Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29959351›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Differential preservation of endogenous human and microbial DNA in dental calculus and dentin.

Allison E Mann, Susanna Sabin, Kirsten Ziesemer, Åshild J Vågene, Hannes Schroeder, Andrew T Ozga, Krithivasan Sankaranarayanan, Courtney A Hofman, James A Fellows Yates, Domingo C Salazar-García and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The Oral Microbiome of King Richard III of England.American journal of biological anthropology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Interactions at theMicrobiology (Reading, England) · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

21 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.

Allison E MannDepartment of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, 07745, Germany.
Susanna SabinDepartment of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, 07745, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7876-6001
Kirsten ZiesemerFaculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 CC, The Netherlands.
Åshild J VågeneDepartment of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, 07745, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7478-8297
Hannes SchroederFaculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 CC, The Netherlands.
Andrew T OzgaDepartment of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 73019, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4540-7106
Krithivasan SankaranarayananLaboratories of Molecular Anthropology and Microbiome Research, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 73019, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4767-311X
Courtney A HofmanDepartment of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 73019, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6808-3370
James A Fellows YatesDepartment of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, 07745, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5585-6277
Domingo C Salazar-GarcíaDepartment of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, 07745, Germany.
Bruno FrohlichDepartment of Anthropology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, 03755, USA.
Mark AldenderferSchool of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, University of California Merced, Merced, California, 95343, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7033-4319
Menno HooglandFaculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 CC, The Netherlands.
Christopher ReadInstitute of Technology Sligo, Sligo, F91 YW50, Ireland.
George R MilnerDepartment of Anthropology, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 16802, USA.
Anne C StoneCenter for Evolution and Medicine, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, 85287, USA.
Cecil M LewisDepartment of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 73019, USA.
Johannes KrauseDepartment of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, 07745, Germany.
Corinne HofmanFaculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 CC, The Netherlands.
Kirsten I BosDepartment of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, 07745, Germany. bos@shh.mpg.de.
Christina WarinnerDepartment of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, 07745, Germany. warinner@shh.mpg.de.ORCID 0000-0002-4528-5877
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History · DELeiden University · NLArizona State University · USUniversity of Oklahoma · USIkerbasque · ESInstitute of Technology Sligo · IEPennsylvania State University · USSmithsonian Institution · USUniversity of California, Merced · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dental calculus (calcified dental plaque) is prevalent in archaeological skeletal collections and is a rich source of oral microbiome and host-derived ancient biomolecules. Recently, it has been proposed that dental calculus may provide a more robust environment for DNA preservation than other skeletal remains, but this has not been systematically tested. In this study, shotgun-sequenced data from paired dental calculus and dentin samples from 48 globally distributed individuals are compared using a metagenomic approach. Overall, we find DNA from dental calculus is consistently more abundant and less contaminated than DNA from dentin. The majority of DNA in dental calculus is microbial and originates from the oral microbiome; however, a small but consistent proportion of DNA (mean 0.08 ± 0.08%, range 0.007-0.47%) derives from the host genome. Host DNA content within dentin is variable (mean 13.70 ± 18.62%, range 0.003-70.14%), and for a subset of dentin samples (15.21%), oral bacteria contribute > 20% of total DNA. Human DNA in dental calculus is highly fragmented, and is consistently shorter than both microbial DNA in dental calculus and human DNA in paired dentin samples. Finally, we find that microbial DNA fragmentation patterns are associated with guanine-cytosine (GC) content, but not aspects of cellular structure.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsBacteriaDental CalculusDentinDNA, BacterialHumansMicrobiotaPreservation, BiologicalDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID29959351
PMCPMC6026117
OpenAlexW2811310850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.