Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T15:25:23.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Nondestructive Prescreening Method for Bone Collagen Content Using Micro-Computed Tomography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Jennifer A Tripp ,
Maria E Squire ,
Julie Hamilton  and
Robert E M Hedges
Jennifer A Tripp
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of Scranton, 800 Linden Street, Scranton, Pennsylvania 18510, USA San Francisco State University, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, California 94132, USA. Email: [email protected]
Maria E Squire
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Scranton, 800 Linden Street, Scranton, Pennsylvania 18510, USA
Julie Hamilton
Affiliation:
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
Robert E M Hedges
Affiliation:
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Isolation of bone collagen for radiocarbon dating is a labor-intensive and time-consuming process that sometimes results in unacceptably low protein recovery. In preliminary studies reported here, micro-computed tomography (microCT), a nondestructive technique that uses X-rays to produce high-resolution three-dimensional images of mineralized materials such as bone, offers promise as a suitable prescreening option for bones of questionable preservation. We have found that the bone volume fraction calculated by the scanner software correlates well with collagen recovery in 4 analyzed bones from Etton, United Kingdom.

Type
Bone Dating and Paleodiet Studies
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 52 , Issue 2: 20th Int. Radiocarbon Conference Proceedings , 2010 , pp. 612 - 619
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Brock, F, Higham, T, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2007. Radiocarbon dating bone samples recovered from gravel sites. Grant report, ORAU, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T, Bowles, A, Hedges, R. 2004. Improvements to the pretreatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46(1):155–63.Google Scholar
Brown, AS, Leamen, L, Cucevic, V, Foster, FS. 2005. Quantitation of hemodynamic function during developmental vascular regression in the mouse eye. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 46(7):2231–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Collins, MJ, Nielsen Marsh, CM, Hiller, J, Smith, CI, Roberts, JP, Prigodich, RV, Wess, TJ, Csapò, J, Millard, AR, Turner-Walker, G. 2002. The survival of organic matter in bone: a review. Archaeometry 44(3):383–94.Google Scholar
Hedges, REM. 2002. Bone diagenesis: an overview of processes. Archaeometry 44(3):319–28.Google Scholar
Hedges, REM, Millard, AR, Pike, AWG. 1995. Measurements and relationships of diagenetic alteration of bone from three archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 22(2):201–9.Google Scholar
Huppertz, A, Wildung, D, Kemp, BJ, Nentwig, T, Asbach, P, Rasche, FM, Hamm, B. 2009. Nondestructive insights into composition of the sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti with CT. Radiology 251:233–40.Google Scholar
Laib, A, Barou, O, Vico, L, Lafage-Proust, M-H, Alexandre, C, Rüegsegger, P. 2000. 3-D micro-computed tomography of trabecular and cortical bone architecture with application to a rat model of immobilization osteoporosis. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing 38(3):326–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, YM, Chen, XB, Marean, CW, Frey, CJ. 1998. Bone density and long bone representation in archaeological faunas: comparing results from CT and photon densitometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 25(6):559–70.Google Scholar
Müller, R, Van Campenhout, H, Van Damme, B, Van der Perre, G, Dequeker, J, Hildebrand, T, Rüegsegger, P. 1998. Morphometric analysis of human bone biopsies: a quantitative structural comparison of histological sections and micro-computed tomography. Bone 23(1):59–66.Google Scholar
Murphy, WA, zur Nedden, D, Gostner, P, Knapp, R, Recheis, W, Seidler, H. 2003. The Iceman: discovery and imaging. Radiology 226:614–29.Google Scholar
Nielsen-Marsh, CM, Hedges, REM. 1999. Bone porosity and the use of mercury intrusion porosimetry in bone diagenesis studies. Archaeometry 41(1):165–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen-Marsh, CM, Hedges, REM. 2000. Patterns of diagenesis in bone I: the effects of site environments. Journal of Archaeological Science 27(12):1139–50.Google Scholar
Olejniczak, AJ, Grine, FE. 2006. Assessment of the accuracy of dental enamel thickness measurements using microfocal X-ray computed tomography. Anatomical Record A 288(3):263–75.Google Scholar
Parfitt, AM, Drezner, MK, Glorieux, FH, Kanis, JA, Malluche, H, Meunier, PJ, Ott, SM, Recker, RR. 1987. Bone histomorphometry: standardization of nomenclature, symbols, and units. Journal of Bone Mineral Research 2(6):595–610.Google Scholar
Peters, OA, Laib, A, Rüegsegger, P, Barbakow, F. 2000. Three-dimensional analysis of root canal geometry using high-resolution computed tomography. Journal of Dental Research 79(6):1405–9.Google Scholar
Rüegsegger, P, Koller, B, Müller, R. 1996. A microtomographic system for the nondestructive evaluation of bone architecture. Calcified Tissue International 58(1):24–9.Google Scholar
Squire, M, Brazin, A, Keng, Y, Judex, S. 2008. Baseline bone morphometry and cellular activity modulate the degree of bone loss in the appendicular skeleton during disuse. Bone 42(2):341–9.Google Scholar
Turner-Walker, G, Syversen, U. 2002. Quantifying histological changes in archaeological bones using BSESEM image analysis. Archaeometry 44(3):461–8.Google Scholar