01-01-2022, 08:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-01-2022, 08:12 PM by MichelleL11.
Edit Reason: typos
)
We wouldn’t be fully covering what’s out there if we didn’t discuss the work of Zilberstein et al. Also, there has been some interest in detecting “author-related” information for the Voynich, and this lab’s work does have a focus on these kinds of questions.
With a dash of “mad scientist,” Zilberstein and his lab, in collaboration with Righetti, have developed an alternative method to the PVC eraser approach for mining manuscripts for protein. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a lay article from 2018 that provides some interesting backstory to the development of this method (plus a bit of some other work).
We’re going to take a closer look at one of these papers I can get a full copy of (many are behind paywalls):
Maestro, Marguerite, and Morphine: The last years of the life of Mikhail Bulgakov; Gleb Zilberstein, Uriel Maor; Emmanuil Baskin, Pier Giorgio Righetti; Journal of Proteomics; 131: 199-204 (2016).
Copy of paper is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I did have to take a short survey and decline a “premium” account to get the PDF. I believe I previously signed up for an account on this site, but I don’t remember.
Also, note this is from approximately the same time period as the last two reviewed papers.
1. What is the research question Zilberstein et al. is asking?
Can a chromatographic bead-based extraction process allow for analysis of a relatively recent document for chemical (or protein) traces of its author’s health issues?
Comparative highlights of this publication:
(i) What is being tested? A handwritten manuscript from 1936-1940 (10 pages pulled randomly from 127 available) by Mikhail Bulgakov.
But note that other much, much older documents have been successfully analyzed using these processes but a true understanding of the impact of advanced “age” of the sample on this extraction method is still a question to me – if I could get a full copy of this You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. article (by Righetti et al.), some discussion of that issue might be in there. This is of particular concern since chemical/protein based analysis does not have amplification available.
(ii) Use of ethylene vinyl acetate sheet (ironically, “EVA”) impregnated with anion and cation exchangers (SCX and SAX, strong cation or anion exchange, respectively) and hydrophobic resins (combination pulls ANY KIND of charged molecules to it) to get the chemical/protein sample. Non-invasive. Combination is laid upon the manuscript folio and then pulled off. See cartoon below from summary of prior referenced Righetti et al. review.
It seems the methods illustrated above is the more mature version of the extraction method (circa 2020) – it appears that for this paper in 2016, only a small aliquot of a combination of SCX beads and crushed hydrophobic resin (C8) was directly placed on the manuscript (see Figure 1 of paper).
(iii) Use of GS-MS (Gas-liquid chromatography mass spectrometry). This is still mass spectrometry, but the initial sample preparation differs from what was used by Fiddyment et al. (e.g. MALDI-ToF vs. GS-MS).
2. What were Zilberstein et al.’s results?
By comparing the chemical fingerprints to known samples of morphine from that time, that may have degraded similarly (found in police and pharmacy storage) and modern morphine – they were able to match and identify morphine and its metabolites on each page. See Figure below.
They also state they found biomarkers for the degenerative disease that Bulgakov is believed to have been suffering from -- “nephrotic syndrome,” a kidney disorder (data not shown). This last part is pretty speculative – and is presented like there is going to be a further paper about it, but I couldn’t find any additional publications.
TLDR: Zilberstein et al. found traces of morphine and its metabolites left on the pages of a manuscript, supporting a possible conclusion that the author Bulgakov was taking morphine at the time these pages were produced.
Although the use of this morphine at this end of life stage for the author is hypothesized to be due to a possible nephrotic syndrome, it is also know that the author had been addicted to morphine earlier in life and even wrote a book about the experience. Thus, it is possible that these traces are evidence of a continuation (or relapse back into) the morphine addition that had been presented as having been “left behind.”
I note that Zilberstein is known to be a huge fan of Bulgakov's work and the whole (rather obvious in my view) idea that the morphine use could be a relapse rather than something due to pain relief from nephrotic syndrome, or admittedly maybe both, was not even mentioned. This is an example of the looser scientific writing that is mentioned below and feels like a slippery slope to me into possible "theory-casting."
How this kind of research would apply to the Voynich is obviously more speculative than other analyses we have discussed. There is the ever present issue of attribution – traces of many molecules could be found (DNA, RNA, protein and as in this publication, lots of other chemicals) and whether these were due to an exposure that occurs at the time of the manuscript’s production or anytime during the 600 year existence of the manuscript would involve a lot of speculation. But this does provide another non-invasive extraction method that could be useful in providing chemical/protein evidence in trying to pinpoint the origin and/or characteristics of the scribes (perhaps author(s)) of the Voynich.
