DNA profiling strategies of heavily degraded human skeletal remains: Review of comparative significance of petrous bone, femur and molar teeth
Keywords:
Forensic genetics, ancient DNA, petrous, femur and teeth, identification, damaged human remainsAbstract
The identification of heavily challenged human remains retrieved in forensic anthropological scenarios is a difficult task. The extraction of sufficient amount of high molecular weight quality DNA from such remains, its sequencing and analy sis has greatly helped in their identification pursuits. Multiple factors affect DNA preservation in skeletal remains, partic ularly the type of bone and its anatomical positioning in human body. The literature search revealed that femur, petrous bone and molar teeth are preferable sources of ancient DNA for identification of heavily damaged human remains. Present review emphasizes the comparative importance of petrous bone, femur and molar teeth in ancient DNA research and lays a foundation for future investigations that may further unravel the complexities of forensic identification of unknown human remains. The petrous bone is a comparatively highly effective and reliable source for ancient DNA due to its distinct anatomical and structural properties. The unique value of petrous bone also enables researchers to delve deeper into historical populations, offering critical insights into the origins of humans and the evolutionary forces that have shaped our species over time.
References
Latham KE, Miller JJ. DNA recovery and analysis from skeletal material in modern forensic contexts. Forensic Sci Res. 2018;4(1):51–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2018.1515594
Alketbi SK. The role of DNA in forensic science: A comprehensive review. Int J Sci Res Arch. 2023;9(2):814–829. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2023.9.2.0624
Budowle B, Bieber FR, Eisenberg AJ. Forensic aspects of mass disasters: Strategic considerations for DNA-based human identification. Legal Med (Tokyo). 2005;7(4):230–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2005.01.001
Richards M, Sykes B, Hedges R. Archaeology and genetics: Analysing DNA from skeletal remains. World Archaeol. 1993;25(1):18–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1993.9980225
Rizzi E, Lari M, Gigli E, et al. Ancient DNA studies: New perspectives on old samples. Genet Sel Evol. 2012;44(21). https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-44-21
Bonfigli A, Lari M, Gigli E, et al. Estimation of DNA degradation in archaeological human remains. Genes. 2023;14(6):1238. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14061238
Salgado AJ, Coutinho OP, Reis RL. Bone tissue engineering: State of the art and future trends. Macromol Biosci. 2004;4(8):743–765. https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.200400026
Higgins D, Austin JJ. Teeth as a source of DNA for forensic identification of human remains: A review. Sci Justice. 2013;53(4):433–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.06.001
Loreille OM, Diegoli TM, Irwin JA, Coble MD, Parsons TJ. High-efficiency DNA extraction from bone by total demineralization. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2007;1(2):191–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2007.02.006
Gonzalez A, Cannet C, Zvénigorosky V, Geraut A, Koch G, Delabarde T, et al. The petrous bone: Ideal substrate in legal medicine? Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2020;47:102305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102305
Booncharoen P, Khacha-ananda S, Kanchai C, et al. Factors influencing DNA extraction from human skeletal remains: Bone characteristic and total demineralization process. Egypt J Forensic Sci. 2021;11(2):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-021-00216-8
Raffone C, Baeta M, Lambacher N, Granizo-Rodríguez E, Etxeberria F, De Pancorbo M. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may influence DNA preservation in skeletal remains: A review. Forensic Sci Int. 2021;325:110859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110859
Parker C, Rohrlach A, Friederich S, Nagel S, Meyer M, Krause J, et al. A systematic investigation of human DNA preservation in medieval skeletons. Sci Rep. 2020;10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75163-w
Ibrahim J, Brumfeld V, Addadi Y, Rubin S, Weier S, Boaretto E. The petrous bone contains high concentrations of osteocytes: One possible reason why ancient DNA is better preserved in this bone. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0269348. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269348
Tozzo P, Scrivano S, Sanavio M, Caenazzo L. The role of DNA degradation in the estimation of post-mortem interval: A systematic review of the current literature. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(10):3540. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21103540
Pinhasi R, Fernandes D, Sirak K, et al. Optimal ancient DNA yields from the inner ear part of the human petrous bone. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129102. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129102
Rasmussen M, Li Y, Lindgreen S, Pedersen JS, Albrechtsen A, Moltke I, et al. Ancient human genome sequence of an extinct Palaeo-Eskimo. Nature. 2010;463(7282):757–762.
Adler CJ, Haak W, Donlon D, Cooper A. Survival and recovery of DNA from ancient teeth and bones. J Archaeol Sci. 2011;38(5):956–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.01.008
Gamba C, Jones ER, Teasdale MD, McLaughlin RL, Gonzalez-Fortes G, Mattiangeli V, et al. Genome flux and stasis in a five millennium transect of European prehistory. Nat Commun. 2014;5:5257. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6257
Higgins D, Rohrlach AB, Kaidonis J, Townsend G, Austin JJ. Differential nuclear and mitochondrial DNA preservation in post-mortem teeth with implications for forensic and ancient DNA studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0126935. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126935
Hansen HB, Damgaard PB, Margaryan A, Stenderup J, Lynnerup N, Willerslev E, et al. Comparing ancient DNA preservation in petrous bone and tooth cementum. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170940. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170940
Haglund WD, Sorg MH. Advances in forensic taphonomy: Method, theory, and archaeological perspectives. CRC Press; 2001.
Damgaard P, Margaryan A, Schroeder H, et al. Improving access to endogenous DNA in ancient bones and teeth. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11184. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11184
McKinnon M, Henneberg M, Higgins D. A review of the current understanding of burned bone as a source of DNA for human identification. Sci Justice. 2021;61(4):332–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2021.04.005
Burger J, Hummel S, Herrmann B, Henke W. DNA preservation: A microsatellite-DNA study on ancient skeletal remains. Electrophoresis. 1999;20:1722–1729. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-2683(19990101)20:8<1722::AID-ELPS1722>3.0.CO;2-4
Zupanič Pajnič I, Inkret J, Zupanc T, Podovšovnik E. Comparison of nuclear DNA yield and STR typing success in Second World War petrous bones and metacarpals III. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2021;55:102578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102578
Haarkötter S. A comparison between petrous bone and tooth, femur and tibia DNA analysis from degraded skeletal remains. Electrophoresis. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.202300097
Nandini DB, Joji JC. Tooth as a source of DNA in forensic or investigative genetics: An overview. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2020;12(3):186–196. https://doi.org/10.18311/jfds/12/3/2020.617
Emmons AL, Davoren J, DeBruyn JM, Mundorff AZ. Inter- and intra-individual variation in skeletal DNA preservation in buried remains. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2020;44:102193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102193
Pilli E, Vai S, Caruso MG, D’Errico G, Berti A, Caramelli D. Neither femur nor tooth: Petrous bone for identifying archaeological bone samples via forensic approach. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;283:144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.12.021
Astolphi RD, de Seixas Alves MT, Evison MP, Francisco RA, Guimarães MA, Iwamura ESM. The impact of burial period on compact bone microstructure: Histological analysis of matrix loss and cell integrity in human bones exhumed from tropical soil. Forensic Sci Int. 2019;298:384–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.02.001
Kontopoulos I, Penkman K, McAllister GD, Lynnerup N, Damgaard PB, Hansen HB, et al. Petrous bone diagenesis: A multi-analytical approach. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 2019;518:143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2018.12.013
