Evaluating rapid extraction methods for recovering ancient DNA from archaeological sediments
Dagtas, N. D.; Jabareen, A.; Cyrek, K.; Krajcarz, M. T.; Krajcarz, M.; Rojo-Guerra, M. A.; Sanchez-Yustos, P.; Sudoł-Procyk, M.; Safra, S.; Slon, V.
Show abstract
Sedimentary ancient DNA (aDNA) provides a powerful means to reconstruct past environments and populations. However, sedimentary aDNA research is hindered by low success rates due to poor DNA preservation, the largely opportunistic nature of field sampling, and long delays between sampling and results--meaning that substantial time and effort are often spent on samples that eventually yield little or no aDNA. On-site screening methods could thus be particularly valuable when site access is temporary (e.g., seasonal excavations, salvage operations, or in regions affected by geopolitical instability), where delays or poor preservation can mean missed opportunities to recover optimal samples. Here, we compared three rapid DNA extraction protocols--an Amicon ultrafiltration method, an alkaline lysis approach, and a cellulose paper-binding method--across three sediment types (clay, sand, and soil), benchmarking them against a silica-based protocol optimized for ancient sediments but designed for laboratory rather than field conditions. We found that the Amicon-based method, originally validated on ancient bones and coprolites, and which we modified here to enhance the recovery of very short fragments, recovered from sediments both short synthetic DNA and modern DNA sheared to mimic aDNA, outperforming the other rapid methods. When applied to Pleistocene and Holocene archaeological sediments, this method successfully recovered amplifiable aDNA within approximately three hours. While not a replacement for laboratory extractions, this rapid, portable, non-hazardous approach adds a practical tool to the sedimentary aDNA research toolkit, enabling rapid on-site assessment of aDNA preservation and supporting informed sampling in time-sensitive or logistically constrained excavations.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Towards large-scale museomics projects: a cost-effective and high-throughput extraction method for obtaining historical DNA from museum insect specimens 95%
- High molecular weight DNA extraction strategies for long-read sequencing of complex metagenomes 95%
- Balancing Barcoding and Genomics: gDNA Quality in Insect Vouchers after HotSHOT DNA extraction 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A multi-gene region targeted capture approach to detect plant DNA in environmental samples: A case study from coastal environments 94%
- The Ancient DNA Insights into Aboriginal Australian Mortuary Practices 91%
- The effect of activity, energy use, and species identity on environmental DNA shedding of freshwater fish 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genomic DNA extraction optimization and validation for genome sequencing using the marine gastropod Kellet's whelk 95%
- Optimised biomolecular extraction for metagenomic analysis of microbial biofilms from high-mountain streams 94%
- Influence of DNA extraction kits on freshwater fungal DNA metabarcoding 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Palaeoproteomic identification of a whale bone tool from Bronze Age Heiloo, the Netherlands 92%
- High quality genome assembly of the brown hare (Lepus europaeus) with chromosome-level scaffolding 91%
- Comparative abundance and diversity of populations of the Pseudomonas syringae and Soft Rot Pectobacteriaceae species complexes throughout the Durance River catchment from its French Alps sources to its delta 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.