Density separation of petrous bone powders for optimized ancient DNA yields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density separation is a process routinely used to segregate minerals, organic matter, and even microplastics, from soils and sediments. Here we apply density separation to archaeological bone powders before DNA extraction to increase endogenous DNA recovery relative to a standard control extraction of the same powders. Using nontoxic heavy liquid solutions, we separated powders from the petrous bones of 10 individuals of similar archaeological preservation into eight density intervals (2.15 to 2.45 g/cm3, in 0.05 increments). We found that the 2.30 to 2.35 g/cm3and 2.35 to 2.40 g/cm3intervals yielded up to 5.28-fold more endogenous unique DNA than the corresponding standard extraction (and up to 8.53-fold before duplicate read removal), while maintaining signals of ancient DNA authenticity and not reducing library complexity. Although small 0.05 g/cm3intervals may maximally optimize yields, a single separation to remove materials with a density above 2.40 g/cm3yielded up to 2.57-fold more endogenous DNA on average, which enables the simultaneous separation of samples that vary in preservation or in the type of material analyzed. While requiring no new ancient DNA laboratory equipment and fewer than 30 min of extra laboratory work, the implementation of density separation before DNA extraction can substantially boost endogenous DNA yields without decreasing library complexity. Although subsequent studies are required, we present theoretical and practical foundations that may prove useful when applied to other ancient DNA substrates such as teeth, other bones, and sediments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".