ArticleScientific reports2026
Resin does not safeguard insect DNA during early decay despite preservation of soft tissues.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The notion that plant resin acts as an exceptional preservative of insect DNA and soft tissues-functioning as a natural dehydration capsule-has been questioned in recent years, yet empirical support remains limited. We applied an actuotaphonomic approach across a 30-day time series to assess DNA and internal soft tissue preservation in two model species of insects, i.e., Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera) and Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera), under two treatments: embedding in fresh pine resin or remaining unembedded and air-dried. Total nucleic acid concentration, relative dsDNA, and quantitative PCR targeting insect and bacterial genes revealed a similar overall DNA decline through time, with no significant differences between treatments, although some resin-embedded replicates degraded faster. Synchrotron tomography showed taxon- and treatment-dependent soft tissue differences. Unembedded specimens of both orders displayed dried internal tissues after 30 days. Resin-embedded fruit flies largely retained intact muscle structure with minimal gas accumulation. Embedded red flour beetles, while maintaining tissue structure, were more poorly preserved, showing diffuse tissue boundaries and abundant gas likely from bacterial metabolism. These findings indicate that soft tissue preservation in pine resin is group-specific, possibly linked to exoskeletal permeability affecting moisture and resin exchange during decay, and suggest that recovering ancient DNA from amber fossil insects is highly improbable.
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.