ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2025
Evaluating novel and conventional cell-separation techniques for sexual assault investigations.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 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.
- Y-CpG-based semen age prediction: analysis of vasectomized samples and development of an optimized multiplex assay evaluated in independent and mixed samples.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- 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
- Evaluating novel and conventional cell-separation techniques for sexual assault investigations.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biological evidence from sexual assaults frequently includes few male cells (i.e., spermatozoa) and numerous female cells (i.e., epithelial cells). In practice, their genetic analysis typically involves separating the victim's cells from the perpetrator's sperm using conventional differential extraction or advanced cell enrichment/capturing techniques. A descriptive study on simulated sexual assault samples was carried out by the recruitment of 10 heterosexual, monogamous couples. Post-coital swabs were collected before and after consensual sexual intercourse, with a sampling period of up to 96 h, and subjected to analysis to detect, quantify, and genotype adhering sperm by three distinct cell-separation techniques: differential extraction, laser capture microdissection, and DEPArray™. Methods differed in sperm detection and genotyping efficacy, while foreign DNA was identifiable up to 96 h. Time since intercourse and individuals were statistically significant factors (p ≤ 0.05) on male DNA yields, while hygienic behavior was not. Prior sperm enrichment was pivotal for cell capture technologies to counteract the abundance of epithelial cells, achieved by a prior mild digestion step for laser microdissection. Evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of standard and advanced methods provided a novel, comprehensive understanding of their merits, postulating that modern applications can assist conventional ones in challenging crime samples.
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.