Back

Patterns of aDNA Damage Through Time and Environments - lessons from herbarium specimens

Porrelli, S.; Fornasiero, A.; Le, P. H.; Yin, W.; Navarrete Rodriguez, M.; Mohammed, N.; Himmelbach, A.; Clarke, A. C.; Stein, N.; Kersey, P. J.; Wing, R. A.; Gutaker, R. M.

2026-02-07 molecular biology
10.1101/2025.10.26.684600 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Herbarium collections are a vast but underutilized resource for ancient DNA research, containing over 400 million specimens with detailed metadata and spanning centuries of global biodiversity. Understanding patterns of DNA preservation in natural collections is crucial for optimizing ancient DNA studies and informing future curation practices. We analysed genomic data for 573 herbarium specimens from six plant species from the genera Hordeum and Oryza collected from the Americas and Eurasia over 220 years. Using standardized laboratory protocols and shotgun sequencing, we quantified DNA degradation and elucidated factors that accelerate it. We find significant age-dependent DNA fragmentation rates, indicating temporal degradation processes not detected in prehistoric samples. In our analysis, DNA decay rates in herbarium specimens were almost eight times faster than in moa bones, reflecting fundamental differences in tissue composition and preservation environments. Environmental conditions at the time of specimen collection emerged as the major determinants of post-mortem damage rates, with the interaction term between temperature and genus being the dominant driver of cytosine deamination. We find no effect of sample storage on DNA damage and degradation. These findings provide insights into how climatic origin, preservation environment, taxonomic identity and age influence DNA preservation while highlighting opportunities for improving institutional preservation practices. Due to standardised preservation conditions, museum collections can provide better insights into DNA damage and degradation over time than archaeological and paleontological samples.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
18.6%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.4%
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 29%
6.4%
4
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 5%
6.3%
5
Cell
370 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.8%
6
Forensic Science International: Genetics
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
7
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 26%
3.6%
9
Communications Earth & Environment
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
10
Journal of Structural Biology
58 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
11
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 28%
2.1%
12
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.9%
13
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.9%
14
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
15
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
16
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
17
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
18
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.3%
19
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
20
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.9%
21
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.9%
22
Journal of the American Chemical Society
199 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
23
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
24
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.7%
25
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
Data in Brief
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
27
Aging Cell
144 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
28
Structure
175 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%