ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2025
Read Length Dominates Phylogenetic Placement Accuracy of Ancient DNA Reads.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ancient DNA analyses of remains of the Medici family (16iScience · 2026Article
- Molecular Clock Dating of Ancient Environmental DNA Reveals Damage Beyond Deamination.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Archaeoentomological SedaDNA from two French gallo-roman wells reveals the presence of arthropods not identified by sclerotized remains.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
A common problem when analyzing ancient DNA data is to identify the species that corresponds to the recovered analyzing ancient DNA sequence(s). The standard approach is to deploy sequence similarity-based tools, such as BLAST. However, as analyzing ancient DNA reads may frequently stem from unsampled taxa due to extinction, it is likely that there is no exact match in any database. As a consequence, these tools may not be able to accurately place such reads in a phylogenetic context. Phylogenetic placement is a technique where a read is placed onto a specific branch of a phylogenetic reference tree, which allows for a substantially finer resolution when identifying reads. Prior applications of phylogenetic placement have deployed only on data from extant sources. Therefore, it is unclear how the analyzing ancient DNA damage affects phylogenetic placement's applicability to analyzing ancient DNA data. To investigate how analyzing ancient DNA damage affects placement accuracy, we re-implemented a statistical model of analyzing ancient DNA damage. We deploy this model, along with a modified version of the existing assessment pipeline PEWO, to 7 empirical datasets with 4 leading tools: APPLES, EPA-Ng, pplacer, and RAPPAS. We explore the analyzing ancient DNA damage parameter space via a grid search in order to identify the analyzing ancient DNA damage factors that exhibit the largest impact on placement accuracy. We find that the frequency of DNA backbone nicks (and consequently read length) has the, by far, largest impact on analyzing ancient DNA read placement accuracy, and that other factors, such as misincorporations, have a negligible effect on overall placement accuracy.
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.