Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42305251›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2026

Megaherbivore coprolite DNA: yields and comparison of three ancient DNA extraction protocols on coprolites of giant ground sloth

Maria H Zicos, Ian Barnes, Laurent Frantz, Selina Brace

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Maria H ZicosDepartment of Science, Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom.
Ian BarnesDepartment of Science, Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom.
Laurent FrantzSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Selina BraceDepartment of Science, Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coprolites offer rich potential for palaeodietary studies as snapshots of past dietary behaviour and environment. They require adapted laboratory methods to retrieve the DNA of the depositor, its microbiome, diet and environmental taxa. Here we compare the performance of three common ancient DNA (aDNA) extraction methods to recover metagenomes from coprolites of Darwin's ground sloth

Indexed as

DNA, AncientSlothsAnimalsDNA, AncientAncient DNACoprolitesMylodon darwiniiPCR inhibition

Identifiers

PMID42305251
PMCPMC13267792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.