ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2010
Using oral microbial DNA analysis to identify expirated bloodspatter.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spitting in the wind?-The challenges of RNA sequencing for biomarker discovery from saliva.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- Rapid and visual detection of specific bacteria for saliva and vaginal fluid identification with the lateral flow dipstick strategy.International journal of legal medicine · 2023Article
- On the Identification of Body Fluids and Tissues: A Crucial Link in the Investigation and Solution of Crime.Genes · 2021Review
- Rapid oral bacteria detection based on real-time PCR for the forensic identification of saliva.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Experimental measurement of breath exit velocity and expirated bloodstain patterns produced under different exhalation mechanisms.International journal of legal medicine · 2017Article
- Drying properties of bloodstains on common indoor surfaces.International journal of legal medicine · 2012Article
- Vaginal microbial flora analysis by next generation sequencing and microarrays; can microbes indicate vaginal origin in a forensic context?International journal of legal medicine · 2012Article
- Characterising the dynamics of expirated bloodstain pattern formation using high-speed digital video imaging.International journal of legal medicine · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Distinguishing expirated bloodstains (blood forced by airflow out of the nose, mouth or a chest wound) from impact spatter (blood from gunshots, explosives, blunt force trauma and/or machinery accidents) is an important challenge in forensic science. Streptococcal bacteria are only found in the human mouth and saliva. This study developed a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method that detects DNA from these bacteria as a sensitive tool to detect the presence of saliva. The PCR method was very specific to human oral streptococci, with no PCR product being made from human DNA or DNA from other microbes that were tested. It was also very sensitive, detecting as little as 60 fg of target DNA. The PCR amplification gave product with 99 out of 100 saliva samples tested. PCR was not inhibited by the presence of blood and could detect target DNA in expirated bloodstains in a range of materials and for up to 92 days after deposit on cardboard or cotton fabric. In a blind trial, the PCR method was able to distinguish three mock forensic samples that contained expirated blood from four that did not. Our data show that bacteria present in the oral cavity can be detected in bloodstains that contain saliva and therefore can potentially be used as a marker in forensic work to distinguish mouth-expirated bloodstains from other types of bloodstains.
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.