Reanalysis of published DNA sequence amplified from cretaceous dinosaur egg fossil

Wang, H L; Yan, Zhi; Jin, Didi

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025796

Cited by 21 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The astonishing declarations purporting DNA extraction from very old remains, such as from a Cretaceous dinosaur (Zischler et al, 1995), were subsequently proved wrong, as the putative DNA was the result of modern DNA contamination during the recovery of the remains and their analysis (Pääbo and Wilson, 1991;Wang et al, 1997;Young et al, 1995;Younsten and Rippere, 1997). Several reports nevertheless confirmed the retrieval, in special cases, of aDNA (Hagelberg and Clegg, 1991;Hanni et al, 1990;Horai et al, 1989Horai et al, , 1991Pääbo, 1984Pääbo, , 1985Rollo et al, 1988;Thuesen and Engberg, 1990).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular markers for the discrimination of Triticum turgidum L. subsp. dicoccum (Schrank ex Schübl.) Thell. and Triticum timopheevii (Zhuk.) Zhuk. subsp. timopheevii

Boscato

Carioni

Brandolini

et al. 2008

Journal of Archaeological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular markers for the discrimination of Triticum turgidum L. subsp. dicoccum (Schrank ex Schübl.) Thell. and Triticum timopheevii (Zhuk.) Zhuk. subsp. timopheevii

Boscato

Carioni

Brandolini

et al. 2008

Journal of Archaeological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Both within anthropology, and further afield in the biological and paleontological sciences, aDNA studies had a rocky start. Extravagant claims were made, and retracted; studies were published, soundly criticized for their methods, and then had their results revealed to be the product of contamination (Pä ä bo and Wilson, 1991;Young et al, 1995;Zischler et al, 1995;Wang et al, 1997;Yousten and Rippere, 1997). Such events led to widespread skepticism of the possibility that any aDNA study could produce real, reliable, and reproducible results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although early studies suggested that DNA was recoverable from remains more than a million years old (Golenberg et al, 1990;Soltis et al, 1992;Cano et al, 1992;DeSalle et al, 1992;Woodward et al, 1994), recent studies have shown that these initial results were due to contamination from modern sources (Pä ä bo and Wilson, 1991;Young et al, 1995;Zischler et al, 1995;Wang et al, 1997;Yousten and Rippere, 1997). It does not appear that DNA can survive significantly longer than 130,000 years, even under the best circumstances Loreille et al, 2001), a figure which exceeds some earlier estimates (Pä ä bo, 1989; Pä ä bo and Wilson, 1991;Lindahl, 1993Lindahl, , 1997Poinar et al, 1996;Austin et al, 1997;Wayne et al, 1999;Hofreiter et al, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Ancient DNA in anthropology: Methods, applications, and ethics

Kaestle

Horsburgh

2002

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropologists were quick to recognize the potential of new techniques in molecular biology to provide additional lines of evidence on questions long investigated in anthropology, as well as those questions that, while always of interest, could not have been addressed by more traditional techniques. The earliest ancient DNA studies, both within anthropology and in other fields, lacked rigorous hypothesis testing. However, more recently the true value of ancient DNA studies is being realized, and methods are being applied to a wide variety of anthropological questions. We review the most common methods and applications to date, and describe promising avenues of future research. We find that ancient DNA analyses have a valuable place in the array of anthropological techniques, but argue that such studies must not be undertaken merely to demonstrate that surviving DNA is present in organic remains, and that no such work should be performed before a careful consideration of the possible ethical ramifications of the research is undertaken. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 45: 92-130, 2002.

show abstract

“…Molecular biological studies employ special precautions to avoid contamination. Possible sources of DNA contamination include sample mislabelling, culture con-tamination, and cross-contamination of reagents (Collura & Stewart 1995;Korber et al 1995;Hershkovitz & Lewis 1996;Wang et al 1997). Normal laboratory protocols guard against these exogenous sources of DNA contamination.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endophytic fungal DNA, the source of contamination in spruce needle DNA

et al. 1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DNA isolated and amplified from higher plants may originate from symbiotic microbes occupying plant tissues. A recent report on the phylogeny of Picea contained sequence data that upon later analysis proved to originate from filamentous ascomycetes. Isolates of endophytic fungi from Picea foliage collected from the same location as the original samples were examined to identify the source of the contaminating DNA. The ITS region of isolates was screened by Southern blotting using an oligonucleotide probe homologous to a unique portion of the reported ‘spruce’ sequences. This study identifies a DNA sequence originally attributed to Picea engelmannii (Engelmann spruce) as Hormonema dematioides, a ubiquitous foliar endophyte of conifers. Infections of plants by endophytic fungi are common and their presence is not revealed by external symptoms. Plant molecular researchers should be aware of the potential for this type of DNA contamination.

show abstract

Reanalysis of published DNA sequence amplified from cretaceous dinosaur egg fossil

Cited by 21 publications

References 7 publications

Molecular markers for the discrimination of Triticum turgidum L. subsp. dicoccum (Schrank ex Schübl.) Thell. and Triticum timopheevii (Zhuk.) Zhuk. subsp. timopheevii

Molecular markers for the discrimination of Triticum turgidum L. subsp. dicoccum (Schrank ex Schübl.) Thell. and Triticum timopheevii (Zhuk.) Zhuk. subsp. timopheevii

Ancient DNA in anthropology: Methods, applications, and ethics

Endophytic fungal DNA, the source of contamination in spruce needle DNA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About