ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2025
Standardizing a microbiome pipeline for body fluid identification from complex crime scene stains.
Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Verification of the persistence of sperm traces under different chain-of-custody conditions. Care pathway and justice for victims of sexual violence and abuse.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Stability of the skin microbiome during short-term in situ and in vitro conditions: Foundational support for the potential to trace skin sites and identify individuals.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Advancing time-since-interval estimation for clandestine graves: a forensic ecogenomics perspective into burial and translocation timelines using massively parallel sequencing.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advances in next-generation sequencing have opened up new possibilities for applying the human microbiome in various fields, including forensics. Researchers have capitalized on the site-specific microbial communities found in different parts of the body to identify body fluids from biological evidence. Despite promising results, microbiome-based methods have not been integrated into forensic practice due to the lack of standardized protocols and systematic testing of methods on forensically relevant samples. Our study addresses critical decisions in establishing these protocols, focusing on bioinformatics choices and the use of machine learning to present microbiome results in case reports for forensically relevant and challenging samples. In our study, we propose using operational taxonomic units (OTUs) for read data processing and generating heterogeneous training data sets for training a random forest classifier. We incorporated six forensically relevant classes: saliva, semen, skin from hand, penile skin, urine, and vaginal/menstrual fluid, and our classifier achieved a high weighted average F1 score of 0.89. Systematic testing on mock forensic samples, including mixed-source samples and underwear, revealed reliable detection of at least one component of the mixture and the identification of vaginal fluid from underwear substrates. Additionally, when investigating the sexually shared microbiome (sexome) of heterosexual couples, our classifier could potentially infer the nature of sexual activity. We therefore highlight the value of the sexome for assessing the nature of sexual activities in forensic investigations while delineating areas that warrant further research.IMPORTANCEMicrobiome-based analyses combined with machine learning offer potential avenues for use in forensic science and other applied fields, yet standardized protocols remain lacking. Moreover, machine learning classifiers have shown promise for predicting body sites in forensics, but they have not been systematically evaluated on complex mixed-source samples. Our study addresses key decisions for establishing standardized protocols and, to our knowledge, is the first to report classification results from uncontrolled mixed-source samples, including sexome (sexually shared microbiome) samples. In our study, we explore both the strengths and limitations of classifying the mixed-source samples while also providing options for tackling the limitations.
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.