...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by capra: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: 166 samples analyzed (bone, teeth, soft tisue) ... 10 individuals multiple tissues for comparison So..of the 150 samples, only 90 handful were able to be dated and 10... [/QUOTE]They only tested bones/teeth *and* soft tissue from *the same mummy* for 10 of them - to compare how well DNA was preserved in different parts. They sampled only one tissue type (they said bones or teeth worked best) for the rest. 166 samples from 151 individuals = 15 *extra* samples from 10 of them. [/qb][/QUOTE]It's because these are least likely to be contaminated. But not too long ago I heard or read that this isn't 100% accurate as well because of the rotting process (bacteria contamination). [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3