ArticleiScience2024
Increasing sustainability in palaeoproteomics by optimizing digestion times for large-scale archaeological bone analyses.
Article in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Classification of Collagens via Peptide Ambiguation, in a Paleoproteomic LC-MS/MS-Based Taxonomic Pipeline.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Palaeoproteomic analysis of skeletal proteomes is used to provide taxonomic identifications for an increasing number of archaeological specimens. The success rate depends on a range of taphonomic factors and differences in the extraction protocols employed. By analyzing 12 archaeological bone specimens from two archaeological sites, we demonstrate that reducing digestion duration from 18 to 3 hours has no measurable impact on the obtained taxonomic identifications. Peptide marker recovery, COL1 sequence coverage, or proteome complexity are also not significantly impacted. Although we observe minor differences in sequence coverage and glutamine deamidation, these are not consistent across our dataset. A 6-fold reduction in digestion time reduces electricity consumption, and therefore CO
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.