Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41732773›Full record

ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2026

In the trail of the crime scene dog: Processing of human DNA from outdoor samples.

Christina Forsberg, Ronny Hedell, Ricky Ansell, Johannes Hedman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 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

4 authors.

Christina ForsbergNational Forensic Centre, Swedish Police Authority, Linköping, Sweden.
Ronny HedellNational Forensic Centre, Swedish Police Authority, Linköping, Sweden.
Ricky AnsellNational Forensic Centre, Swedish Police Authority, Linköping, Sweden.
Johannes HedmanNational Forensic Centre, Swedish Police Authority, Linköping, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing use of crime scene dogs to detect human body fluids has led to an increased number of outdoor samples being submitted to forensic DNA laboratories. The analysis of DNA in outdoor samples such as soil presents significant challenges with present protocols due to the combination of relatively large sample volumes and co-extraction of humic substances. To address this, we have optimised a soil microbial DNA extraction protocol for the recovery of semen by incorporating enzymatic, chemical and physical lysis steps. This optimisation increased the DNA yield 43-fold. Using mock crime scene samples, the protocol provided high quality STR profiles from semen in 10 mL of different types of soil (mixed forest soil, sandy soil and park soil), organic matrix (dry leaves) and inorganic matrices (sand and gravel). The protocol also generated complete STR profiles for soil samples containing blood, saliva and cell-free DNA. However, all humic substances were not removed, causing inhibition in MPS analysis. The extracted DNA consisted of more than 95% double-stranded (ds) DNA with equivalent fragment sizes as DNA extracted using magnetic bead-based kits. The protocol is thus compatible with library preparation methods that demand dsDNA, e.g. in whole genome sequencing. The protocol has been successfully implemented in casework and used in serious crime investigations. Human STR profiles have been generated from crime scene items in 50% of the cases. In the majority of these (82%), no results were generated using swabs and traditional DNA extraction methods.

Indexed as

DNA extractionForensic DNA analysisSearch dogSemen-detection dogSoil

Identifiers

PMID41732773
PMCPMC12925076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.