ReviewAnatomy & cell biology2025
Cost-effectiveness and other considerations for different research techniques applied in ancient DNA analysis.
Review in Anatomy & cell biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis has developed rapidly since it first emerged in the 1980s, becoming an almost indispensable tool in anthropological and archaeological sciences. Earlier aDNA study was based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, with which, unfortunately, modern DNA contamination and other authenticity issues were often incurred. These technical hurdles were soon overcome by application of advancements in the forms of the next generation sequencing (NGS) technique and others. However, since NGS requires money, time, and, in the case of large projects, manpower as well, genetic analysis of some ancient samples considered to be insignificant is commonly delayed or, in the worst cases, neglected entirely. We acknowledge that as a diagnostic tool in aDNA analysis, PCR is less accurate than NGS and more easily affected by modern DNA contamination; but it also has advantages, such as simplicity, time-saving, and greater ease of interpretation, among others. The role of PCR in aDNA analysis, then, should be reconsidered.
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.