ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2014
Forensic animal DNA analysis using economical two-step direct PCR.
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Species Determination Within the Felidae Family Using mtDNA Minibarcoding.Animal genetics · 2026Article
- Research progress on direct PCR and its applications.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2026Review
- A Species-SpecificBiology · 2026Article
- Rapid on-site universal vertebrate species identification via multi-barcode nanopore sequencing.PloS one · 2025Article
- Pupal Exuviae of Culex Pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) Can be Utilised as a Non-Invasive Method of Biotype Differentiation.Biological procedures online · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a universal primer pair for the taxonomic and phylogenetic studies of vertebrates.Molecular biology reports · 2024Article
- DNA barcoding for the identification and authentication of medicinal deer (Cervus sp.) products in China.PloS one · 2024Article
- Insight into Rapid DNA-Specific Identification of Animal Origin Based on FTIR Analysis: A Case Study.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wildlife forensic DNA analysis by amplification of a mitochondrial locus followed by DNA sequencing is routine, yet suffers from being costly and time-consuming. To address these disadvantages we report on a low-cost two-step direct PCR assay to efficiently analyze 12 forensically relevant mammalian sample types without DNA extraction. A cytochrome oxidase I degenerate-universal primer pair was designed and validated for the developed assay. The 12 sample types, which included bone, horn, feces, and urine, were amplified successfully by the assay using a pre-direct PCR dilution protocol. The average amplification success rate was as high as 92.5 % (n = 350), with an average PCR product concentration of 220.71 ± 180.84 ng/μL. Differences in amplification success rate and PCR product quantity between sample types were observed; however, most samples provided high quality sequences, permitting a 100 % nucleotide similarity to their respective species via BLAST database queries. The combination of PBS and Phire(®) Hot Start II DNA polymerase gave comparable amplification success rate and amplicon quantity with the proprietary commercial kits (P > 0.05, n = 350) but at considerably lower cost. The stability of the assay was tested by successfully amplifying samples that had been stored for up to 12 months. Our data indicate that this low-cost two-step direct amplification assay has the potential to be a valuable tool for the forensic DNA community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24435950What 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.