Wet Lab Protocols Matter: Choice of DNA Extraction and Library Preparation Protocols Bias Ancient Oral Microbiome RecoveryOriginal paper
Karen Pendergrass is a microbiome researcher specializing in microbiome-targeted interventions (MBTIs). She systematically analyzes scientific literature to identify microbial patterns, develop hypotheses, and validate interventions. As the founder of the Microbiome Signatures Database, she bridges microbiome research with clinical practice. In 2012, based on her own investigative research, she became the first documented case of FMT for Celiac Disease, four years before the first published case study.
Read MoreWhat was studied?
Ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis of archaeological dental calculus has provided a wealth of insights into ancient health, demography and lifestyles. However, the workflow for ancient metagenomics is still evolving, raising concerns about reproducibility. Few systematic investigations have examined how DNA extraction methods and library preparation protocols influence ancient oral microbiome recovery, despite evidence from modern populations suggesting that they do. This leaves a gap in our understanding of how wet-lab protocols impact aDNA recovery from dental calculus. In this study, we apply two DNA extraction and two library preparation methods in the aDNA field on dental calculus samples from Hungary and Niger. Samples from each context have similar chronological ages, but differences in their levels of aDNA preservation are notable, providing additional insights into how the efficacy of wet-lab protocols is impacted by sample preservation. Several metrics were employed to assess intra- and inter-sample variability, such as DNA fragment length recovery, GC content, clonality, endogenous content, DNA deamination and microbial composition. Our findings indicate that both DNA extraction and library preparation protocols can considerably impact ancient DNA recovery from archaeological dental calculus. Furthermore, no single protocol consistently outperformed the others across all assessments, and the effectiveness of specific protocol combinations depended on the preservation of the sample. These findings highlight the challenges of meta-analyses and underscore the need to account for technical variability. Lastly, our study raises the question of whether the field should strive to standardise methods for comparability or optimise protocols based on sample preservation and specific research objectives.