Skip to content
Home▶ Journals▶ Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology▶Archive▶Vol. 42 No. 2 (2025)▶DNA profiling strategies of heavily degraded human skeletal…
Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology ›
Print ISSN 0971-1929
Submit your paper About the journal
Review Article

DNA profiling strategies of heavily degraded human skeletal remains: Review of comparative significance of petrous bone, femur and molar teeth

, ,
JS Sehrawat — Assistant Professor and Chairperson, Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India.
Sanya Gaur — UGC-SRF Fellow, Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh. India
Shubham Thakur — Research Scholar, Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh. India
Published 12 Aug 2025 Vol. 42 No. 2 (2025), pp. 110-116
❝ How to cite
Download PDF

Abstract

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. 

 

KeywordsForensic geneticsancient DNApetrousfemur and teethidentificationdamaged human remains

The full text of this article is available as a PDF.

Download PDF
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Haglund WD, Sorg MH. Advances in forensic taphonomy: Method, theory, and archaeological perspectives. CRC Press; 2001.
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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

Looking up citing articles…