Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41447400›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026

In silico PCR-RFLP identification of forensically important Calliphoridae.

Jenny Nancy Gómez-Sandoval

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jenny Nancy Gómez-SandovalCentro de Estudios Superiores en Ciencias Jurídicas y Criminológicas, Programa de Posdoctorado, Unidad Toluca, Av. Baja Velocidad 519, Pilares, Metepec, C.P. 52175, Estado de México, México. jennygsibt@upvt.edu.mx.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1686-5909

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to evaluate a cost-effective and rapid molecular approach for identifying forensically important Calliphoridae using an in silico PCR-RFLP assay designed with degenerate primers.

methodsCOX1 gene sequences from Calliphoridae species were retrieved from the NCBI database. Multiple sequence alignment with MAFFT identified conserved and variable regions for degenerate primer design in Primer3Plus. In silico PCR was simulated with Serial Cloner, and primer specificity was assessed using Primer-BLAST. Restriction enzyme screening was performed with NEBcutter and RFLP-inator to evaluate single and double digestions, and to generate species-specific fragment patterns.

resultsAnalysis of 47 COX1 sequences identified a highly variable 178-bp fragment suitable for species-level differentiation. The degenerate primers amplified all target species without cross-reactivity with human DNA. Single digestion with AluI differentiated four of six species, while double digestion with AluI/BsaJI resolved seven of nine. Additional enzymes (MseI, BsmAI) further discriminated challenging species pairs, enabling differentiation of 17 out of 18 species.

conclusionThe in silico PCR-RFLP assay presented here provides a promising molecular tool for identifying forensically relevant Calliphoridae species, with potential to improve postmortem interval (PMI) estimation. Experimental validation is required to confirm its applicability in forensic casework.

Indexed as

CalliphoridaePolymerase Chain ReactionPolymorphism, Restriction Fragment LengthAnimalsComputer SimulationCyclooxygenase 1DNA PrimersElectron Transport Complex IVForensic EntomologyHumansSequence Analysis, DNASpecies SpecificityCyclooxygenase 1DNA PrimersElectron Transport Complex IVCalliphoridaeCOX1 geneForensic entomologyIn silico PCR-RFLPPostmortem interval

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.