ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2022
Assessing the use of environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool in the detection of human DNA in water.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2022. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Environmental DNA (eDNA) from humans: Review of recent advancements and forensic implications.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
- CHARON: estimating the drift time and the number of individuals in environmental DNA with diploid individuals.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- Network dynamics revealed from eDNA highlight seasonal variation in urban mammal communities.The Journal of animal ecology · 2025Article
- Shotgun sequencing of airborne eDNA achieves rapid assessment of whole biomes, population genetics and genomic variation.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Article
- Inadvertent human genomic bycatch and intentional capture raise beneficial applications and ethical concerns with environmental DNA.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Assessing the use of environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool in the detection of human DNA in water.Journal of forensic sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a highly sensitive and cost-effective tool that is increasingly being applied to studies of biodiversity and species detection. This non-invasive method relies on the collection of environmental samples that contain genetic material being shed into surrounding environment by the target organism/s. While forensic science has a long history of using molecular tools for collecting DNA from the environment, the detection of human DNA from environmental water samples has been limited. This study investigated the detection and degradation rates of human eDNA in water samples under controlled laboratory conditions. Using a human-specific qPCR assay targeting the ND1 region of human mitochondrial DNA, eDNA degradation over time in water spiked with human blood was assessed. Recovery of nuclear DNA was investigated by determining if routine DNA short tandem repeat (STR) profiles of the blood source could be generated. Results demonstrated that human eDNA remains detectable for up to 11 days under laboratory conditions in environmental water and up to 35 days in distilled water. Partial STR profiles could be recovered from environmental water only up to 24 h, while, in distilled water, partial profiles continued to be recovered up to 840 h. These findings demonstrate that sampling human eDNA from aquatic samples can provide reliable human DNA detection within relatively short time windows, assisting law enforcement agencies by providing information about the potential time an individual may have been present in an area or assisting in the detection and location of a body or remains in aquatic environments.
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.