ReviewGenes2025
Bone Type Selection for Human Molecular Genetic Identification of Skeletal Remains.
Review in Genes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally invasive skeletal sampling for STR-based human identification in degraded marine remains.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of PCR-Based Ancient DNA Analysis for Italian and Western Balkan Archaeological Collections.Balkan journal of medical genetics : BJMG · 2026Article
- A 1-year forensic evaluation of DNA degradation and STR typing in embalmed human tissues: Muscle, brain, liver, and bone marrow.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Review
- Bone Marrow as a Source of DNA in Forensic Genetics: An Optimized Nucleic Acids Extraction Protocol.Genes · 2026Article
- Comprehensive review of understanding ancient dietary habits using modern analytical techniques.Food chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This review paper presents a comprehensive overview of DNA preservation in hard tissues (bones and teeth) for applications in forensic and archaeogenetic analyses. It presents bone structure, DNA location in bones and teeth, and extensive information about postmortem DNA location and preservation. Aged bones are a challenging biological material for DNA isolation due to their low DNA content, degraded DNA, and the potential presence of PCR inhibitors. In addition, the binding of DNA to the mineral matrix necessitates the inclusion of a demineralization process in extraction, and its contribution to the resulting increase in both DNA quality and quantity is explained. Guidelines and recommendations on bone sample selection to obtain higher DNA yields are discussed in terms of past, recent, and possible future recommendations. Interskeletal and intraskeletal differences in DNA yield are also explained. Recent studies have shown that current recommendations for the genetic identification of skeletal remains, including femurs, tibias, and teeth, may not be the most effective sampling approach. Moreover, when mass disasters and mass graves with commingled skeletal remains are considered, there is a greater possibility that the recommended set of skeletal elements will not be available for sampling and subsequent genetic testing. This review highlights interskeletal and intraskeletal variability in DNA yield, with a focus on studies conducted on poorly preserved skeletal remains, including both postwar (1945) victims from Slovenia and ancient human skeletons. Special emphasis is placed on anatomical differences and potential mechanisms influencing DNA preservation, as demonstrated in research on both modern and historical skeletons. Finally, the petrous part of the temporal bone and tooth cementum were reviewed in greater detail because they have been recognized as an optimal sampling type in both ancient DNA studies and routine forensic case analyses. Our experiences with the Second World War and archaeological petrous bones are discussed and compared to those of other bone types.
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.