ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2018
A protocol for obtaining DNA barcodes from plant and insect fragments isolated from forensic-type soils.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dye-based qPCR assays for the separate quantification of total bacterial, fungal, arthropod, and plant DNA.PloS one · 2026Article
- Stepping towards pollen DNA metabarcoding: A breakthrough in forensic sciences.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2024Review
- Forensic parasitology: a new frontier in criminalistics.Forensic sciences research · 2024Review
- Guidelines for the Analysis of DNA Barcoding/Metabarcoding Sequencing Data and Interpretation of Publicly Available Databases.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessment of BOLD and GenBank - Their accuracy and reliability for the identification of biological materials.PloS one · 2019Article
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
Soil is often collected from a suspect's tire, vehicle, or shoes during a criminal investigation and subsequently submitted to a forensic laboratory for analysis. Plant and insect material recovered in such samples is rarely analyzed, as morphological identification is difficult. In this study, DNA barcoding was used for taxonomic identifications by targeting the gene regions known to permit discrimination in plants [maturase K (matK) and ribulose 1,5-biphosphate carboxylase (rbcL)] and insects [cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI)]. A DNA barcode protocol suitable for processing forensic-type biological fragments was developed and its utility broadly tested with forensic-type fragments (e.g., seeds, leaves, bark, head, legs; n, 213) isolated from soils collected within Virginia, USA (n, 11). Difficulties with PCR inhibitors in plant extracts and obtaining clean Sanger sequence data from insect amplicons were encountered during protocol development; however, the final protocol produced sequences specific to the expected locus and taxa. The overall quantity and quality of DNA extracted from the 213 forensic-type biological fragments was low (< 15 ng/μL). For plant fragments, only the rbcL sequence data was deemed reliable; thus, taxonomic identifications were limited to the family level. The majority of insect sequences matched COI in both GenBank and Barcode of Life DataSystems; however, they were identified as an undescribed environmental contaminant. Although limited taxonomic information was gleaned from the forensic-type fragments processed in this study, the new protocol shows promise for obtaining reliable and specific identifications through DNA barcoding, which could ultimately enhance the information gleaned from soil examinations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29423711What 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.