ArticleScientific reports2023
Genetic sexing of subadult skeletal remains.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overlapping application of the forensic DNA analysis workflow to buried late-medieval human skeletal remains.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Ancient DNA studies performed in the forensic genetic laboratory in Slovenia: a narrative review.Croatian medical journal · 2026Review
- Review
- Review
- Petrous bones versus tooth cementum for genetic analysis of aged skeletal remains.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
- No Bones About It: Sex Is Binary.Archives of sexual behavior · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
When subadult skeletons need to be identified, biological sex diagnosis is one of the first steps in the identification process. Sex assessment of subadults using morphological features is unreliable, and molecular genetic methods were applied in this study. Eighty-three ancient skeletons were used as models for poorly preserved DNA. Three sex-informative markers on the Y and X chromosome were used for sex identification: a qPCR test using the PowerQuant Y target included in PowerQuant System (Promega), the amelogenin test included in ESI 17 Fast STR kit (Promega), and a Y-STR amplification test using the PowerPlex Y-23 kit (Promega). Sex was successfully determined in all but five skeletons. Successful PowerQuant Y-target, Y-amelogenin, and Y-chromosomal STR amplifications proved the presence of male DNA in 35 skeletons, and in 43 subadults female sex was established. No match was found between the genetic profiles of subadult skeletons, and the elimination database and negative control samples produced no profiles, indicating no contamination issue. Our study shows that genetic sex identification is a very successful approach for biological sexing of subadult skeletons whose sex cannot be assessed by anthropological methods. The results of this study are applicable for badly preserved subadult skeletons from routine forensic casework.
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.