ArticleScientific reports2025
Optimizing ancient DNA recovery from archaeological plant seeds.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Paleogenomics has recently expanded its applications, including studies on plant remains to trace evolution and domestication. However, recovering ancient DNA (aDNA) from archaeobotanical remains is challenging due to the highly fragmented nature of endogenous aDNA, low copy numbers and inhibitors that hinder further manipulation and analysis. In this study, we explored the application of a reagent optimized against soil inhibitors, typically used in sediment DNA extraction, coupled with an aDNA-specific silica binding step, to improve and maximize the recovery of processable aDNA. Ancient grape pips were used as starting material. The approach was evaluated in two archaeological contexts, assessing the suitability of extracts for downstream processing, including NGS library production and sequencing. In conclusion, we demonstrated the protocol was effective in recovering aDNA, achieving higher yields and more consistent performance across sites compared to previous extraction methods. It significantly improved the library production step, particularly in challenging sites. Finally, we have shown it successfully allowed to incorporate into sequencing libraries the highly fragmented and damaged endogenous aDNA from ancient samples, while preserving read yield, library complexity and other sequencing metrics. Future studies on historical and ancient plant remains will benefit from these advancements in high-quality aDNA recovery.
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.