Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25101166›Full record

ReviewInvestigative genetics2014

Validation of high throughput sequencing and microbial forensics applications.

Bruce Budowle, Nancy D Connell, Anna Bielecka-Oder, Rita R Colwell, Cindi R Corbett, Jacqueline Fletcher, Mats Forsman, Dana R Kadavy, Alemka Markotic, Stephen A Morse and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Investigative genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Microbiomes in forensic botany: a review.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2021
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. The Future of Environmental DNA in Forensic Science.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Cryfa: a secure encryption tool for genomic data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2019
    Article
  14. Microbial forensics: new breakthroughs and future prospects.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2018
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors at 14 institutions in 6 countries.

Bruce BudowleDepartment of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Institute of Applied Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas, USA ; Center of Excellence in Genomic Medicine Research (CEGMR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Nancy D ConnellRutgers New Jersey Medical School, Center for Biodefense, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Anna Bielecka-OderDepartment of Epidemiology, The General K. Kaczkowski Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Rita R ColwellCosmosID®, 387 Technology Dr, College Park, MD, USA ; Maryland Pathogen Research Institute, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA ; University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA ; Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Cindi R CorbettBioforensics Assay Development and DiagnosticsSection, Science Technology and Core Services Division, National Microbiology Laboratory, Winnipeg, MB, Canada ; Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Jacqueline FletcherNational Institute for Microbial Forensics & Food and Agricultural Biosecurity, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Mats ForsmanDivision of CBRN Defence and Security, Swedish Defence Research Agency, Umeå, Sweden.
Dana R KadavySignature Science, LLC, Austin, TX, USA.
Alemka MarkoticUniversity Hospital for Infectious Diseases "Fran Mihaljevic" and Medical School University of Rijeka, Zagreb, Croatia.
Stephen A MorseDivision of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Randall S MurchVirginia Tech, National Capital Region, Arlington, VA, USA.
Antti SajantilaDepartment of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Institute of Applied Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas, USA ; Department of Forensic Medicine, Hjelt Institute, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Sarah E SchmedesDepartment of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Institute of Applied Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Krista L TernusSignature Science, LLC, Austin, TX, USA.
Stephen D TurnerPublic Health Sciences, Bioinformatics Core Director, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Samuel MinotSignature Science, LLC, Austin, TX, USA.
Signature Research (United States) · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USCosmos Corporation (United States) · USDiagnostic Services Manitoba · CAOklahoma State University · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USSwedish Defence Research Agency · SEUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of North Texas · USUniversity of North Texas Health Science Center · USUniversity of Rijeka · HRUniversity of Virginia · USVirginia Tech · USWojskowy Instytut Higieny i Epidemiologii · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High throughput sequencing (HTS) generates large amounts of high quality sequence data for microbial genomics. The value of HTS for microbial forensics is the speed at which evidence can be collected and the power to characterize microbial-related evidence to solve biocrimes and bioterrorist events. As HTS technologies continue to improve, they provide increasingly powerful sets of tools to support the entire field of microbial forensics. Accurate, credible results allow analysis and interpretation, significantly influencing the course and/or focus of an investigation, and can impact the response of the government to an attack having individual, political, economic or military consequences. Interpretation of the results of microbial forensic analyses relies on understanding the performance and limitations of HTS methods, including analytical processes, assays and data interpretation. The utility of HTS must be defined carefully within established operating conditions and tolerances. Validation is essential in the development and implementation of microbial forensics methods used for formulating investigative leads attribution. HTS strategies vary, requiring guiding principles for HTS system validation. Three initial aspects of HTS, irrespective of chemistry, instrumentation or software are: 1) sample preparation, 2) sequencing, and 3) data analysis. Criteria that should be considered for HTS validation for microbial forensics are presented here. Validation should be defined in terms of specific application and the criteria described here comprise a foundation for investigators to establish, validate and implement HTS as a tool in microbial forensics, enhancing public safety and national security.

Indexed as

BioinformaticsHigh throughput sequencingLibrary preparationMicrobial forensicsSample preparationValidation

Identifiers

PMID25101166
PMCPMC4123828
OpenAlexW2123687203

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.