# Are museums the future of evolutionary medicine?

Philippe Charlier, Virginie Bourdin, Anaïs Augias, L. Brun, Jean Blaise

Kenmogne, Erol Josue

► To cite this version:

Philippe Charlier, Virginie Bourdin, Anaïs Augias, L. Brun, Jean Blaise Kenmogne, et al. Are museums the future of evolutionary medicine?. Frontiers in Genetics, 2022, 13, 10.3389/fgene.2022.1043702. [hal-03888925](https://hal.science/hal-03888925)

HAL Id: hal-03888925

https://hal.science/hal-03888925

Submitted on 6 Jun 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

OPEN ACCESS

EDITED BY

Ray Tobler,
Australian National University, Australia

REVIEWED BY

Bastien Llamas,
University of Adelaide, Australia

*CORRESPONDENCE

Philippe Charlier,
philippe.charlier@quaibranly.fr

SPECIALTY SECTION

This article was submitted to
Evolutionary and Population Genetics,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Genetics

RECEIVED 13 September 2022

ACCEPTED 01 November 2022

PUBLISHED 11 November 2022

CITATION

Charlier P, Bourdin V, Augias A, Brun L, Kenmogne J-B and Josue E (2022), Are museums the future of evolutionary medicine?

Front. Genet. 13:1043702.

doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.1043702

COPYRIGHT

© 2022 Charlier, Bourdin, Augias, Brun, Kenmogne and Josue. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Are museums the future of
evolutionary medicine?

Philippe Charlier<sup>1,2,3*</sup>, Virginie Bourdin<sup>1,2</sup>, Anaïs Augias<sup>2</sup>,
Luc Brun<sup>2,4</sup>, Jean-Blaise Kenmogne<sup>2,5</sup> and Erol Josue<sup>2,6</sup>

<sup>1</sup>Department of Research and High Education, Quai Branly—Jacques Chirac Museum, rue de l'Université, Paris, France, <sup>2</sup>Laboratory Anthropology, Archaeology, Biology (LAAB), Paris-Saclay University (UVSQ), Paris, France, <sup>3</sup>Foundation Anthropology, Archaeology, Biology (FAAB), Institut de France, Paris, France, <sup>4</sup>Department of Pathology, University Hospital, Parakou, Benin, <sup>5</sup>CIPCRE, Bafoussam, Cameroon, <sup>6</sup>National Bureau of Ethnology, Port-au-prince, Haiti

KEYWORDS

paleogenetics, paleomicrobiome, evolutionary medicine, paleopathology,
biomolecular engineering

Evolutionary medicine (or Darwinian medicine) is considered a branch of medicine and modern biology seeking to understand the mechanisms causing the onset of diseases and their evolution (and intricacy) over time. By examining the evolutionary processes of the human species, infectious agents, carcinogenic factors and the environment, it is thus possible to identify evolutionary trends, ruptures, and interactions leading to therapeutic escapes, resistance to antibiotics, and carcinogenesis or autoimmunity phenomena (Gluckman et al., 2009).

Can museum objects replace or complement “classic” biological samples (i.e. DNA from living humans/animals) for population genetics and evolutionary medicine studies? This perspective could respond to certain ethical reflections, and in particular those concerning the scientific over-solicitation of the populations studied and the impacts generated on their life and functioning—impacts that have already tainted the relationship between scientists and populations. Faced with the distrust of certain Indigenous peoples regarding the fear of the theft of their genetic (and globally bio-cultural) heritage, is it possible to draw legally and respectfully from these objects constituting the collections of museums of ethnology, ethnography, anthropology and natural history?

We have recently been able to show the interest of a bio-molecular study of the typing of lice subspecies on a set of six reduced heads (tsantsas) from the Achuar/Jivaro (Bolivia/ Ecuador): beyond the precise identification of ectoparasites, it also highlights that historical migratory movements can be reconstructed (in particular clades that were carried to America by an ancestral Eurasian Beringian population thousands of years ago) (Amanzougaghene et al., 2022).

Other scientific work is possible, which would provide information as much about the
physical reality of the object as about its journey and/or the history of the population from
which it came. Currently, at the quai Branly-Jacques Chirac museum (Paris, France), we
are developing the bio-molecular analysis of partially carbonized residues in a dozen
African pipe mouthpieces and chambers (sub-Saharan Africa, Central Africa, and East
Africa): if the proteins of botanical species could be highlighted (paleo-proteomics),
allowing the identification of the type of plant smoked (tobacco, cannabis, other local
species), human DNA related to the saliva of the smoker(s) will most certainly also be
amplified in parallel (Schablitsky et al., 2019) providing direct
data dealing with the owners and users of such artifacts.

