Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Art‐omics: multi‐omics meet archaeology and art conservation

Vilanova, Cristina, Porcar, Manuel·2020·Microbial Biotechnology
DOI 10.1111/1751-7915.13480PMC PMC7017809
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: Multi‐omics can informally be described as the combined use of high‐throughput techniques allowing the characterization of complete microbial communities by the sequencing/identification of total pools of biomolecules including DNA , proteins or metabolites. These techniques have allowed an unprecedented level of knowledge on complex microbial ecosystems, which is having key implications in land and marine ecology, industrial biotechnology or biomedicine. Multi‐omics have recently been applied to artistic or archaeological objects, with the goal of either contributing to shedding light on the original context of the pieces and/or to inform conservation approaches. In this minireview, we discuss the application of ‐omic techniques to the study of prehistoric artworks and ancient man‐made objects in three main technical blocks: metagenomics, proteomics and metabolomics. In particular, we will focus on how proteomics and metabolomics can provide paradigm‐breaking results by unambiguously identifying peptides associated with a given, palaeo‐cultural context; and we will discuss how metagenomics can be central for the identification of the microbial keyplayers on artworks surfaces, whose conservation can then be approached by a range of techniques, including using selected microorganisms as ‘probiotics’ because of their direct or indirect effect in the stabilization and preservation of valuable art objects.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1751-7915.13480

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Summary of ‐omic approaches applied to the study of artwork and archaeological objects and expected evidences depending on the biomolecules under study.
Figure 1 Summary of ‐omic approaches applied to the study of artwork and archaeological objects and expected evidences depending on the biomolecules under study.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Andreotti A., 1978, Cennini, C. Il Libro dell'Arte XIV sec, Anal Chem, 4, 4490
  2. 10.2307/281452 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2002.tb11195.x · DOI

Cited by

See all 17

Metadata

Authors
Vilanova, C., & Porcar, M.
Affiliations
Darwin Bioprospecting Excellence SL Catedrático Agustín Escardino, 9 46980 Paterna Spain
ORCID
Porcar, Manuel
Venue
Microbial Biotechnology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-08-27
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
435-441
ISSN
1751-7915
DOI
10.1111/1751-7915.13480
PMC
PMC7017809
Cited by
17
References
52
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.