Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39918056›Full record

ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2025

Sampling techniques and genomic analysis of biological material from artworks.

Rhonda K Roby, Rosana A Wiscovitch-Russo, Rebecca Hart, Amanda E Appel, Manija A Kazmi, Thomas Huber, Karina C Åberg, Thomas P Sakmar, José A Lorente, Norberto Gonzalez-Juarbe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Rhonda K RobyForensic Biology Unit, Alameda County Sheriff's Office Crime Laboratory, Oakland, California, USA.
Rosana A Wiscovitch-RussoInfectious Diseases and Genomic Medicine Group, J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Rebecca HartInfectious Diseases and Genomic Medicine Group, J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Amanda E AppelInfectious Diseases and Genomic Medicine Group, J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Manija A KazmiLaboratory of Chemical Biology and Signal Transduction, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York, USA.
Thomas HuberLaboratory of Chemical Biology and Signal Transduction, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York, USA.
Karina C ÅbergLaboratory of Chemical Biology and Signal Transduction, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York, USA.
Thomas P SakmarLaboratory of Chemical Biology and Signal Transduction, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York, USA.
José A LorenteLaboratory of Genetic Identification, Department of Legal Medicine, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Norberto Gonzalez-JuarbeInfectious Diseases and Genomic Medicine Group, J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.

Funding

Achelis and Bodman FoundationRichard Lounsbery Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genomic analysis of biological material from artworks can be used to guide curation, preservation, and restoration. Additionally, human DNA recovered from artworks may provide other insights. However, the recovery of biological samples from artworks is dependent on the sampling technique used and the media from which the biological materials are recovered. The ideal sampling method should be noninvasive, yet robust. We studied five artworks on paper and compared three sampling methods, each with increasing degrees of invasiveness. Minimally invasive swabbing techniques collect samples from the surface, whereas more aggressive techniques such as wet vacuuming were expected to yield more biological material from within the support media and more likely to produce authentic DNA from the artwork. We report a comparison of collection techniques to generate microbial DNA sequence data, the conserved human gene RNase P, and Y-STRs from artworks on paper. We observed that wet vacuuming resulted in higher DNA recovery than double swabbing and core punches. Diverse microbial populations existed on the corners and centers of the five artworks studied, but the distribution of the total biomass was relatively even across the surfaces of the works sampled. Studies of peripheral regions, where sampling is less likely to cause alterations to the artwork, could thus yield useful results in microbiome and human DNA studies. These results provide a framework for sampling artworks on paper to obtain biological material. The methods described may provide microbiome identification to facilitate restoration and preservation, and might also contribute to the determination of provenance.

Indexed as

Specimen HandlingChromosomes, Human, YDNA, BacterialDNA FingerprintingHumansMicrobiotaMicrosatellite RepeatsPaperSequence Analysis, DNAVacuumDNA, Bacterialalteration scaleartworkchalk drawinggenomicsmetalpointmicrobial geneticsmicrobiome

Identifiers

PMID39918056
PMCPMC11874228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.