Kelsey E Witt1,2, Karthik Yarlagadda3, Julie M Allen4, Alyssa C Bader3,5, Mary L Simon6, Steven R Kuehn6, Kelly S Swanson7,8,9, Tzu-Wen L Cross8, Kristin M Hedman6, Stanley H Ambrose10,3,11, Ripan S Malhi10,3,11. 1. Program in Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA. kelsey_witt_dillon@brown.edu. 2. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Center for Computational and Molecular Biology, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. kelsey_witt_dillon@brown.edu. 3. Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA. 4. Biology Department, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV, USA. 5. Sealaska Heritage Institute, Juneau, AK, USA. 6. Illinois State Archaeological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA. 7. Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA. 8. Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA. 9. Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA. 10. Program in Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA. 11. Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Abstract
Paleofeces or coprolites are often used to reconstruct diet at archaeological sites, usually using macroscopic analyses or targeted DNA amplification and sequencing. Here we present an integrative analysis of dog coprolites, combining macroscopic analyses, stable isotope measurements, and DNA shotgun sequencing to examine diet and health status. Dog coprolites used in this study were recovered from the Janey B. Goode and East Saint Louis archaeological sites, both of which are located in the American Bottom, an extensive Mississippi River floodplain in Southwestern Illinois. Based on the context of recovery, coprolites are assigned to the Late Woodland and Terminal Late Woodland periods (ca. 600-1050 AD). Given the scarcity of human remains from this time period, these dog coprolites can be useful as a proxy for understanding human diet during the Late Woodland period. We find that the Late Woodland dogs consumed a variety of fish as well as bird and plant taxa, possibly including maize, and also harbored intestinal parasites and pathogenic bacteria. By sequencing the fecal microbiome of the coprolites, we find some similarities to modern dog microbiomes, as well as specific taxa that can be used to discriminate between modern and ancient microbiomes, excluding soil contaminants. As dogs are often used as a surrogate to assess human diet, humans living with these dogs likely had a similar diet and were affected by similar parasites. These analyses, when integrated, show a more comprehensive view of ancient dog and human diet and health in the region during the initial expansion of maize agriculture than any individual method could alone.
Paleofeces orn class="Chemical">coprolites are often used to reconstruct diet at archaeological sites, usually using macroscopic analyses or targeted DNA amplification and sequencing. Here we present an integrative analysis of dogcoprolites, combining macroscopic analyses, stable isotope measurements, and DNA shotgun sequencing to examine diet and health status. Dogcoprolites used in this study were recovered from the Janey B. Goode and East Saint Louis archaeological sites, both of which are located in the American Bottom, an extensive Mississippi River floodplain in Southwestern Illinois. Based on the context of recovery, coprolites are assigned to the Late Woodland and Terminal Late Woodland periods (ca. 600-1050 AD). Given the scarcity of humanremains from this time period, these dogcoprolites can be useful as a proxy for understanding human diet during the Late Woodland period. We find that the Late Woodland dogs consumed a variety of fish as well as bird and plant taxa, possibly including maize, and also harbored intestinal parasites and pathogenic bacteria. By sequencing the fecal microbiome of the coprolites, we find some similarities to moderndog microbiomes, as well as specific taxa that can be used to discriminate between modern and ancient microbiomes, excluding soil contaminants. As dogs are often used as a surrogate to assess human diet, humans living with these dogs likely had a similar diet and were affected by similar parasites. These analyses, when integrated, show a more comprehensive view of ancient dog and human diet and health in the region during the initial expansion of maize agriculture than any individual method could alone.
Authors: Alexander P Boast; Laura S Weyrich; Jamie R Wood; Jessica L Metcalf; Rob Knight; Alan Cooper Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jamie R Wood; Janet M Wilmshurst; Sarah J Richardson; Nicolas J Rawlence; Steven J Wagstaff; Trevor H Worthy; Alan Cooper Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Kiley M Algya; Tzu-Wen L Cross; Kristen N Leuck; Megan E Kastner; Toshiro Baba; Lynn Lye; Maria R C de Godoy; Kelly S Swanson Journal: J Anim Sci Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 3.159
Authors: Dan Knights; Justin Kuczynski; Emily S Charlson; Jesse Zaneveld; Michael C Mozer; Ronald G Collman; Frederic D Bushman; Rob Knight; Scott T Kelley Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2011-07-17 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Kathryn E Hargan; H Grant Gilchrist; Nikolas M T Clyde; Samuel A Iverson; Mark R Forbes; Linda E Kimpe; Mark L Mallory; Neal Michelutti; John P Smol; Jules M Blais Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ron Hübler; Felix M Key; Christina Warinner; Kirsten I Bos; Johannes Krause; Alexander Herbig Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Tasha M Santiago-Rodriguez; Yvonne M Narganes-Storde; Luis Chanlatte; Edwin Crespo-Torres; Gary A Toranzos; Rafael Jimenez-Flores; Alice Hamrick; Raul J Cano Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jessica I Rivera-Perez; Raul J Cano; Yvonne Narganes-Storde; Luis Chanlatte-Baik; Gary A Toranzos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: K Yarlagadda; A J Zachwieja; A de Flamingh; T Phungviwatnikul; A G Rivera-Colón; C Roseman; L Shackelford; K S Swanson; R S Malhi Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 5.530
Authors: Shahnawaz Hassan; Zulaykha Khurshid; Bikram Singh Bali; Bashir Ah Ganai; R Z Sayyed; Peter Poczai; Muzafar Zaman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: K D Ahlquist; Mayra M Bañuelos; Alyssa Funk; Jiaying Lai; Stephen Rong; Fernando A Villanea; Kelsey E Witt Journal: Genome Biol Evol Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 3.416