ArticleScientific reports2021
Revisiting single cell analysis in forensic science.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-cell strategies for the interpretation of complex forensic DNA mixtures: isolation techniques, genotype data integration, and prospects for application.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
- Single-cell deoxyribonucleic acid typing for forensic mixtures and trace evidence: Opportunities, validation requirements, and reporting limits.World journal of biological chemistry · 2026Review
- DNA Mixture Deconvolution: A Four-Strategy Framework from Physical Separation to Database Searching.Genes · 2026Review
- Identification of the body fluid donors from mixture stains using bulk transcriptomes data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Evaluating novel and conventional cell-separation techniques for sexual assault investigations.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
- DNA forensics at forty: the way forward.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
- Nanoparticle-assisted PCR: fundamentals, mechanisms, and forensic implications.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
- High resolution tissue and cell type identification via single cell transcriptomic profiling.PloS one · 2025Article
- Exploring the potential of genetic analysis in historical blood spots for patients with iodine-deficient goiter and thyroid carcinomas in Switzerland and Germany (1929-1989).BMC medical genomics · 2024Article
- Trace DNA Transfer in Co-Working Spaces: The Importance of Background DNA Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Single cell genomics applications in forensic science: Current state and future directions.iScience · 2023Review
- The invisible witness: air and dust as DNA evidence of human occupancy in indoor premises.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Single-cell transcriptome sequencing allows genetic separation, characterization and identification of individuals in multi-person biological mixtures.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Comparison between MACSprep™ forensic sperm microbead kit and Erase Sperm Isolation kit for the enrichment of sperm fractions recovered from sexual assault samples.International journal of legal medicine · 2023Article
- Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- Article
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
Forensic science has yet to take full advantage of single cell analysis. Its greatest benefit is the ability to alleviate the challenges associated with DNA mixture analysis, which remains a significant hurdle in forensic science. Many of the factors that cause complexity in mixture interpretation are absent in single cell analyses-multiple contributors, varied levels of contribution, and allele masking. This study revisits single cell analyses in the context of forensic identification, introducing previously unseen depth to the characterization of data generated from single cells using a novel pipeline that includes recovery of single cells using the DEPArray NxT and amplification using the PowerPlex Fusion 6c kit with varied PCR cycles (29, 30, and 31). The resulting allelic signal was assessed using analytical thresholds of 10, 100, and 150RFU. The mean peak heights across the sample sets generally increased as cycle number increased, 75.0 ± 85.3, 147.1 ± 172.6, and 226.1 ± 298.2 RFU, for 29, 30, and 31 cycles, respectively. The average proportion of allele/locus dropout was most significantly impacted by changes in the detection threshold, whereas increases in PCR cycle number had less impact. Overall data quality improved notably when increasing PCR from 29 to 30 cycles, less improvement and more volatility was introduced at 31 cycles. The average random match probabilities for the 29, 30, and 31 cycle sets at 150RFU are 1 in 2.4 × 10
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.