ArticleInvestigative genetics2014
Pet fur or fake fur? A forensic approach.
Article in Investigative genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A damage-aware NGS workflow for conservative species identification from ultra-degraded DNA.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- DNA fingerprinting: an effective tool for taxonomic identification of precious corals in jewelry.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Article
- Hindering the illegal trade in dog and cat furs through a DNA-based protocol for species identification.PeerJ · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn forensic science there are many types of crime that involve animals. Therefore, the identification of the species has become an essential investigative tool. The exhibits obtained from such offences are very often a challenge for forensic experts. Indeed, most biological materials are traces, hair or tanned fur. With hair samples, a common forensic approach should proceed from morphological and structural microscopic examination to DNA analysis. However, the microscopy of hair requires a lot of experience and a suitable comparative database to be able to recognize with a high degree of accuracy that a sample comes from a particular species and then to determine whether it is a protected one. DNA analysis offers the best opportunity to answer the question, 'What species is this?' In our work, we analyzed different samples of fur coming from China used to make hats and collars. Initially, the samples were examined under a microscope, then the mitochondrial DNA was tested for species identification. For this purpose, the genetic markers used were the 12S and 16S ribosomal RNA, while the hypervariable segment I of the control region was analyzed afterwards, to determine whether samples belonged to the same individual.
resultsMicroscopic examination showed that the fibres were of animal origin, although it was difficult to determine with a high degree of confidence which species they belonged to and if they came from a protected species. Therefore, DNA analysis was essential to try to clarify the species of these fur samples.
conclusionsMacroscopic and microscopic analysis confirmed the hypothesis regarding the analyzed hair belonging to real animals, although it failed to prove with any kind of certainty which actual family it came from, therefore, the species remains unknown. Sequence data analysis and comparisons with the samples available in GenBank showed that the hair, in most cases, belonged to the Canidae family, and in one case only to Felidae.
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.