Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34880290›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

The effect of eraser sampling for proteomic analysis on Palaeolithic bone surface microtopography.

Virginie Sinet-Mathiot, Naomi L Martisius, Ellen Schulz-Kornas, Adam van Casteren, Tsenka R Tsanova, Nikolay Sirakov, Rosen Spasov, Frido Welker, Geoff M Smith, Jean-Jacques Hublin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

10 authors.

Virginie Sinet-MathiotDepartment of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. virginie_sinet@eva.mpg.de.
Naomi L MartisiusDepartment of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
Ellen Schulz-KornasDepartment of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
Adam van CasterenDepartment of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
Tsenka R TsanovaDepartment of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
Nikolay SirakovNational Institute of Archaeology with Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Rosen SpasovArchaeology Department, New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Frido WelkerSection for Evolutionary Genomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Geoff M SmithDepartment of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
Jean-Jacques HublinDepartment of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone surface modifications are crucial for understanding human subsistence and dietary behaviour, and can inform about the techniques employed in the production and use of bone tools. Permission to destructively sample such unique artefacts is not always granted. The recent development of non-destructive proteomic extraction techniques has provided some alternatives for the analysis of rare and culturally significant artefacts, including bone tools and personal ornaments. The Eraser Extraction Method (EEM), first developed for ZooMS analysis of parchment, has recently been applied to bone and ivory specimens. To test the potential impact of the EEM on ancient bone surfaces, we analyse six anthropogenically modified Palaeolithic bone specimens from Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria) through a controlled sampling experiment using qualitative and 3D quantitative microscopy. Although the overall bone topography is generally preserved, our findings demonstrate a slight flattening of the microtopography alongside the formation of micro-striations associated with the use of the eraser for all bone specimens. Such modifications are similar to ancient use-wear traces. We therefore consider the EEM a destructive sampling approach for Palaeolithic bone surfaces. Together with low ZooMS success rates in some of the reported studies, the EEM might not be a suitable approach to taxonomically identify Pleistocene bone specimens.

Indexed as

FossilsArchaeologyBone and BonesBulgariaHumansProteomicsSurface Properties

Identifiers

PMID34880290
PMCPMC8655045

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.