is different from what would be expected from people who have handled the material.
format	article
author	Anna Linderholm Helena Malmström Kerstin Lidén Gunilla Holmlund Anders Götherström
author_facet	Anna Linderholm Helena Malmström Kerstin Lidén Gunilla Holmlund Anders Götherström
author_sort	Anna Linderholm
title	Cryptic contamination and phylogenetic nonsense.
title_short	Cryptic contamination and phylogenetic nonsense.
title_full	Cryptic contamination and phylogenetic nonsense.
title_fullStr	Cryptic contamination and phylogenetic nonsense.
title_full_unstemmed	Cryptic contamination and phylogenetic nonsense.
title_sort	cryptic contamination and phylogenetic nonsense.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2008
url	https://doaj.org/article/90be4e6d42a24d73aecbc427d377cd02
work_keys_str_mv	AT annalinderholm crypticcontaminationandphylogeneticnonsense AT helenamalmstrom crypticcontaminationandphylogeneticnonsense AT kerstinliden crypticcontaminationandphylogeneticnonsense AT gunillaholmlund crypticcontaminationandphylogeneticnonsense AT andersgotherstrom crypticcontaminationandphylogeneticnonsense
_version_	1718414056034926592

Cryptic contamination and phylogenetic nonsense.

Ejemplares similares