Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24288018›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2013

Scrapheap challenge: a novel bulk-bone metabarcoding method to investigate ancient DNA in faunal assemblages.

Dáithí C Murray, James Haile, Joe Dortch, Nicole E White, Dalal Haouchar, Matthew I Bellgard, Richard J Allcock, Gavin J Prideaux, Michael Bunce

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Subsistence practices, past biodiversity, and anthropogenic impacts revealed by New Zealand-wide ancient DNA survey.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. A Robust Framework for Microbial Archaeology.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2017
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Dáithí C Murray1] Ancient DNA Laboratory, School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, South Street, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia [2].
James Haile
Joe Dortch
Nicole E White
Dalal Haouchar
Matthew I Bellgard
Richard J Allcock
Gavin J Prideaux
Michael Bunce

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Highly fragmented and morphologically indistinct fossil bone is common in archaeological and paleontological deposits but unfortunately it is of little use in compiling faunal assemblages. The development of a cost-effective methodology to taxonomically identify bulk bone is therefore a key challenge. Here, an ancient DNA methodology using high-throughput sequencing is developed to survey and analyse thousands of archaeological bones from southwest Australia. Fossils were collectively ground together depending on which of fifteen stratigraphical layers they were excavated from. By generating fifteen synthetic blends of bulk bone powder, each corresponding to a chronologically distinct layer, samples could be collectively analysed in an efficient manner. A diverse range of taxa, including endemic, extirpated and hitherto unrecorded taxa, dating back to c.46,000 years BP was characterized. The method is a novel, cost-effective use for unidentifiable bone fragments and a powerful molecular tool for surveying fossils that otherwise end up on the taxonomic "scrapheap".

Indexed as

ArchaeologyAustraliaBone and BonesDNAFossilsDNA

Identifiers

PMID24288018
PMCPMC3842778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.