ArticleCurrent microbiology2012
Amplification of oral streptococcal DNA from human incisors and bite marks.
Article in Current microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Forensic microbiology and bite marks: a systematic review.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2022Pooled it
- A mathematical model for scientifically defining the class characteristics of the human anterior maxilla-Part 1: The dental arch.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
- Integration of Bite Mark Microbiome Analysis with Forensic DNA Profiling: Advancements, Challenges, and Synergistic Approaches.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2024Review
- Body fluid identification by integrated analysis of DNA methylation and body fluid-specific microbial DNA.International journal of legal medicine · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Challenges to the evidentiary value of morphometric determinations have led to a requirement for scientifically substantiated approaches to the forensic analysis of bite marks. Human teeth support genotypically distinctive populations of bacteria that could be exploited for forensic purposes. This study explored the feasibility of directly amplifying bacterial DNA from bite marks for comparison with that from teeth. Samples from self-inflicted experimental bite marks (n = 24) and human incisors were amplified by PCR using primers specific for streptococcal 16S ribosomal DNA. Amplicon profiles (resolved by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis) from bite mark samples aligned significantly more closely with profiles generated from the teeth responsible than with those from other teeth. Streptococcal amplicons were generated from dental samples applied to excised porcine skin for up to 48 h. These findings indicate that streptococcal DNA can be amplified directly from bite marks, and have potential application in bite mark analysis.
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.