Ancient DNA extraction from bones and teeth

By N. Rohland, M. Hofreiter. Nature Protocols, 2007

599 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Single‐tube library preparation for degraded DNA (2017, background): “Methodological developments to increase library complexity have principally focused on improving the efficiency of DNA extraction and reducing biases in PCR (Rohland & Hofreiter, 2007; Dabney et al. 2013a; Allentoft et al. 2015; Damgaard et al. 2015; Gamba et al. 2015).”
Late-Quaternary biogeographic scenarios for the brown bear (Ursus arctos), a wild mammal model species (2011, background): “…DNA analysis has concentrated on the CR; however, due to the particular challenges posed by degradation of samples (Lindahl, 1993; Willerslev and Cooper, 2005; Rohland and Hofreiter, 2007), the resulting sequences have typically been slightly shorter than those derived from modern samples (Fig.”
Complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a Middle Pleistocene cave bear reconstructed from ultrashort DNA fragments (2013, methodology): “In this experiment we focused on a single silica-based DNA extraction method, which was optimized for ancient bones and teeth by Rohland and Hofreiter (18, 19) and has been widely applied in ancient DNA studies, including, for example, the generation of the Neandertal and Denisovan genome sequences ”
Survival and recovery of DNA from ancient teeth and bones (2011, background): “Currently, drill speeds are considered largely insignificant and while some protocols recommend the use of ‘lowspeeds’, there are no specifications (Rohland and Hofreiter, 2007).”