ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2023
Comparing preservation substrates under field conditions for efficient DNA recovery in bone.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protocols and challenges in managing multi-source biological evidence at the crime scene: a scoping review.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Review
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Often bones are the only biological material left for the identification of human remains. As situations may occur where samples need to be stored for an extended period without access to cooling, appropriate storage of the bone samples is necessary for maintaining the integrity of DNA for profiling. To simulate DNA preservation under field conditions, pig rib bones were used to evaluate the effects of bone cleaning, buffer composition, storage temperature, and time on DNA recovery from bone samples. Bones were stored in three different buffers: TENT, solid sodium chloride, and ethanol-EDTA, at 20 °C and 35 °C for 10, 20, and 30 days. Bones were subsequently dried and ground to powder. DNA was extracted and quantified. Results show that temperature and storage time have no significant influence on DNA yield. DNA recovery from bones stored in solid sodium chloride or ethanol-EDTA was significantly higher compared to bones stored in TENT, and grinding of bones was facilitated by the extent of dehydration in solid sodium chloride and ethanol-EDTA compared to TENT. Overall, solid sodium chloride was found to be superior over ethanol-EDTA; when it comes to transportation, dry material such as salt eliminates the risk of leaking; it is non-toxic and in contrast to ethanol not classified as dangerous goods. Based on this study's results, we recommend NaCl as a storage substrate for forensic samples in cases where no cooling/freezing conditions are available.
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.