Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41048034›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2025

Wet Lab Protocols Matter: Choice of DNA Extraction and Library Preparation Protocols Bias Ancient Oral Microbiome Recovery.

Sterling L Wright, Muslih Abdul-Aziz, Grace N Blaha, Christine K Ta, Abigail Gancz, Iyunoluwa J Ademola-Popoola, Anna Szécsényi-Nagy, Paul C Sereno, Laura S Weyrich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 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

9 authors.

Sterling L WrightDepartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0526-9132
Muslih Abdul-AzizAustralian Centre for Ancient DNA, School of Biological Sciences and the Environment Institute, and Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Grace N BlahaDepartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Christine K TaDepartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abigail GanczDepartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Iyunoluwa J Ademola-PopoolaDepartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Anna Szécsényi-NagyELTE Research Centre for the Humanities, Institute of Archaeogenomics, MTA-BTK Lendület 'Momentum' Research Group, Budapest, Hungary.
Paul C SerenoDepartment of Organismal Biology and Anatomy and Committee on Evolutionary Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Laura S WeyrichDepartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis of archaeological dental calculus has provided a wealth of insights into ancient health, demography and lifestyles. However, the workflow for ancient metagenomics is still evolving, raising concerns about reproducibility. Few systematic investigations have examined how DNA extraction methods and library preparation protocols influence ancient oral microbiome recovery, despite evidence from modern populations suggesting that they do. This leaves a gap in our understanding of how wet-lab protocols impact aDNA recovery from dental calculus. In this study, we apply two DNA extraction and two library preparation methods in the aDNA field on dental calculus samples from Hungary and Niger. Samples from each context have similar chronological ages, but differences in their levels of aDNA preservation are notable, providing additional insights into how the efficacy of wet-lab protocols is impacted by sample preservation. Several metrics were employed to assess intra- and inter-sample variability, such as DNA fragment length recovery, GC content, clonality, endogenous content, DNA deamination and microbial composition. Our findings indicate that both DNA extraction and library preparation protocols can considerably impact ancient DNA recovery from archaeological dental calculus. Furthermore, no single protocol consistently outperformed the others across all assessments, and the effectiveness of specific protocol combinations depended on the preservation of the sample. These findings highlight the challenges of meta-analyses and underscore the need to account for technical variability. Lastly, our study raises the question of whether the field should strive to standardise methods for comparability or optimise protocols based on sample preservation and specific research objectives.

Indexed as

Dental CalculusDNA, AncientDNA, BacterialGene LibraryMetagenomicsMicrobiotaMouthSpecimen HandlingArchaeologyHumansDNA, AncientDNA, Bacterialancient DNAdental calculuslaboratory methodsmetagenomicsoral microbiome

Identifiers

PMID41048034
PMCPMC12550470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.