Re:Genetic analysis of tiny mummified skeleton from the Atac...
by flashman on Friday March 23, 2018 @08:51AM
(#16657495)
The only thing I can find on the age is "younger than 500 years":
> the average DNA fragment size for Ata is ∼300 bp which, based on a DNA-decay model (Allentoft et al. 2012), is consistent with a sample younger than 500 yr.
https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2018/03/21/gr.223693....
Re:Genetic analysis of tiny mummified skeleton from the Atac...
by gwern on Thursday March 22, 2018 @09:58PM
(#16654479)
Carbon-dating and other forensic methods should be able to nail that down much more precisely. If nothing else, at some point, national DNA databases will pinpoint the fetus's relatives.
Re:Genetic analysis of tiny mummified skeleton from the Atac...
by sho_hn on Thursday March 22, 2018 @07:30PM
(#16653707)
That contradicts this article.
Re:Genetic analysis of tiny mummified skeleton from the Atac...
by tedmiston on Thursday March 22, 2018 @08:28PM
(#16654028)
Not necessarily, on age at least. The article just states:
> After death, DNA disintegrates into fragments, which become smaller over the centuries. Ata’s DNA fragments are still large, another clue that she’s less than 500 years old.
"Ata was stillborn or died immediately after her birth, perhaps 40 years before her remains were discovered."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/22/genetic-test...