ArticlePloS one2020
Characterizing the postmortem human bone microbiome from surface-decomposed remains.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of bone preparation approaches using length-based analysis and targeted sequencing for forensic human identification of historic skeletal remains.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Benefits and Limitations Associated with the Use of Alternative Biological Matrices in Forensic Toxicology, as Well as Genetic Markers of Poisoning and Psychoactive Substance Abuse.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation of metabolomic, microbial, and integrated features for distinguishing a rat model of heatstroke death from cervical-dislocation controls and estimating postmortem interval across organs.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Silent witnesses: basidiomycota as forensic biomarkers in human decomposition.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Review
- Establishing the volatile organic compound profile and detection capabilities of human remain detection dogs to human bones.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Improved DNA recovery and STR profile development from weathered Bos taurus bones using demineralized bone slices.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
- Microbial genomics: a potential toolkit for forensic investigations.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2025Review
- Immunometabolic reprogramming in diabetic osteomyelitis: from mechanisms to therapeutics.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Unravelling taphono-myths. First large-scale study of histotaphonomic changes and diagenesis in bone from modern surface depositions.PloS one · 2024Article
- Tracing microbial communities associated with archaeological human samples in Latvia, 7-11th centuries AD.Environmental microbiology reports · 2023Article
- Dissecting the microbial community structure of internal organs during the early postmortem period in a murine corpse model.BMC microbiology · 2023Article
- New frontiers review of some recent conservation techniques of organic and inorganic archaeological artefacts against microbial deterioration.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Touching the (almost) untouchable: a minimally invasive workflow for microbiological and biomolecular analyses of cultural heritage objects.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Postmortem Skeletal Microbial Community Composition and Function in Buried Human Remains.mSystems · 2022Article
- KOMB: K-core based de novo characterization of copy number variation in microbiomes.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
- Usefulness of Microbiome for Forensic Geolocation: A Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- A Pilot Study of Microbial Succession in Human Rib Skeletal Remains during Terrestrial Decomposition.mSphere · 2021Article
- Exceptional ancient DNA preservation and fibre remains of a Sasanian saltmine sheep mummy in Chehrābād, Iran.Biology letters · 2021Article
- Intra-bone nuclear DNA variability in Second World War metatarsal and metacarpal bones.International journal of legal medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microbial colonization of bone is an important mechanism of postmortem skeletal degradation. However, the types and distributions of bone and tooth colonizing microbes are not well characterized. It is unknown if microbial communities vary in abundance or composition between bone element types, which could help explain differences in human DNA preservation. The goals of the present study were to (1) identify the types of microbes capable of colonizing different human bone types and (2) relate microbial abundances, diversity, and community composition to bone type and human DNA preservation. DNA extracts from 165 bone and tooth samples from three skeletonized individuals were assessed for bacterial loading and microbial community composition and structure. Random forest models were applied to predict operational taxonomic units (OTUs) associated with human DNA concentration. Dominant bacterial bone colonizers were from the phyla Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and Planctomycetes. Eukaryotic bone colonizers were from Ascomycota, Apicomplexa, Annelida, Basidiomycota, and Ciliophora. Bacterial loading was not a significant predictor of human DNA concentration in two out of three individuals. Random forest models were minimally successful in identifying microbes related to human DNA concentration, which were complicated by high variability in community structure between individuals and body regions. This work expands on our understanding of the types of microbes capable of colonizing the postmortem human skeleton and potentially contributing to human skeletal DNA degradation.
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.