ArticleMolecular ecology resources2026
A Comparative Survey of Historical DNA Degradation From Vertebrate Museum Specimens: Unexpected Utility of Fluid-Preserved Specimens.
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in museomics have expanded from dry and skeletal specimens to now include fluid-preserved material as a source of DNA. However, our understanding of patterns of DNA degradation across specimens and tissue types remains limited, hindering justification for targeting optimal DNA sources from museum voucher specimens. Here we quantify DNA quality across taxonomic groups (amphibians, squamates, and birds) and tissue types to benchmark DNA yield, fragmentation, endogenous content, and DNA damage in fluid-preserved specimens versus more commonly used sources (frozen tissues, dried skins, and skeletons). Our tests showed that fluid-preserved material had smaller fragments, decreased endogenous content, and increased deamination with age, indicative of extensive degradation over even short timescales. Unexpectedly, formalin-fixed fluid-preserved specimens did not show clear declines in DNA yield or fragment length with specimen age, suggesting formalin fixation initially fragments DNA but may partly decouple subsequent fragment-length patterns from specimen age. DNA yield, fragment size, and endogenous content across tissue types in fluid-preserved specimens showed both time- and tissue-type dependent patterns. DNA from liver had the highest quality metrics in younger specimens but performed worse in the oldest specimens. In older specimens, the optimal tissue types included skin, muscle or bone across taxonomic groups. However, substantial variation between individual specimens of the same preparation type and age indicated that collection history also influences DNA degradation. Our comparative analyses reinforce earlier findings that fluid-preserved specimens of all ages are viable DNA sources. We use these findings to refine DNA sampling strategies for incorporating fluid-preserved voucher specimens into museomic 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.