Literature DB >> 32681049

A comparison of proteomic, genomic, and osteological methods of archaeological sex estimation.

Tammy Buonasera1,2, Jelmer Eerkens3, Alida de Flamingh4, Laurel Engbring5, Julia Yip6, Hongjie Li7, Randall Haas3, Diane DiGiuseppe8, Dave Grant8, Michelle Salemi9, Charlene Nijmeh10, Monica Arellano10, Alan Leventhal10,11, Brett Phinney9, Brian F Byrd5, Ripan S Malhi4,7,12, Glendon Parker13.   

Abstract

Sex estimation of skeletons is fundamental to many archaeological studies. Currently, three approaches are available to estimate sex-osteology, genomics, or proteomics, but little is known about the relative reliability of these methods in applied settings. We present matching osteological, shotgun-genomic, and proteomic data to estimate the sex of 55 individuals, each with an independent radiocarbon date between 2,440 and 100 cal BP, from two ancestral Ohlone sites in Central California. Sex estimation was possible in 100% of this burial sample using proteomics, in 91% using genomics, and in 51% using osteology. Agreement between the methods was high, however conflicts did occur. Genomic sex estimates were 100% consistent with proteomic and osteological estimates when DNA reads were above 100,000 total sequences. However, more than half the samples had DNA read numbers below this threshold, producing high rates of conflict with osteological and proteomic data where nine out of twenty conditional DNA sex estimates conflicted with proteomics. While the DNA signal decreased by an order of magnitude in the older burial samples, there was no decrease in proteomic signal. We conclude that proteomics provides an important complement to osteological and shotgun-genomic sex estimation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32681049      PMCID: PMC7368048          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-68550-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  56 in total

1.  Revisiting the Phenice technique sex classification results reported by MacLaughlin and Bruce (1990).

Authors:  Clare McFadden; Marc F Oxenham
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 2.868

2.  Brief communication: gender and sex: vive la difference.

Authors:  P L Walker; D C Cook
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.868

3.  The reliability of osteometric techniques for the sex determination of burned human skeletal remains.

Authors:  David Gonçalves
Journal:  Homo       Date:  2011-09-06

4.  Sex determination of ancient human skeletons using DNA.

Authors:  A C Stone; G R Milner; S Pääbo; M Stoneking
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 2.868

5.  Sex selection in late Iberian infant burials: Integrating evidence from morphological and genetic data.

Authors:  Cristina Afonso; Dominika Nociarova; Cristina Santos; Cristina Martinez-Labarga; Imma Mestres; Montserrat Duran; Assumpció Malgosa
Journal:  Am J Hum Biol       Date:  2018-12-16       Impact factor: 1.937

6.  The Y chromosome effect on blood pressure in two European populations.

Authors:  Fadi J Charchar; Maciej Tomaszewski; Sandosh Padmanabhan; Beata Lacka; Mark N Upton; Gordon C Inglis; Niall H Anderson; Alex McConnachie; Ewa Zukowska-Szczechowska; Wladyslaw Grzeszczak; John M C Connell; Graham C M Watt; Anna F Dominiczak
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 10.190

7.  Enigmatic sex disparities in cancer incidence.

Authors:  Gustaf Edgren; Liming Liang; Hans-Olov Adami; Ellen T Chang
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 8.082

8.  A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis.

Authors:  T W Phenice
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  1969-03       Impact factor: 2.868

9.  Why women live longer than men: sex differences in longevity.

Authors:  Steven N Austad
Journal:  Gend Med       Date:  2006-06

10.  Women live longer than men even during severe famines and epidemics.

Authors:  Virginia Zarulli; Julia A Barthold Jones; Anna Oksuzyan; Rune Lindahl-Jacobsen; Kaare Christensen; James W Vaupel
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Paleoproteomics.

Authors:  Christina Warinner; Kristine Korzow Richter; Matthew J Collins
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 72.087

2.  Female hunters of the early Americas.

Authors:  Randall Haas; James Watson; Tammy Buonasera; John Southon; Jennifer C Chen; Sarah Noe; Kevin Smith; Carlos Viviano Llave; Jelmer Eerkens; Glendon Parker
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 14.136

Review 3.  Contributions of anatomy to forensic sex estimation: focus on head and neck bones.

Authors:  Thamires Mello-Gentil; Vanessa Souza-Mello
Journal:  Forensic Sci Res       Date:  2021-07-01

4.  How low can you go? Introducing SeXY: sex identification from low-quantity sequencing data despite lacking assembled sex chromosomes.

Authors:  Andrea A Cabrera; Alba Rey-Iglesia; Marie Louis; Mikkel Skovrind; Michael V Westbury; Eline D Lorenzen
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 3.167

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.