ArticlePloS one2011
Classification of ancient mammal individuals using dental pulp MALDI-TOF MS peptide profiling.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proteomic Investigation of Human Dental Pulp to Identify Individuals Who Are Pregnant.Proteomics. Clinical applications · 2025Article
- Ancient dental pulp: Masterpiece tissue for paleomicrobiology.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Review
- MALDI-TOF MS and point of care are disruptive diagnostic tools in Africa.New microbes and new infections · 2018Article
- Paleoproteomic study of the Iceman's brain tissue.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2013Article
- Article
- Identification of Tsetse (Glossina spp.) using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation time of flight mass spectrometry.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2013Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe classification of ancient animal corpses at the species level remains a challenging task for forensic scientists and anthropologists. Severe damage and mixed, tiny pieces originating from several skeletons may render morphological classification virtually impossible. Standard approaches are based on sequencing mitochondrial and nuclear targets. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe present a method that can accurately classify mammalian species using dental pulp and mass spectrometry peptide profiling. Our work was organized into three successive steps. First, after extracting proteins from the dental pulp collected from 37 modern individuals representing 13 mammalian species, trypsin-digested peptides were used for matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry analysis. The resulting peptide profiles accurately classified every individual at the species level in agreement with parallel cytochrome b gene sequencing gold standard. Second, using a 279-modern spectrum database, we blindly classified 33 of 37 teeth collected in 37 modern individuals (89.1%). Third, we classified 10 of 18 teeth (56%) collected in 15 ancient individuals representing five mammal species including human, from five burial sites dating back 8,500 years. Further comparison with an upgraded database comprising ancient specimen profiles yielded 100% classification in ancient teeth. Peptide sequencing yield 4 and 16 different non-keratin proteins including collagen (alpha-1 type I and alpha-2 type I) in human ancient and modern dental pulp, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Mass spectrometry peptide profiling of the dental pulp is a new approach that can be added to the arsenal of species classification tools for forensics and anthropology as a complementary method to DNA sequencing. The dental pulp is a new source for collagen and other proteins for the species classification of modern and ancient mammal individuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.