Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42900523›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2026

A Comparative Survey of Historical DNA Degradation From Vertebrate Museum Specimens: Unexpected Utility of Fluid-Preserved Specimens.

Alexander T Salis, Nasrin Ali, Shiva Karmakar, Jasleen Kaur, Brian Tilston Smith, Christopher J Raxworthy

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

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

6 authors.

Alexander T SalisDivision of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3205-3006
Nasrin AliDivision of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, USA.
Shiva KarmakarDivision of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, USA.
Jasleen KaurDivision of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, USA.
Brian Tilston SmithDivision of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8782-6400
Christopher J RaxworthyDivision of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4517-0447

Funding

Division of Biological Infrastructure 2029955Division of Environmental Biology 0423286Division of Environmental Biology 0641023Division of Environmental Biology 1257610Division of Environmental Biology 9024505Division of Environmental Biology 9322600Division of Environmental Biology 9625873Division of Environmental Biology 9984496
6 · The paper itself

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

DNADNA Degradation, NecroticPreservation, BiologicalSpecimen HandlingVertebratesAnimalsMuseumsDNAalcoholcryo‐collectiondried‐skinformalinhistorical DNAmuseomicsskeletonvoucher specimens

Identifiers

PMID42900523
PMCPMC13682614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.