Finally, I also find the work and reporting done by these two labs to be a less “standard” scientific approach than the prior reviewed papers – which could be interesting but seems to me to be a bit more of a risk to the manuscript – but that could just be my own personal biases talking.
With a dash of “mad scientist,” Zilberstein and his lab, in collaboration with Righetti, have developed an alternative method to the PVC eraser approach for mining manuscripts for protein. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a lay article from 2018 that provides some interesting backstory to the development of this method (plus a bit of some other work).
We’re going to take a closer look at one of these papers I can get a full copy of (many are behind paywalls):
Maestro, Marguerite, and Morphine: The last years of the life of Mikhail Bulgakov; Gleb Zilberstein, Uriel Maor; Emmanuil Baskin, Pier Giorgio Righetti; Journal of Proteomics; 131: 199-204 (2016).
Copy of paper is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I did have to take a short survey and decline a “premium” account to get the PDF. I believe I previously signed up for an account on this site, but I don’t remember.
Also, note this is from approximately the same time period as the last two reviewed papers.
1. What is the research question Zilberstein et al. is asking?
Can a chromatographic bead-based extraction process allow for analysis of a relatively recent document for chemical (or protein) traces of its author’s health issues?
Comparative highlights of this publication:
(i) What is being tested? A handwritten manuscript from 1936-1940 (10 pages pulled randomly from 127 available) by Mikhail Bulgakov.
But note that other much, much older documents have been successfully analyzed using these processes but a true understanding of the impact of advanced “age” of the sample on this extraction method is still a question to me – if I could get a full copy of this You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. article (by Righetti et al.), some discussion of that issue might be in there. This is of particular concern since chemical/protein based analysis does not have amplification available.
(ii) Use of ethylene vinyl acetate sheet (ironically, “EVA”) impregnated with anion and cation exchangers (SCX and SAX, strong cation or anion exchange, respectively) and hydrophobic resins (combination pulls ANY KIND of charged molecules to it) to get the chemical/protein sample. Non-invasive. Combination is laid upon the manuscript folio and then pulled off. See cartoon below from summary of prior referenced Righetti et al. review.
It seems the methods illustrated above is the more mature version of the extraction method (circa 2020) – it appears that for this paper in 2016, only a small aliquot of a combination of SCX beads and crushed hydrophobic resin (C8) was directly placed on the manuscript (see Figure 1 of paper).
(iii) Use of GS-MS (Gas-liquid chromatography mass spectrometry). This is still mass spectrometry, but the initial sample preparation differs from what was used by Fiddyment et al. (e.g. MALDI-ToF vs. GS-MS).
2. What were Zilberstein et al.’s results?
By comparing the chemical fingerprints to known samples of morphine from that time, that may have degraded similarly (found in police and pharmacy storage) and modern morphine – they were able to match and identify morphine and its metabolites on each page. See Figure below.
They also state they found biomarkers for the degenerative disease that Bulgakov is believed to have been suffering from -- “nephrotic syndrome,” a kidney disorder (data not shown). This last part is pretty speculative – and is presented like there is going to be a further paper about it, but I couldn’t find any additional publications.
TLDR: Zilberstein et al. found traces of morphine and its metabolites left on the pages of a manuscript, supporting a possible conclusion that the author Bulgakov was taking morphine at the time these pages were produced.
Although the use of this morphine at this end of life stage for the author is hypothesized to be due to a possible nephrotic syndrome, it is also know that the author had been addicted to morphine earlier in life and even wrote a book about the experience. Thus, it is possible that these traces are evidence of a continuation (or relapse back into) the morphine addition that had been presented as having been “left behind.”
I note that Zilberstein is known to be a huge fan of Bulgakov's work and the whole (rather obvious in my view) idea that the morphine use could be a relapse rather than something due to pain relief from nephrotic syndrome, or admittedly maybe both, was not even mentioned. This is an example of the looser scientific writing that is mentioned below and feels like a slippery slope to me into possible "theory-casting."
How this kind of research would apply to the Voynich is obviously more speculative than other analyses we have discussed. There is the ever present issue of attribution – traces of many molecules could be found (DNA, RNA, protein and as in this publication, lots of other chemicals) and whether these were due to an exposure that occurs at the time of the manuscript’s production or anytime during the 600 year existence of the manuscript would involve a lot of speculation. But this does provide another non-invasive extraction method that could be useful in providing chemical/protein evidence in trying to pinpoint the origin and/or characteristics of the scribes (perhaps author(s)) of the Voynich.
Finally, I also find the work and reporting done by these two labs to be a less “standard” scientific approach than the prior reviewed papers – which could be interesting but seems to me to be a bit more of a risk to the manuscript – but that could just be my own personal biases talking.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)