Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16608682›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2006

Evaluating bacterial pathogen DNA preservation in museum osteological collections.

Ian Barnes, Mark G Thomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Screening ancient tuberculosis with qPCR: challenges and opportunities.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Infectious disease, endangerment, and extinction.International journal of evolutionary biology · 2013
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ian BarnesDepartment of Biology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK. i.barnes@ucl.ac.uk
Mark G Thomas

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 67262
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reports of bacterial pathogen DNA sequences obtained from archaeological bone specimens raise the possibility of greatly improving our understanding of the history of infectious diseases. However, the survival of pathogen DNA over long time periods is poorly characterized, and scepticism remains about the reliability of these data. In order to explore the survival of bacterial pathogen DNA in bone specimens, we analysed samples from 59 eighteenth and twentieth century individuals known to have been infected with either Mycobacterium tuberculosis or Treponema pallidum. No reproducible evidence of surviving pathogen DNA was obtained, despite the use of extraction and PCR-amplification methods determined to be highly sensitive. These data suggest that previous studies need to be interpreted with caution, and we propose that a much greater emphasis is placed on understanding how pathogen DNA survives in archaeological material, and how its presence can be properly verified and used.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBase SequenceBone and BonesDNA, BacterialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMolecular Sequence DataMuseumsMycobacterium tuberculosisPolymerase Chain ReactionSequence AlignmentSyphilisTreponema pallidumDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID16608682
PMCPMC1560077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.