ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparing extraction method efficiency for high-throughput palaeoproteomic bone species identification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- New methods on the block: Taxonomic identification of archaeological bones in resin-embedded sediments through paleoproteomics.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Classification of Collagens via Peptide Ambiguation, in a Paleoproteomic LC-MS/MS-Based Taxonomic Pipeline.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- Article
- Bone Proteomics Method Optimization for Forensic Investigations.Journal of proteome research · 2024Article
- Increasing sustainability in palaeoproteomics by optimizing digestion times for large-scale archaeological bone analyses.iScience · 2024Article
- 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
15 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-throughput proteomic analysis of archaeological skeletal remains provides information about past fauna community compositions and species dispersals in time and space. Archaeological skeletal remains are a finite resource, however, and therefore it becomes relevant to optimize methods of skeletal proteome extraction. Ancient proteins in bone specimens can be highly degraded and consequently, extraction methods for well-preserved or modern bone might be unsuitable for the processing of highly degraded skeletal proteomes. In this study, we compared six proteomic extraction methods on Late Pleistocene remains with variable levels of proteome preservation. We tested the accuracy of species identification, protein sequence coverage, deamidation, and the number of post-translational modifications per method. We find striking differences in obtained proteome complexity and sequence coverage, highlighting that simple acid-insoluble proteome extraction methods perform better in highly degraded contexts. For well-preserved specimens, the approach using EDTA demineralization and protease-mix proteolysis yielded a higher number of identified peptides. The protocols presented here allowed protein extraction from ancient bone with a minimum number of working steps and equipment and yielded protein extracts within three working days. We expect further development along this route to benefit large-scale screening applications of relevance to archaeological and human evolution research.
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.