The same is true for our upcoming work on Papua New
Guinea penis sheath (koteka) for which genetic analysis should
aim to identify bacterial, viral, parasitic, and mycotic species
related to the uro-genital and cutaneous microbiome of this male
population. In reality, other elements could also be identified,
starting with pathogenic species, but also the male and female
DNA of the penis sheath wearer and/or the sexual partner(s).

Our team is about to begin the molecular study of the
constituents of a wall from the tomb of a king of Abomey
(Benin) dated from the end of the 19th century, in order to
test for the presence of human blood proteins: initial examination
and further exploitation of the results are bound to require the
prior authorization of members of the political (current king of
Abomey) and spiritual (voodoo clergy) communities in addition
to the cultural and heritage authorities, as well as national
authorities (ministry of culture, ministry of research, ministry
of autochthonous affairs, etc.). The same with artefacts conserved
in museum and considered, for some, as « desacralised » (for
example the ancient throne of the 19th c. king Ghezo associated
with four human dried skulls so-called « defeated victims of the
Oyo people », conserved in the National Abomey museum,
Benin).

For sub-Saharan Africa, many non-desacralised or partially
desacralised fetishes still bear significant crusts or drippings of
sacrificial materials on their surface, and sometimes in their
internal ducts (Mazel and Richardin, 2006; Charlier et al., 2020);
their analysis showed the frequent presence of palm oil, flour, and
animal blood, but anthropology teaches us that human
projections can also be present (sputum, hair, blood -
sometimes menstrual -, semen, excrement, placenta, etc.) in
contexts as diverse as a boli fetish (Mali), an ancestor
Bamileke "talking skull" (Cameroon) or a Legba altar (Benin
or Togo). These types of surface deposits are not limited to the
African continent: in the context of Tantric Buddhism, sections
of the human skullcap (kapala) present frequent internal deposits
corresponding to a mixture of alcohol, blood, milk, and sperm.
The same is true for Hindu lingam and yoni, with organic
residues often being associated with these worshipping
materials (even from an archaeological origin, due to a partial
mineralisation at the surface of the stone).

What about more standard samples like hair, teeth, skulls,
and bones, for which genetic exploitation seems more logical or
usual? Beyond being simple museum objects, these human
remains, either intact or transformed (reduced head, relic,
over-modeled skull, scalp, etc.) are all biological material
readily available to the bio-molecular researcher.
Archaeological excavations (and their preserved artifacts) thus
become a legitimate and original training ground for specialties
that were not initially obvious: biology, medicine, genetics,
organic and mineral chemistry. The educational potential of
the human and fundamental sciences is demonstrated in each

case study published in the biomedical literature, making it
possible to reconstruct such aspect or detail of past
populations, and their evolutionary phenomena.

Due to their globalizing vocation and openness to non-
European cultures, anthropological, ethnographic, and natural
history museum are rich in human remains integrated into pieces
of art: the skulls surrounding a Bamoun royal calabash
(Cameroon, Grassland) are another example for which it
would be interesting to seek a relationship between the
different individuals (in which case these skulls would be
those of protective ancestors against any poison present
within the liquid conserved into the calabash, just like a
magical antidote); another hypothesis would be that of
defeated enemies, whose genetic map would not correspond
to that of ancient or modern Bamoun populations, and who
would not present any family ties. Present on many dental
remains (including those of this object from sub-Saharan
Africa), dental calculus is another target of paleogenomics
(Warinner et al., 2014): it contains and preserves the DNA of
the oral microbiome, to be related with possible oral and/or
systemic pathologies, or environmental disturbance (Charlier
et al., 2019); sequencing these viral/bacterial/fungi/parasite
genomes also contributes to phylogenetic tracing by
comparing existing databases (Huynh et al., 2016).

It is important to note that the new perspectives opened up
by proteomics, molecular biology and paleogenetics all have
analytical limits imposed by the conservation conditions of
the source museum objects. Even though remaining
macroscopically stable, they undergo degradation due to
changes in temperature, pH, humidity, UV-rays exposure,
and/or salinity (Pruvost et al., 2007). The contamination of
ancient DNA by exogenous modern DNA is a feared pitfall
during PCR amplification: in addition to its pre-museum life, the
exhibited object undergoes manipulations (exhibition,
restoration, etc.) that can corrupt the genetic information it is
able to provide. It is of course necessary to underline the extreme
fragility of the supports studied, and the almost illusory nature of
the recommended measures (constant temperature and
hygrometry, darkness, wearing of gloves, etc.): at the moment
of death, each individual's DNA sequences begin to degrade with
some of the constituent nucleotide bases becoming chemically
modified (Geigl and Grange, 2014).

