Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33830453›Full record

ReviewForensic science, medicine, and pathology2021

Microbiomes in forensic botany: a review.

Sarah Ishak, Eleanor Dormontt, Jennifer M Young

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Sarah IshakDépartement de Biologie, Faculté des Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. ishs3601@usherbrooke.ca.
Eleanor DormonttAdvanced DNA, Identification and Forensic Facility, School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jennifer M YoungCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fragments of botanical material can often be found at crime scenes (on live and dead bodies, or on incriminating objects) and can provide circumstantial evidence on various aspects of forensic investigations such as determining crime scene locations, times of death or possession of illegal species. Morphological and genetic analysis are the most commonly applied methods to analyze plant fragment evidence but are limited by their low capacity to differentiate between potential source locations, especially at local scales. Here, we review the current applications and limitations of current plant fragment analysis for forensic investigations and introduce the potential of microbiome analysis to complement the existing forensic plant fragment analysis toolkit. The potential for plant fragment provenance identification at geographic scales meaningful to forensic investigations warrants further investigation of the phyllosphere microbiome in this context. To that end we identify three key areas of future research: 1) Retrieval of microbial DNA of sufficient quality and quantity from botanical material; 2) Variability of the phyllosphere microbiome at different taxonomic and spatial scales, with explicit reference to assignment capacity; 3) Impacts on assignment capacity of time, seasonality and movement of fragments between locations. The development of robust microbiome analysis tools for forensic purposes in botanical material could increase the evidentiary value of the botanical evidence commonly encountered in casework, aiding in the identification of crime scene locations.

Indexed as

BotanyMicrobiotaCrimeForensic MedicineHumansForensic ScienceMetabarcodingMetagenomicsMicrobiomesPlantsProvenance

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.