ArticlePloS one2017
The preservation of microbial DNA in archived soils of various genetic types.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ancient Microbiomes as Mirrored by DNA Extracted From Century-Old Herbarium Plants and Associated Soil.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Soil storage temperature and air-drying did not significantly change bacterial taxa in the short-term.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Drying as an effective method to store soil samples for DNA-based microbial community analyses: a comparative study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Patient propagules: Do soil archives preserve the legacy of fungal and prokaryotic communities?PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study is a comparative analysis of samples of archived (stored for over 70-90 years) and modern soils of two different genetic types-chernozem and sod-podzolic soils. We revealed a reduction in biodiversity of archived soils relative to their modern state. Particularly, long-term storage in the museum exerted a greater impact on the microbiomes of sod-podzolic soils, while chernozem samples better preserved the native community. Thus, the persistence of microbial DNA in soil is largely determined by the physico-chemical characteristics that differ across soil types. Chernozems create better conditions for the long-term DNA preservation than sod-podzolic soils. This results in supposedly higher levels of biodiversity conservation in the microbiomes of chernozem with preservation of major microbial taxa dominant in the modern (control) soil samples, which makes archived chernozems a promising object for paleosoil studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.