ReviewWorld journal of biological chemistry2026
Single-cell deoxyribonucleic acid typing for forensic mixtures and trace evidence: Opportunities, validation requirements, and reporting limits.
Review in World journal of biological chemistry, 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
Forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) interpretation is limited less by genotyping technology than by the biochemical and inferential effects of mixed, low-template, and environmentally complex traces. Single-cell and single-molecule strategies, including the United Kingdom Research and Innovation-funded single-cell and single-molecule analysis for DNA identification (SCAnDi) program, aim to preserve cellular resolution. They allow investigators to isolate and type individual cells or defined small-cell pools before heterogeneous evidence is converted into a bulk lysate. In selected validation settings, this approach has yielded near-complete diploid short tandem repeat (STR) profiles from small pools, credible genotype sets tightly concentrated on the true genotype across high-order mixtures, and improved access to donor-specific profiles from sexual assault and other complex samples. However, these studies also show important limits. Many operationally successful "single-cell" workflows are, in practice, single-cell-plus-consensus or few-cell workflows. Stochastic effects remain intrinsic, and cell capture itself becomes a probabilistic sampling step. This opinion review explicitly adopts an evaluative stance: It synthesizes recent validation studies and guidance documents to identify the performance thresholds and reporting boundaries that should be met before targeted forensic deployment of SCAnDi-like workflows. We argue that casework entry should require measured cell-recovery probabilities, phenotype-misclassification rates, locus- and cell-type-specific dropout and stutter models, quantified contamination and drop-in rates, validated minimum cell counts for consensus generation, and explicit database-upload criteria. It should also require strict separation between sub-source reporting and activity-level propositions. If those conditions are met, single-cell typing can complement, rather than replace, bulk STR analysis and probabilistic genotyping in a narrow but important set of high-value forensic scenarios.
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.