ArticleMicroorganisms2022
A Case Study for the Recovery of Authentic Microbial Ancient DNA from Soil Samples.
Article in Microorganisms, 2022. 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.
- Bone Adhered Sediments as a Source of Target and Environmental DNA and Proteins.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Postglacial bioweathering, soil nutrient cycling, and podzolization from palaeometagenomics of plants, fungi, and bacteria.Science advances · 2025Article
- A Journey into the Evolution of Human Host-Oral Microbiome Relationship through Ancient Dental Calculus: A Scoping Review.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Novel Sources of Biodiversity and Biomolecules from Bacteria Isolated from a High Middle Ages Soil Sample in Palermo (Sicily, Italy).Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Benchmarking software tools for trimming adapters and merging next-generation sequencing data for ancient DNA.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High Throughput DNA Sequencing (HTS) revolutionized the field of paleomicrobiology, leading to an explosive growth of microbial ancient DNA (aDNA) studies, especially from environmental samples. However, aDNA studies that examine environmental microbes routinely fail to authenticate aDNA, examine laboratory and environmental contamination, and control for biases introduced during sample processing. Here, we surveyed the available literature for environmental aDNA projects—from sample collection to data analysis—and assessed previous methodologies and approaches used in the published microbial aDNA studies. We then integrated these concepts into a case study, using shotgun metagenomics to examine methodological, technical, and analytical biases during an environmental aDNA study of soil microbes. Specifically, we compared the impact of five DNA extraction methods and eight bioinformatic pipelines on the recovery of microbial aDNA information in soil cores from extreme environments. Our results show that silica-based methods optimized for aDNA research recovered significantly more damaged and shorter reads (<100 bp) than a commercial kit or a phenol−chloroform method. Additionally, we described a stringent pipeline for data preprocessing, efficiently decreasing the representation of low-complexity and duplicated reads in our datasets and downstream analyses, reducing analytical biases in taxonomic classification.
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.