Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32098773›Full record

ArticleGenome research2020

Human auditory ossicles as an alternative optimal source of ancient DNA.

Kendra Sirak, Daniel Fernandes, Olivia Cheronet, Eadaoin Harney, Matthew Mah, Swapan Mallick, Nadin Rohland, Nicole Adamski, Nasreen Broomandkhoshbacht, Kimberly Callan and 29 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Patellae as a source of DNA in forensic and archaeological analysis.International journal of legal medicine · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The role of emerging elites in the formation and development of communities after the fall of the Roman Empire.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

39 authors at 20 institutions in 14 countries.

Kendra Sirak *Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2347-3479
Daniel Fernandes *Earth Institute and School of Archaeology, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-7434-6552
Olivia CheronetEarth Institute and School of Archaeology, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Eadaoin HarneyDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Matthew MahDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Swapan MallickDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Nadin RohlandDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Nicole AdamskiDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Nasreen BroomandkhoshbachtDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Kimberly CallanDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Francesca CandilioEarth Institute and School of Archaeology, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Ann Marie LawsonDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Kirsten MandlDepartment of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Jonas OppenheimerDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Kristin StewardsonDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Fatma ZalzalaDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Alexandra AndersInstitute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary.
Juraj BartíkSlovak National Museum-Archaeological Museum, 810 06 Bratislava 16, Slovak Republic.
Alfredo CoppaDipartimento di Biologia Ambientale, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome 00185, Italy.
Tumen DashtsevegDepartment of Anthropology and Archaeology, National University of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar 14200, Mongolia.
Sándor ÉvingerDepartment of Anthropology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, H-1083 Budapest, Hungary.
Zdeněk FarkašSlovak National Museum-Archaeological Museum, 810 06 Bratislava 16, Slovak Republic.
Tamás HajduDepartment of Anthropology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, H-1083 Budapest, Hungary.
Jamsranjav BayarsaikhanDepartment of Anthropology and Archaeology, National University of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar 14200, Mongolia.
Lauren McIntyreOxford Archaeology, Oxford OX2 0ES, United Kingdom.
Vyacheslav MoiseyevPeter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera), Russian Academy of Science, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia.
Mercedes OkumuraDepartment of Genetics and Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, Cidade Universitária 05508-090 São Paulo, Brazil.
Ildikó PapDepartment of Anthropology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, H-1083 Budapest, Hungary.
Michael PietrusewskyDepartment of Anthropology, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA.
Pál RaczkyInstitute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary.
Alena ŠefčákováDepartment of Anthropology, Slovak National Museum-Natural History Museum, 810 06 Bratislava 16, Slovak Republic.
Andrei Soficaru"Fr. J. Rainer" Institute of Anthropology, Romanian Academy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Tamás SzeniczeyDepartment of Anthropology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, H-1083 Budapest, Hungary.
Béla Miklós SzőkeInstitute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-1097 Budapest, Hungary.
Dennis Van GervenDepartment of Anthropology, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA.
Sergey VasilyevInstitute of Ethnology and Anthropology, RAS, Moscow, 119991, Russia.
Lynne BellCentre for Forensic Research, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada.
David ReichDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Ron PinhasiDepartment of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute · USEötvös Loránd University · HUUniversity College Dublin · IEBroad Institute · USHarvard University · USHungarian Natural History Museum · HUSlovak National Museum · SKUniversity of Vienna · ATELTE Research Centre for the Humanities · HUInstitute of Anthropology and Ethnography · RUNational Museum of Mongolia · MNNational University of Mongolia · MNNatural History Museum · GBOxford Archaeology · GBPeter the Great's Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography · RURomanian Academy · ROSapienza University of Rome · ITSimon Fraser University · CAUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversity of Colorado Boulder · US

Funding

European Research Council 263441
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA recovery from ancient human remains has revolutionized our ability to reconstruct the genetic landscape of the past. Ancient DNA research has benefited from the identification of skeletal elements, such as the cochlear part of the osseous inner ear, that provides optimal contexts for DNA preservation; however, the rich genetic information obtained from the cochlea must be counterbalanced against the loss of morphological information caused by its sampling. Motivated by similarities in developmental processes and histological properties between the cochlea and auditory ossicles, we evaluate the ossicles as an alternative source of ancient DNA. We show that ossicles perform comparably to the cochlea in terms of DNA recovery, finding no substantial reduction in data quantity and minimal differences in data quality across preservation conditions. Ossicles can be sampled from intact skulls or disarticulated petrous bones without damage to surrounding bone, and we argue that they should be used when available to reduce damage to human remains. Our results identify another optimal skeletal element for ancient DNA analysis and add to a growing toolkit of sampling methods that help to better preserve skeletal remains for future research while maximizing the likelihood that ancient DNA analysis will produce useable results.

Indexed as

CochleaDNA, AncientEar OssiclesHumansSequence Analysis, DNADNA, Ancient

Identifiers

PMID32098773
PMCPMC7111520
OpenAlexW3007203867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.