ReviewGenes2025
Animal Species and Identity Testing: Developments, Challenges, and Applications to Non-Human Forensics.
Review in Genes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A mitochondrial DNA metabarcoding system based on tNGS enables multiplex identification of vertebrate species in samples containing degraded and mixed DNA.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Digital PCR in forensic genetics: principles, applications, and challenges.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
- Population Genetic Changes Associated with Long-Term African Swine Fever-Related Management in a Wild Boar (Genes · 2026Article
- Problems and Challenges with Analysis of Short Tandem Repeats (STRs) in Animal DNA.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- A Genomic Method for Combating Wildlife Trafficking: SNP-Based Traceability of Four Endangered Species in China.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biological samples of non-human origin, commonly encountered in wildlife crime investigations, present distinct challenges regarding forensic DNA analysis efforts. Although the types of samples encountered in human identity testing can vary to some degree, analyzing DNA from one species is facilitated by unified processes, common genetic marker systems, and national DNA databases. In contrast, non-human animal species identification is confounded by a diverse range of target species and a variety of sampling materials, such as feathers, processed animal parts in traditional medicine, and taxidermy specimens, which often contain degraded DNA in low quantities, are contaminated with chemical inhibitors, and may be comingled with other species. These complexities require specialized analytical approaches. Compounding these issues is a lack of validated non-human species forensic sampling and typing kits, and the risk of human DNA contamination during evidence collection. Markers residing on the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) are routinely sought because of the large datasets available for comparison and their greater sensitivity of detection. However, the barcoding results can be complicated at times for achieving species-level resolution, the presence of nuclear inserts of mitochondrial DNA (NUMTs), and the limitation of mtDNA analysis alone to detect hybrids. Species-specific genetic markers for identification have been developed for a few high-profile species; however, many CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora)-listed organisms lack specific, validated forensic analytical tools, creating a significant gap in investigative enforcement capabilities. This deficiency stems in part from the low commercial nature of wildlife forensics efforts, a government research-driven field, the difficulty of obtaining sufficient reference samples from wild populations, limited training and education infrastructure, and inadequate funding support.
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.