ArticlePloS one2012
Microbial analysis of bite marks by sequence comparison of streptococcal DNA.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Forensic microbiology and bite marks: a systematic review.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2022Pooled it
- Exploring the role of the human microbiome in forensic identification: opportunities and challenges.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Review
- Influence of the amount of saliva deposition and time elapsed after deposition on bite mark analysis.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2024Article
- Integration of Bite Mark Microbiome Analysis with Forensic DNA Profiling: Advancements, Challenges, and Synergistic Approaches.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2024Review
- Explore variation of salivary bacteria across time and geolocations.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- Assess the diversity of gut microbiota among healthy adults for forensic application.Microbial cell factories · 2022Article
- Comparative Evaluation of the Salivary and Buccal Mucosal Microbiota by 16S rRNA Sequencing for Forensic Investigations.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Is human DNA enough?-potential for bacterial DNA.Frontiers in genetics · 2013Article
- Salivary signature in forensic profiling: A scoping review.Journal of forensic dental sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.