Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23284761›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Microbial analysis of bite marks by sequence comparison of streptococcal DNA.

Darnell M Kennedy, Jo-Ann L Stanton, José A García, Chris Mason, Christy J Rand, Jules A Kieser, Geoffrey R Tompkins

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Forensic microbiology and bite marks: a systematic review.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Explore variation of salivary bacteria across time and geolocations.International journal of legal medicine · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Darnell M KennedySir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Jo-Ann L Stanton
José A García
Chris Mason
Christy J Rand
Jules A Kieser
Geoffrey R Tompkins
University of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bite mark injuries often feature in violent crimes. Conventional morphometric methods for the forensic analysis of bite marks involve elements of subjective interpretation that threaten the credibility of this field. Human DNA recovered from bite marks has the highest evidentiary value, however recovery can be compromised by salivary components. This study assessed the feasibility of matching bacterial DNA sequences amplified from experimental bite marks to those obtained from the teeth responsible, with the aim of evaluating the capability of three genomic regions of streptococcal DNA to discriminate between participant samples. Bite mark and teeth swabs were collected from 16 participants. Bacterial DNA was extracted to provide the template for PCR primers specific for streptococcal 16S ribosomal RNA (16S rRNA) gene, 16S-23S intergenic spacer (ITS) and RNA polymerase beta subunit (rpoB). High throughput sequencing (GS FLX 454), followed by stringent quality filtering, generated reads from bite marks for comparison to those generated from teeth samples. For all three regions, the greatest overlaps of identical reads were between bite mark samples and the corresponding teeth samples. The average proportions of reads identical between bite mark and corresponding teeth samples were 0.31, 0.41 and 0.31, and for non-corresponding samples were 0.11, 0.20 and 0.016, for 16S rRNA, ITS and rpoB, respectively. The probabilities of correctly distinguishing matching and non-matching teeth samples were 0.92 for ITS, 0.99 for 16S rRNA and 1.0 for rpoB. These findings strongly support the tenet that bacterial DNA amplified from bite marks and teeth can provide corroborating information in the identification of assailants.

Indexed as

AdultBacterial ProteinsBites, HumanDNA, BacterialDNA-Directed RNA PolymerasesDNA FingerprintingDNA PrimersDNA, Ribosomal SpacerHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionRNA, Ribosomal, 16SStreptococcal InfectionsStreptococcusToothBacterial ProteinsDNA, BacterialDNA-Directed RNA PolymerasesDNA PrimersDNA, Ribosomal SpacerRNA, Ribosomal, 16SrpoB protein, Streptococcus pneumoniae

Identifiers

PMID23284761
PMCPMC3526645
OpenAlexW2027234656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.