ArticleMolecular ecology resources2026
Recovering Historical eDNA From Museum-Preserved Filter Feeders via Non-Destructive Metabarcoding.
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Molecular Potential and Interpretability of DNA in Historical Spirit Collection Media.Molecular ecology resources · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent technical advances have significantly enhanced the value of museum specimens for molecular research, with metagenomic and metabarcoding approaches expanding further the utility of museum collections. However, given the finite number of specimens, there is a critical need to move past destructive DNA extraction approaches and to explore non-destructive techniques. In this proof-of-concept study, we evaluated the feasibility of extracting historical eDNA from the ethanol preservative used to store museum specimens. We compared a variety of extraction methods (centrifugation, evaporation, filtration, and precipitation) using ten replicate samples per treatment for statistical analyses. To assess potential differences in preservative-derived eDNA recovery across different filter-feeding taxonomic groups, we included a bryozoan, a demosponge, and a glass sponge. Comparative analyses with tissue biopsies revealed that 10 mL ethanol filtration performed equal to or, in some instances, outperformed tissue biopsies for all three specimens when examining the historical eDNA of Antarctic fish using a 16S rRNA metabarcoding approach, both for the number of species detected (α-diversity) and community characterisation (β-diversity). This initial study demonstrates the potential of ethanol preservative as a valuable, non-destructive source of historical eDNA from museum-stored filter-feeding specimens. These findings highlight the viability of non-destructive sampling for molecular research on museum collections, preserving specimen integrity while enabling biodiversity assessments. Further refinement of non-destructive eDNA extraction could expand its applicability across taxa, collection types, and preservation methods, ensuring the long-term sustainability of museum-based genomic, metagenomic, and metabarcoding research.
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.