ReviewiScience2023
Single cell genomics applications in forensic science: Current state and future directions.
Review in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bibliometric analysis of kinship analysis from 1960 to 2023: global trends and development.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Pooled it
- 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
- Forensic genetics in the omics era.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Predicting Physical Appearance from Low Template: State of the Art and Future Perspectives.Genes · 2026Review
- Evaluating novel and conventional cell-separation techniques for sexual assault investigations.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standard methods of mixture analysis involve subjecting a dried crime scene sample to a "bulk" DNA extraction method such that the resulting isolate compromises a homogenized DNA mixture from the individual donors. If, however, instead of bulk DNA extraction, a sufficient number of individual cells from the mixed stain are subsampled prior to genetic analysis then it should be possible to recover highly probative single source, non-mixed scDNA profiles from each of the donors. This approach can detect low DNA level minor donors to a mixture that otherwise would not be identified using standard methods and can also resolve rare mixtures comprising first degree relatives and thereby also prevent the false inclusion of non-donor relatives. This literature landscape review and associated commentary reports on the history and increasing interest in current and potential future applications of scDNA in forensic genomics, and critically evaluates opportunities and impediments to further progress.
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.