Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27236465›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2017

Microbial population analysis improves the evidential value of faecal traces in forensic investigations.

Frederike C A Quaak, Mei-Lan M de Graaf, Rob Weterings, Irene Kuiper

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. The Future of Environmental DNA in Forensic Science.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2020
    Review
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

4 authors.

Frederike C A QuaakNetherlands Forensic Institute, P.O. Box 24044, 2490 AA, The Hague, The Netherlands. f.quaak@nfi.minvenj.nl.
Mei-Lan M de GraafNetherlands Forensic Institute, P.O. Box 24044, 2490 AA, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Rob WeteringsNetherlands Forensic Institute, P.O. Box 24044, 2490 AA, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Irene KuiperNetherlands Forensic Institute, P.O. Box 24044, 2490 AA, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The forensic science community has a growing interest in microbial population analysis, especially the microbial populations found inside and on the human body. Both their high abundance, microbes outnumber human cells by a factor 10, and their diversity, different sites of the human body harbour different microbial communities, make them an interesting tool for forensics. Faecal material is a type of trace evidence which can be found in a variety of criminal cases, but is often being ignored in forensic investigations. Deriving a human short tandem repeat (STR) profile from a faecal sample can be challenging. However, the microbial communities within faecal material can be of additional criminalistic value in linking a faecal trace to the possible donor. We present a microarray technique in which the faecal microbial community is used to differentiate between faecal samples and developed a decision model to predict the possible common origin of questioned samples. The results show that this technique may be a useful additional tool when no or only partial human STR profiles can be generated.

Indexed as

RNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 18SBacteriaChaperonin 60Decision Support TechniquesFecesForensic GeneticsHumansMicroarray AnalysisPolymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsRNA ProbesChaperonin 60RNA ProbesRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 18SFaecesForensicsMicroarrayMicrobial community profiling

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.