I really hope this is true, as it will be a cool and novel source of DNA. However, with the current data I am not convinced and fear more that this is a repeat like previous unsupported claims. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-38191-w
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
In ancient DNA there has been long standing issues with studies published in the past that are presenting unsupported conclusions. Especially, when the data can't be assessed using already established standard ancient DNA criteria. Am I the only one who finds this troublesome?
The authors even state: "Furthermore, the remaining DNA extracts from samples 2 and 5 were prepared for metagenomic sequencing to attempt to verify the results as ancient DNA traces, by investigating the characteristic deamination damages in the ends of aDNA molecules. ....
.... However, it was not possible to obtain enough high-quality reads to reliably perform this analysis." My hope here is that the authors will follow up on this, and generate enough data that will allow us to decide if it is ancient of not?!
Comments