While all these studies provide ample opportunities to
access crucial information in terms of evolutionary medicine
and population genetics, the essential question of data
ownership, and the legality of these examinations, still
remain. Can museum researchers, who are responsible for
preserving and studying the collections they house, still do
whatever they want with such objects? Do the same ethical
questions apply when Indigenous communities no longer
have a living representative or descendant, or for
paleontological or archaeological samples where a priori
links to living persons typically do not exist?
Museum institutions, as holders of collections containing biological resources, are subject to a legal framework that governs access to and use of these resources. Since the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992, States have sovereignty over the biological resources within their territory, and the power to determine access to them relies on national governments and legislation. Thus, any access to genetic resources (in a very broad sense, even including even products of metabolism) requires a formal agreement from the provider country (a Mutually Agreed Term must be formalized). It is important to note that it does not matter when the material was collected: any new use is subject to the same principle (see, for example, the French law no. 2016-1087 of 8 August 2016 for the recovery of biodiversity, nature and landscapes). When these resources are associated with traditional knowledge of Indigenous and local communities, which pertains to the majority if not the totality of preserved in ethnographic museums, their prior informed consent is also required, and a sharing benefits mechanism must be negotiated with the provider community (see in this sense the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing, in force since 2014). Perhaps this also represents an opportunity to re-establish links with the nations concerned by developing mutually beneficial research practices and outcomes that help reduce scientific inequalities. This is without a doubt an opportunity not to be missed for these two communities (indigenous and scientific), and a challenge for the next century to live and work together, each for one another, with total respect for beliefs, properties, practices and customs.

Museums are both managers and holders of biological resource collections, and have an obligation to ensure the respect of these ethical norms. Moreover, museum collections could be considered as a powerful way to promote capacity and capability building to reduce scientific inequalities between nations that curate collections, and nations from where the artefacts originally come from (Fox and Hawks, 2019; Argüelles et al., 2022).

## References

Amanzougaghene, N., Charlier, P., Fenollar, F., Raoult, D., and Mediannikov, O. (2022). Putative native south amerindian origin of head lice clade F: Evidence from head lice nits infesting human shrunken heads. *Sci. Rep.* 12 (1), 4307. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-08176-2

Argüelles, J. M., Fuentes, A., and Yanez, B. (2022). Analyzing asymmetries and praxis in aDNA research: A bioanthropological critique. *Am. Anthropol.* 124, 130–140. doi:10.1111/aman.13692

Charlier, P., Gaultier, F., and Héry-Arnaud, G. (2019). Interbreeding between neanderthals and modern humans: Remarks and methodological dangers of a dental calculus microbiome analysis. *J. Hum. Evol.* 126, 124–126. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2018.06.007

Charlier, P., Moulherat, C., Jacqueline, S., Ordureau, S., Kissel, E., Kuhn, G., et al. (2020). Internal anatomy replication in a tribal art statue (Songye, 17th c. AD). *Forensic Imaging* 20, 200362. doi:10.1016/j.fri.2020.200362

Fox, K., and Hawks, J. (2019). Use ancient remains more wisely. *Nature* 572 (7771), 581–583. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02516-5

Geigl, E.-M., and Grange, T. (2014). “Taphonomie de l’ADN ancien,” in *Manuel de Taphonomie* (C. Denys & M. Patou-mathis) (Paris: Editions Errance), 147–164.

## Author contributions

PC initially wrote the manuscript, with subsequent critical and significant input from all other co-authors. They all read and agreed the manuscript submission.

## Funding

Archaeological exploration of the Abomey site (« AROMA mission », Benin) and further laboratory analyses are funded by the Ministry of Europe and External Affairs (France) and the musée du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac (Paris).

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank an reviewer for suggestions and constructive comments that improved the manuscript.

## Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

## Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Gluckman, P. Beedle, A., and Hanson, M. (2009). *Principles of evolutionary medicine*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Huynh, H. T., Verneau, J., Levasseur, A., Drancourt, M., and Aboudharam, G. (2016). Bacteria and archaea paleomicrobiology of the dental calculus: A review. *Mol. Oral Microbiol.* 31 (3), 234–242. doi:10.1111/omi.12118

Mazel, V., and Richardin, P. (2006). Patines de la statuaire dogon : Première approche analytique. *Technè* 23, 69–73.

Pruvost, M., Schwarz, R., Correia, V. B., Champlot, S., Braguier, S., Morel, N., et al. (2007). Freshly excavated fossil bones are best for amplification of ancient DNA. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.* 104 (3), 739–744. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610257104

Schablitsky, J. M., Witt, K. E., Madrigal, J. R., Ellegaard, M. R., Malhi, R. S., and Schroeder, H. (2019). Ancient DNA analysis of a nineteenth century tobacco pipe from a Maryland slave quarter. *J. Archaeol. Sci.* 105, 11–18. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2019.02.006

Warinner, C., Rodrigues, J. F. M., Vyas, R., Trachsel, C., Shved, N., Grossmann, J., et al. (2014). Pathogens and host immunity in the ancient human oral cavity. *Nat. Genet.* 46 (4), 336–344. doi:10.1038/ng.2906