ArticleScientific reports2024
Towards predicting the geographical origin of ancient samples with metagenomic data.
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 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.
- Polysaccharides: Natural candidates for targeting immunometabolic regulation in hepatocellular carcinoma (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- Recent Microbial Evolutionary Insights From Metagenomics.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Review
- Comparative assessment of SNP genotyping assays for challenging forensic samples utilizing ancient DNA methods.Genome biology · 2025Article
- AdDeam: a fast and scalable tool for estimating and clustering reference-level damage profiles.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Exploring extreme environments in Türkiye for novel P450s through metagenomic analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reconstructing the history-such as the place of birth and death-of an individual sample is a fundamental goal in ancient DNA (aDNA) studies. However, knowing the place of death can be particularly challenging when samples come from museum collections with incomplete or erroneous archives. While analyses of human DNA and isotope data can inform us about the ancestry of an individual and provide clues about where the person lived, they cannot specifically trace the place of death. Moreover, while ancient human DNA can be retrieved, a large fraction of the sequenced molecules in ancient DNA studies derive from exogenous DNA. This DNA-which is usually discarded in aDNA analyses-is constituted mostly by microbial DNA from soil-dwelling microorganisms that have colonized the buried remains post-mortem. In this study, we hypothesize that remains of individuals buried in the same or close geographic areas, exposed to similar microbial communities, could harbor more similar metagenomes. We propose to use metagenomic data from ancient samples' shotgun sequencing to locate the place of death of a given individual which can also help to solve cases of sample mislabeling. We used a k-mer-based approach to compute similarity scores between metagenomic samples from different locations and propose a method based on dimensionality reduction and logistic regression to assign a geographical origin to target samples. We apply our method to several public datasets and observe that individual samples from closer geographic locations tend to show higher similarities in their metagenomes compared to those of different origin, allowing good geographical predictions of test samples. Moreover, we observe that the genus Streptomyces commonly infiltrates ancient remains and represents a valuable biomarker to trace the samples' geographic origin. Our results provide a proof of concept and show how metagenomic data can also be used to shed light on the place of origin of ancient samples.
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.