Caudal vertebra, YORYM:2001.9337.

<p>Proximal caudal vertebra in oblique view. (A), right lateral (B), left lateral (C), ventral (D) and posterior view of vertebral table (E), Scale = 5 cm. Abbreviations: cr, caudal rib; cprl, centroprezygapophyseal lamina; hypr, hyposphenal ridge; ns, neural spine; poz, postzygapophysis; prz, prezygapophysis; spol, spinopostzygaphyseal laminae; spof, spinopostzygapophyseal fossa; sprl, spinoprezygapophyseal laminae; sprf, spinoprezygapophyseal fossa.</p

Hospodaření v zařízeních poskytujících sociální služby v Nizozemí a v České republice

Import 20/04/2006Prezenční výpůjčkaVŠB - Technická univerzita Ostrava. Ekonomická fakulta. Katedra (153) veřejné ekonomik

Table S1 from A fossil protein chimera; difficulties in discriminating dinosaur peptide sequences from modern cross-contamination

A decade ago, reports that organic-rich soft tissue survived from dinosaur fossils were apparently supported by proteomics-derived sequence information of exceptionally well-preserved bone. This initial claim to the sequencing of endogenous collagen peptides from an approximately 68-Myr <i>Tyrannosaurus rex</i> fossil was highly controversial, largely on the grounds of potential contamination from either bacterial biofilms or from laboratory practice. In a subsequent study, collagen peptide sequences from an approximately 78 Myr <i>Brachylophosaurus canadensis</i> fossil were reported which has remained largely unchallenged. However, the endogeneity of these sequences relies heavily on a single peptide sequence, apparently unique to both dinosaurs. Given the potential for cross-contamination from modern bone analysed by the same team, here we extract collagen from bone samples of three individuals of ostrich, <i>Struthio camelus</i>. The resulting LC–MS/MS data were found to match all of the proposed sequences for both the original <i>Tyrannosaurus</i> and <i>Brachylophosaurus</i> studies. Regardless of the true nature of the dinosaur peptides, our finding highlights the difficulty of differentiating such sequences with confidence. Our results not only imply that cross-contamination cannot be ruled out, but that appropriate measures to test for endogeneity should be further evaluated

Supplementary Material_PROCB2 from A fossil protein chimera; difficulties in discriminating dinosaur peptide sequences from modern cross-contamination

A decade ago, reports that organic-rich soft tissue survived from dinosaur fossils were apparently supported by proteomics-derived sequence information of exceptionally well-preserved bone. This initial claim to the sequencing of endogenous collagen peptides from an approximately 68-Myr <i>Tyrannosaurus rex</i> fossil was highly controversial, largely on the grounds of potential contamination from either bacterial biofilms or from laboratory practice. In a subsequent study, collagen peptide sequences from an approximately 78 Myr <i>Brachylophosaurus canadensis</i> fossil were reported which has remained largely unchallenged. However, the endogeneity of these sequences relies heavily on a single peptide sequence, apparently unique to both dinosaurs. Given the potential for cross-contamination from modern bone analysed by the same team, here we extract collagen from bone samples of three individuals of ostrich, <i>Struthio camelus</i>. The resulting LC–MS/MS data were found to match all of the proposed sequences for both the original <i>Tyrannosaurus</i> and <i>Brachylophosaurus</i> studies. Regardless of the true nature of the dinosaur peptides, our finding highlights the difficulty of differentiating such sequences with confidence. Our results not only imply that cross-contamination cannot be ruled out, but that appropriate measures to test for endogeneity should be further evaluated

Example MALDI-MS spectra showing peptide mass fingerprints (PMFs) from: (A) collagen extracted from a reference sample of <i>Capromys pilorides</i> following digestion with trypsin; (B) 10% ACN fractionation of Cayman Brac sub-fossil sample number 7 following digestion with trypsin and purification using C18 solid phase extraction; and (C) Cayman Brac sub-fossil sample number 20 following digestion with trypsin, indicating a failed result (i.e. a lack of obtainable collagen in the sample).

<p>Some peaks are labelled for interest and to demonstrate a match with <i>Capromys</i> sp.</p

Skull from hutia, <i>Capromys</i> sp. (sample number 24, Bedding Plane II Cave, Cayman Brac) showing an example of the extent of mineralisation that is typical in Cayman Island assemblages.

<p>Images show left (A), right (B), dorsal (C), ventral (D) and anterior (E) sides of skull. For interest, arrows indicate sites where sampling was achieved for ¹⁴C dating and ZooMS analysis.</p

Deposition location, %yield, %C, collagen C:N ratios, ¹⁴C dates, calibrated calendar dates (AD, 95% confidence range) and ZooMS result of deposited bone samples (n = 20) from five caves on Cayman Brac.

<p>Deposition location, %yield, %C, collagen C:N ratios, ¹⁴C dates, calibrated calendar dates (AD, 95% confidence range) and ZooMS result of deposited bone samples (n = 20) from five caves on Cayman Brac.</p

Eagle Femur 3D Geometry

Haliaeetus albicilla (NMS.Z.2000.23). Body mass = 4.79kg. Created in GeoMagic Studio v12

Guillemot Tibia 3D Geometry

Uria aalge (MM BB.9009.5.1). Body mass = 0.99kg. Created in GeoMagic Studio v12

Titanosaur trackways from Fumanya localities.

<p>(A) Field picture of the small trackways (#50 and #52) from the southern edge of Fumanya North locality. Note the faint impressed tracks at the lower area. Scale: hammer (length is about 33 cm). (B) 3-D LiDAR model of the succession of tracks making up the trackway #50 with trackway sketch on the left upper corner. Scale bar: 20 cm. Dashed area corresponds to C. m: manus track; p: pes track. (C) Close-up photograph of tracks. Red arrows indicate faint manus prints in front of pes prints. (D) Partial close-up view of trackway displaying the inner trackway width feature. Progression direction is towards the top of the picture. Scale bar: 15 cm. Dashed arrow indicates progression direction in (A) and (B).</p