ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine1994
Comparison of DNA extraction and amplification from ancient human bone and mummified soft tissue.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to optimise the yield of forensic and clinical post-mortem microbiology with an adequate sampling: a proposal for standardisation.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2015Article
- First insights into the metagenome of Egyptian mummies using next-generation sequencing.Journal of applied genetics · 2013Article
- Identification of historical specimens and wildlife seizures originating from highly degraded sources of kangaroos and other macropods.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
South american precolumbian male mummies were employed as source material for a comparative investigation of bone and soft tissues by DNA analysis. The suitability of the DNA extracts from both sources was tested and evaluated by their effectiveness as target DNA in PCR amplifications. The results suggest that skeletal material should be given preference over soft tissues for PCR analysis if the material is severely degraded. This seems to be independent of the specific anatomical origin of the samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
7893611What 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.