ArticleRoyal Society open science2024
The impact of cooking and burial on proteins: a characterisation of experimental foodcrusts and ceramics.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paleoproteomics of pottery food residues reveals plant cupin superfamily proteins preserved for thousands of years.iScience · 2026Article
- An unclean slate, discrepancies between food input and recovered protein signal from experimental foodcrusts.PloS one · 2025Article
- The impact of cooking and burial on proteins: a characterisation of experimental foodcrusts and ceramics.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foodcrusts have received relatively little attention in the burgeoning field of proteomic analysis of ancient cuisine. We remain ignorant of how cooking and burial impact protein survival, and crucially, the extent to which the extractome reflects the composition of input ingredients. Therefore, through experimental analogues, we explore the extent of protein survival in unburied and buried foodcrusts and ceramics using 'typical' Mesolithic ingredients (red deer, Atlantic salmon and sweet chestnut). We then explore a number of physicochemical properties theorised to aid protein preservation. The results reveal that proteins were much more likely to be detected in foodcrusts than ceramics using the methodology employed, that input ingredient strongly influences protein preservation, and that degradation is not universal nor linear between proteins, indicating that multiple protein physicochemical properties are at play. While certain properties such as hydrophobicity apparently aid protein preservation, none single-handedly explain why particular proteins/peptides survive in buried foodcrusts: this complex interplay requires further investigation. The findings demonstrate that proteins indicative of the input ingredient can be identifiable in foodcrust, but that the full proteome is unlikely to preserve. While this shows promise for the survival of proteins in archaeological foodcrust, further research is needed to accurately interpret foodcrust extractomes.
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.