ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Evaluation of extraction methods for co-isolation of nucleic acid from human saliva for forensic body fluid identification.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have emerged as promising biomarkers for the identification of forensically significant body fluids, aiding crime scene reconstruction and the identification of biological material donors. However, despite their potential, inter-study discrepancies and lack of reproducibility have limited their forensic application, particularly in body fluid identification. A major challenge lies in the variability introduced by different nucleic acid extraction methods. This study aimed to evaluate the co-extraction performance and miRNA detection efficiency of three commonly used nucleic acid extraction kits (AccuPrep Genomic DNA Extraction Kit, QIAamp DNA Mini Kit, and miRNeasy Tissue/Cells Advanced Micro Kit) across five saliva input volumes (400 µL, 200 µL, 100 µL, 50 µL, and 25 µL). To assess yield, purity, robustness (CV%), and sensitivity, two quantification platforms were used, followed by a two-step reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) protocol to evaluate the impact of extraction methods on miRNA expression. Our results demonstrate that both the extraction procedure and the quantity of input material significantly influences nucleic acid recovery. Additionally, we observe variations in miRNA levels depending on the extraction method used. Surprisingly, the kit designed specifically for miRNA extraction yielded relatively poor miRNA recovery. In contrast, the DNA extraction kit (AccuPrep Genomic DNA Extraction Kit) produced the highest nucleic acid yield with moderate purity and showed the lowest Cq values for miRNA targets, indicating better miRNA detection. These findings underscore the importance of the choice of extraction kit, as it can significantly influence both the yield and quality of nucleic acids detected, and the extension, accuracy and reliability of miRNA-based forensic analyses.
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.