Leonardo da Vinci DNA traces reported on some Renaissance artworks

Researchers recovered tiny DNA traces from a red-chalk drawing called "Holy Child" and from letters linked to da Vinci's family, and some Y-chromosome markers match a Tuscan-linked lineage, but the material cannot be conclusively attributed to Leonardo da Vinci.

Researchers report recovering tiny DNA traces from several Renaissance artifacts linked to Leonardo da Vinci and his family. The material includes a red-chalk drawing on paper called "Holy Child" and letters associated with da Vinci's ancestor held in an Italian archive. Analysts used a minimally invasive method to sample biological material without damaging the objects. Some of the genetic signals relate to bacteria, fungi, plants and viruses, while some fragments are human and include Y-chromosome markers. Key findings: - Trace DNA was recovered from the "Holy Child" drawing and from letters connected to members of da Vinci's family held in a historical archive in Italy. - Some Y-chromosome sequences from the drawing and a cousin's letter appear to belong to a genetic grouping associated with Tuscany, where Leonardo was born. - When compared with large Y-chromosome reference databases, the closest matches fall within a broad lineage found today in parts of southern Europe, North Africa and the Near East. - Most recovered DNA traces are microbial, plant, fungal or viral, and only some fragments are human. - The study used a minimally invasive sampling technique and researchers say conclusive attribution to Leonardo is not possible because there is no verified reference DNA from him and his burial was disturbed in the early 19th century. Summary: The study demonstrates that microscopic biological traces on historic artworks can yield genetic signals that help characterize materials, storage history and possible regional connections. While some Y-chromosome markers align with a Tuscan-linked lineage and could be consistent with da Vinci's background, attribution to Leonardo himself remains unproven. Researchers say further work is needed to distinguish original artifact-associated DNA from later handling or contamination.