ArticleScientific reports2024
Fungal and bacterial species richness in biodeteriorated seventeenth century Venetian manuscripts.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Filamentous Fungi and the Biodeterioration of Organic Cultural Heritage Materials: A Systematic Review of Mechanisms, Risks, and Preventive Conservation Strategies.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Sociospatial analysis of indoor bioaerosol variation across diverse residential zones in Jodhpur.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Hydrogel Applications for Cultural Heritage Protection: Emphasis on Antifungal Efficacy and Emerging Research Directions.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Echoes of 1816: microbial footprints in heritage artifacts from Argentina's museum of independence.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Optimising a MALDI-TOF MS database for the detection of xerophilic fungi across environments.UCL open. Environment · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial Activity of Nano-GeOInternational journal of molecular sciences · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Historical paper documents are susceptible to complex degradation processes, including biodeterioration, which can progressively compromise their aesthetic and structural integrity. This study analyses seventeenth century handwritten historical letters stored at the Correr Museum Library in Venice, Italy, exhibiting pronounced signs of biodeterioration. The techniques used encompassed traditional colony isolation on agar plates and proteomics analyses, employing nanoscale liquid chromatography coupled with high-resolution mass spectrometry (nano-LC-MS). Fluorescence microscopy was used for the first time in the historical paper biodeterioration context to supplement the conventional stereoscopic, optical, and scanning electron microscopic imaging techniques. This method enables the visualisation of microorganisms beyond and beneath the paper's surface through their natural intrinsic autofluorescence in a non-invasive and non-destructive way. The results demonstrate a diverse, complex, and abundant microbiota composed of coexisting fungal and bacterial species (Ascomycota, Mucoromycota, Basidiomycota, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria), along with mite carcasses, insects, parasites, and possibly protists. Furthermore, this study reveals certain species that were not previously documented in the biodeterioration of historical paper, including human pathogens, such as Histoplasma capsulatum, Brucella, Candida albicans, and species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. fumigatus, A. oryzae, A. terreus, A. niger) known to cause infections or produce mycotoxins, posing substantial risk to both artefacts and humans.
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.