ArticleGigaScience2026
Patterns of aDNA damage through time and environments-lessons from herbarium specimens.
Article in GigaScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Historical Plant Embryos as Alternative Sources of Ancient DNA for Whole Genome Sequencing.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Patterns of aDNA damage through time and environments-lessons from herbarium specimens.GigaScience · 2026Article
- Some light shed onPhytoKeys · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHerbarium collections are a vast but underutilized resource for ancient DNA research, containing over 400 million specimens with detailed metadata and spanning centuries of global biodiversity. Understanding patterns of DNA preservation in natural collections is crucial for optimizing ancient DNA studies and informing future curation practices. We analysed genomic data for 573 herbarium specimens from 6 plant species from the genera Hordeum and Oryza collected from the Americas and Eurasia over 220 years. Using standardized laboratory protocols and shotgun sequencing, we quantified DNA degradation and elucidated factors that accelerate it.
resultsWe find significant age-dependent DNA fragmentation rates, indicating temporal degradation processes not detected in prehistoric samples. In our analysis, DNA decay rates in herbarium specimens were almost 8 times faster than in moa bones, reflecting fundamental differences in tissue composition and preservation environments. Environmental conditions at the time of specimen collection emerged as the major determinants of post-mortem damage rates, with the interaction term between temperature and genus being the dominant driver of cytosine deamination. We find no effect of sample storage on DNA damage and degradation.
conclusionsThese findings provide insights into how climatic origin, preservation environment, taxonomic identity, and age influence DNA preservation while highlighting opportunities for improving institutional preservation practices. Due to standardized preservation conditions, museum collections can provide better insights into DNA damage and degradation over time than archaeological and paleontological samples.
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.