Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32986737›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

DNA from resin-embedded organisms: Past, present and future.

David Peris, Kathrin Janssen, H Jonas Barthel, Gabriele Bierbaum, Xavier Delclòs, Enrique Peñalver, Mónica M Solórzano-Kraemer, Bjarte H Jordal, Jes Rust

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

David PerisSection Paleontology, Institute of Geosciences, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4074-7400
Kathrin JanssenInstitute of Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, Medical Faculty, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
H Jonas BarthelSection Paleontology, Institute of Geosciences, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9511-6732
Gabriele BierbaumInstitute of Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, Medical Faculty, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Xavier DelclòsDepartment of Earth and Ocean Dynamics and Biodiversity Research Institute (IRBio), Faculty of Earth Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Enrique PeñalverGeological and Mining Institute of Spain (Geominero Museum), Valencia, Spain.
Mónica M Solórzano-KraemerDepartment of Palaeontology and Historical Geology, Senckenberg Research Institute, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Bjarte H JordalMuseum of Natural History, University Museum of Bergen, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Jes RustSection Paleontology, Institute of Geosciences, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
University of Bonn · DEInstituto Geológico y Minero de España · ESSenckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt/M · DEUniversitat de Barcelona · ESUniversity of Bergen · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Past claims have been made for fossil DNA recovery from various organisms (bacteria, plants, insects and mammals, including humans) dating back in time from thousands to several million years BP. However, many of these recoveries, especially those described from million-year-old amber (fossil resin), have faced criticism as being the result of modern environmental contamination and for lack of reproducibility. Using modern genomic techniques, DNA can be obtained with confidence from a variety of substrates (e.g. bones, teeth, gum, museum specimens and fossil insects) of different ages, albeit always less than one million years BP, and results can also be obtained from much older materials using palaeoproteomics. Nevertheless, new attempts to determine if ancient DNA (aDNA) is present in insects preserved in 40 000-year old sub-fossilised resin, the precursor of amber, have been unsuccessful or not well documented. Resin-embedded specimens are therefore regarded as unsuitable for genetic studies. However, we demonstrate here, for the first time, that although a labile molecule, DNA is still present in platypodine beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) embedded in six-year-old and two-year-old resin pieces from Hymenaea verrucosa (Angiospermae: Fabaceae) collected in Madagascar. We describe an optimised method which meets all the requirements and precautions for aDNA experiments for our purpose: to explore the DNA preservation limits in resin. Our objective is far from starting an uncontrolled search for aDNA in amber as it was in the past, but to start resolving basic aspects from the DNA preservation in resin and search from the most modern samples to the ancient ones, step by step. We conclude that it is therefore possible to study genomics from resin-embedded organisms, although the time limits remain to be determined.

Indexed as

AmberAnimalsColeopteraDNA, AncientFossilsHymenaeaInsectaMadagascarReproducibility of ResultsResins, PlantAmberDNA, AncientResins, Plant

Identifiers

PMID32986737
PMCPMC7521698
OpenAlexW3091744706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.