ArticleCommunications biology2025
Exploring DNA degradation in situ and in museum storage through genomics and metagenomics.
Article in Communications biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The elephant (bird) in the room: unknown mechanisms and unresolved impacts of low DNA yields in avian microbiome research.Animal microbiome · 2026Article
- Histological and metagenomic analysis of microbial communities in archaeological human bones.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Archaeogenetics reveals fine-scale genetic continuity and patterns of kinship and health in medieval Finland.iScience · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the environmental and microbial processes involved in DNA degradation from archaeological remains is a fundamental part of managing bone specimens. We investigated the state of DNA preservation in 33 archaeozoological caribou (Rangifer tarandus) ribs excavated from the same excavation trench at a former Inuit hunting camp in West Greenland, separated by 43 years: 1978 and 2021. Our findings show that DNA is better preserved in the most recently excavated samples, indicating a detrimental effect of museum storage on DNA integrity. Additionally, our data reveals a diverse microbiome in these bones, encoding genes relevant for bone degradation, such as enzymatic families relating to collagenases, peptidases and glycosidases. Microbes associated with bone degradation were present in both new and historical samples, with museum-stored bones showing significantly more DNA damage. Overall, our research sheds light on the nuanced dynamics governing the preservation of genomic material in archaeological contexts, underscoring the vital importance of careful considerations in museum curation practices for the sustainable conservation of invaluable skeletal records in museum repositories and in situ.
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.