...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Archaeological Science >Comparison of two methods of extracting bone collagen for stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis: comparing whole bone demineralization with gelatinization and ultrafiltration
【24h】

Comparison of two methods of extracting bone collagen for stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis: comparing whole bone demineralization with gelatinization and ultrafiltration

机译:两种提取骨胶原以进行稳定的碳和氮同位素分析的方法的比较:比较全骨脱矿与糊化和超滤

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

We compare two methods of isolating bone collagen for stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis. The older method (as practised at the University of Cape Town) demineralizes bone 'chunks', while the newer method (as practised at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig) involves demineralization, gelatinization and ultra-filtration to select only higher molecular weight protein fragments for isotopic analysis. The latter method was developed for problematic (i.e. poorly-preserved) samples and while it is more rigorous, it is also significantly more expensive and more labor-intensive. Our aim is to find out whether there is any difference between the delta C-13 and delta N-15 of bone collagen isolated from relatively well-preserved bones using the two methods. Our sample set consists of 5 modern and 47 archaeological animal and human bones from the southern and western parts of South Africa. Archaeological specimens range in age from a few hundred to approximately six thousand years old. Collagen was extracted, its quality assessed using %C, %N and C:N, and delta C-13 and delta N-15 values measured independently in both laboratories. There are no statistically significant differences between the sets of delta C-13 and delta N-15 values from the two laboratories. For relatively well-preserved bones, the 'chunk' method of collagen preparation continues to be an acceptable alternative to more sophisticated collagen extraction protocols for C and N isotope analysis. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
机译:我们比较了两种用于稳定碳和氮同位素分析的分离骨胶原的方法。旧方法(在开普敦大学实践)使骨骼的“矿块”软化,而新方法(在莱比锡马克斯·普朗克进化人类学研究所实践)涉及软化,糊化和超滤,仅选择较高分子重蛋白片段进行同位素分析。后一种方法是针对有问题的(即保存不良)的样品开发的,虽然它更严格,但也显着昂贵且劳动强度大。我们的目的是找出使用两种方法从保存相对良好的骨骼中分离出的骨胶原的δC-13和δN-15之间是否存在差异。我们的样本集包括来自南非南部和西部的5种现代和47种考古动物和人类骨骼。考古标本的年龄范围从几百年到大约六千年。提取胶原蛋白,使用%C,%N和C:N以及两个实验室中独立测量的δC-13和δN-15值评估胶原蛋白的质量。来自两个实验室的增量C-13和增量N-15值之间在统计上没有显着差异。对于保存相对良好的骨骼,胶原块的“块”方法仍然是可接受的替代方法,可用于C和N同位素分析的更复杂的胶原蛋白提取方案。 (C)2014作者。由Elsevier Ltd.发布

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号