ArticleScientific reports2019
Distinguishing extant elephants ivory from mammoth ivory using a short sequence of cytochrome b gene.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel UPLC-based method to identify elephant and mammoth ivory.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Species identification of ivory and bone museum objects using minimally invasive proteomics.Science advances · 2024Article
- Biomolecular histology as a novel proxy for ancient DNA and protein sequence preservation.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Vivianite and Its Oxidation Products in Mammoth Ivory and Their Implications to the Burial Process.ACS omega · 2021Article
- Molecular sexing of degraded DNA from elephants and mammoths: a genotyping assay relevant both to conservation biology and to paleogenetics.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Molecular identification and geographic origin of a post-Medieval elephant finding from southwestern Portugal using high-throughput sequencing.Scientific reports · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trade in ivory from extant elephant species namely Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), African savanna elephant (Loxodonta africana) and African forest elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis) is regulated internationally, while the trade in ivory from extinct species of Elephantidae, including woolly mammoth, is unregulated. This distinction creates opportunity for laundering and trading elephant ivory as mammoth ivory. The existing morphological and molecular genetics methods do not reliably distinguish the source of ivory items that lack clear identification characteristics or for which the quality of extracted DNA cannot support amplification of large gene fragments. We present a PCR-sequencing method based on 116 bp target sequence of the cytochrome b gene to specifically amplify elephantid DNA while simultaneously excluding non-elephantid species and ivory substitutes, and while avoiding contamination by human DNA. The partial Cytochrome b gene sequence enabled accurate association of ivory samples with their species of origin for all three extant elephants and from mammoth. The detection limit of the PCR system was as low as 10 copy numbers of target DNA. The amplification and sequencing success reached 96.7% for woolly mammoth ivory and 100% for African savanna elephant and African forest elephant ivory. This is the first validated method for distinguishing elephant from mammoth ivory and it provides forensic support for investigation of ivory laundering cases.
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.