Talk:Ancient DNA

message: Part of the article is from Tom Gilbert's thesis, An Assessment of the Use of Human Samples in Ancient DNA Studies, but he has given permission for it to be posted. -- Kjkolb 11:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article needs a section on verification.  How do we know if the recovered DNA sequence is correct? - Connelly 09:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification 

message: For those who edit this page on ancient DNA you are invited to add relevant journal articles and short summaries of these articles as per ancient people groups as it bears upon the Genetics of the Ancient World. Please follow the existing format. This is a reference list with short summaries that refers back to main article pages on wikipedia. 
Currently, I just put up a non-academic media source (National Geographic) on the ancient Phoenicians, but will add peer-reviewed journal articles and ask you to do the same (as well as media if relevant). Please try to make the summaries readable for the non-specialist as the purpose of this article is to help non-geneticists "wake-up" to how genetics impacts their discipline, etc. Great job on the aDNA article. regards, Hkp-avniel (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New article: [[Genetics of the Ancient World]] - Invitation to add content

message: I replaced this section:
:Current estimates suggest that in optimal environments, i.e. environments which are very cold, such as permafrost or ice, an upper limit of around 1 million years exists.
It had no sources and I think it is utterly disproved by the work of Allentoft et al. (2012) I think this limit will rise in the coming years since Schweitzer et al. (2012) have discovered DNA and histones in T. rex and Hadrosaur bones which are probably not human contamination.Bastion Monk (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age limit of DNA 

message: I see the usage of the term "antediluvian" as problematic given that we're discussing a scientific topic, not a religious one, and given that this term seems confined almost entirely to a single paper published 23 years ago.
While Tomas Lindahl did use this figure of speech, a term with such obvious mythological/religious baggage seems very out of place in this type of discussion going forward and doesn't seem to have been used in any serious sense or major publication since that first and basically only usage. We have actual scientific terms as part of the Geologic time scale for various ancient ranges of time that should be preferred here.
Phreadom (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the term from the header. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Antediluvian". 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ancient DNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.454genomics.net/downloads/news-events/geneticanalysisfromancientdna.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ancient DNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081217110352/http://www.454genomics.net/downloads/news-events/geneticanalysisfromancientdna.pdf to http://www.454genomics.net/downloads/news-events/geneticanalysisfromancientdna.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ancient DNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331032245/http://csk.umed.lodz.pl/~dmb/DNA8/doc/?plik=inv to http://csk.umed.lodz.pl/~dmb/DNA8/doc/?plik=inv
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202094544/http://adna2010.com/ to http://www.adna2010.com
*Added  tag to http://www.unifi.it/dbalan/CMpro-v-p-166.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214080708/http://www.egyptologyonline.com/using_dna.htm to http://www.egyptologyonline.com/using_dna.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified a link #14 on Ancient DNA. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556161/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers. --Arina.clavel (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section on 1990s discoveries needs a complete re-write. It's made up nearly entirely of "claims" of aDNA of millions of years and none of these have been validated. The section reads more like a Jurassic Park episode than a science article.--Tallard (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: agree. I had to keep re-reading it to make sure it wasn't me with sand in the gearbox. JohndanR (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. It needs a reality check. Rowan Forest (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  90s claims 

message: Could you please integrate the findings of this new study, reported on here: "Cartilage cells, chromosomes and DNA preserved in 75 million-year-old baby duck-billed dinosaur" and add a short entry for it to the January section of 2020 in science? The report says:
These bind specifically to DNA fragments in extant material, and some of the isolated dinosaur cells showed internal, positive binding in the same pattern as seen in modern cells, suggesting some original dinosaur DNA is preserved[...]The possibility that DNA can survive for tens of millions of years is not currently recognized by the scientific community. Rather, based upon kinetic experiments and modelling, it is generally accepted that DNA persists less than 1 million years. These new data support other results that suggest DNA in some form can persist in Mesozoic tissues, and lay the foundation for future efforts to recover and sequence DNA from other very ancient fossils in laboratories worldwide.
There should probably be a new section under "History of ancient DNA studies" for 2020s.
And the information should probably also be added to the article Hypacrosaurus.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of proteins, chromosomes and chemical markers of DNA in exceptionally preserved dinosaur cartilage 

message: The article as-is is quite ok, in my opinion. Could be more details but right now it is ok.
What I would love to see is a table as an overview, though. Something that you could quickly point at, and that may include things such as a representative table of old genomes, such as dinosaurs, and other extinct species. Ok, dinosaurs may be a bit difficult, but what about the wooly mammoth? How much of the DNA has been deduced correctly? I think a table would be useful, if only to quickly see the limits that we may have. And who knows, perhaps some DNA may have given an imprint in ancient mosquitos, so perhaps some stretches of dinosaur DNA may be known eventually. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table for degradation of DNA, ancient species and what not 

message: The kinetics of DNA degradation are not very well understood to date. In addition to previous comments to moderate statements on DNA degradation kinetics, there is a clear source that could be added that shows no significant correlation between sample age and DNA fragmentation, using a collection of 185 samples  Pcauchy (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper that shows no significant correlation between age and DNA fragmentation with large numbers of samples 

message: suggests that hDNA, or "DNA obtained from museum voucher specimens (almost always collected during the last 200 years) has emerged as a separate subdiscipline, distinct from the study of aDNA." Should this be discussed? MaryMO (AR) (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How different is hDNA from aDNA ?