Are there recent genomic studies (post-2020) that reanalyzed historical Bigfoot sample data with modern methods?

Executive summary (2–3 sentences)

There is no clear, peer‑reviewed record in the provided reporting of new genomic studies after 2020 that have systematically reanalyzed archived “Bigfoot” hair or tissue samples using modern whole‑genome methods; the most widely cited laboratory reanalyses were published in the 2010s and concluded samples matched known species or were inconclusive ^{[1] [2]}. Media and enthusiast projects since 2020 have promoted environmental‑DNA and proprietary “Sasquatch genome” claims, but those accounts in the reporting are not equivalent to transparent, peer‑reviewed genomic reanalyses of historical specimens ^{[3] [4]}.

1. What the canonical scientific reanalyses actually were: mitochondrial hair surveys in the 2010s

The principal systematic laboratory effort widely reported was an Oxford‑led study that used rigorous decontamination and mitochondrial 12S rRNA sequencing on 30 hair samples, finding that sequenced hairs matched known species and that several samples were too degraded to identify ^{[1] [5]}. Major media outlets summarized that these mitochondrial results pointed to routine animals—bears, cows, dogs and the like—rather than any novel hominin ^{[6] [2]}. Those studies focused on mitochondrial markers for species identification rather than full nuclear genomes, which limits inferences about hybridization or deeper genomic novelty ^{[1] [7]}.

2. Contested claims and why they did not establish a post‑2020 genomic record

Separate, controversial claims—most notably the Melba Ketchum “Sasquatch genome” reports and related press statements from the early 2010s—were criticized for lack of transparent methods and probable contamination, and subsequent reporting and watchdog summaries flagged problems with sample provenance and laboratory accreditation ^{[8] [9] [10]}. Follow‑up coverage and forensic commentary emphasized that alleged novel sequences often reflected contamination, mixed samples, or analytical artifacts rather than verified novel hominin genomes ^{[9] [10]}.

3. The post‑2020 landscape in the reporting: media projects, eDNA teasers, and enthusiasts

Since 2020 the scene has been dominated in the sources by television and enthusiast projects that publicize new eDNA sampling or claim ongoing genomic programs rather than peer‑reviewed reanalyses of archival material; for example, a 2021 television investigation promoted environmental DNA findings from soil and structures but these are presented as preliminary and entertainment‑oriented reporting rather than as open, vetted genomic reanalyses of historical samples ^[3]. Enthusiast outlets and project pages continue to trumpet purported genome projects and unpublished sequences, but those claims in the supplied reporting are not substantiated by independent, peer‑reviewed genomic publications ^[4].

4. Scientific limitations cited by experts: contamination, sample provenance, and marker choice

Experts and journalists repeatedly warned that field collection by enthusiasts, environmental degradation, and handling can introduce human and other DNA contamination, undermining claims from mixed or degraded specimens unless chain‑of‑custody and modern clean‑lab whole‑genome protocols are applied—and the reporting shows these shortcomings were a central critique of earlier and contested work ^{[9] [10]}. Additionally, mitochondrial 12S sequences used in many earlier studies identify maternal lineages and species matches well but cannot by themselves demonstrate a new hominin species or robust hybrid ancestry without nuclear genomic data ^{[1] [7]}.

5. Bottom line: what the provided reporting supports and what it does not

Based on the supplied reporting, there is no documented, peer‑reviewed post‑2020 genomic study that reanalyzed historical Bigfoot samples using modern whole‑genome methods and produced verifiable novel results; the rigorous published work that resolved many historical hairs to known species dates to the 2010s, while later media and project claims amount to unvetted announcements or entertainment reporting rather than transparent genomic reanalysis in the scientific literature ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The reporting also makes clear alternative viewpoints: some researchers and enthusiasts assert ongoing work and unpublished genomic data, but those remain unverified and have been criticized for methodological and provenance issues in past episodes ^{[4] [10]}.