ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2009
One person with two DNA profiles: a(nother) case of mosaicism or chimerism.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- The genetic profile of bone marrow transplant patients in different samples of forensic interest.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2019Article
- Evaluation of blood, buccal swabs, and hair follicles for DNA profiling technique using STR markers.Croatian medical journal · 2015Article
- Chimerism in DNA of buccal swabs from recipients after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantations: implications for forensic DNA testing.International journal of legal medicine · 2013Article
- An unusual observation of tetragametic chimerism: forensic aspects.International journal of legal medicine · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nuclear DNA markers, such as short tandem repeats (STR), are widely used for crime investigation and paternity testing. STR were used to determine whether a piece of tissue regurgitated by a dog was part of the penis of a dead, emasculated, man. Unexpectedly, when analyzing the recovered material and a blood sample from the deceased, five out of the 18 loci differed. According to the results, one could have concluded that these samples originated from two different persons. However, taking into account contextual information and data from complementary genetic analyses, the most likely hypothesis was that the deceased was a genetic mosaic or a chimera. Within a forensic genetic context, such genetic peculiarities may prevent associating the perpetrator of an offense with a stain left at a crime scene or lead to false paternity exclusions. Fast recognition of mosaics or chimeras, adapted sampling scheme, as well as careful interpretation of the data should allow avoiding such pitfalls.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.