ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2026
Evaluation of bone preparation approaches using length-based analysis and targeted sequencing for forensic human identification of historic skeletal remains.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of bone preparation approaches using length-based analysis and targeted sequencing for forensic human identification of historic skeletal remains.Journal of forensic sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in DNA technology have significantly enhanced the forensic community's ability to develop genetic profiles from unidentified human skeletal remains. However, sampling requires mechanical grinding of hard tissues before DNA isolation. This processing can compromise genetic profiles, particularly in aged bones. We compared the industry-standard pulverization method with an alternative powder-free preparation involving prolonged demineralization and subsequent slicing of 19th-century cortical bone. Data from DNA quantification, STR genotyping, and targeted SNP sequencing were used to evaluate powdered samples versus demineralized slices from paired human bones. Average human DNA yields for pulverized samples and demineralized slices were 0.032 ng and 0.692 ng, respectively. Demineralized slices recovered more amplifiable DNA than traditional homogenization methods (p < 0.05). No pulverized samples produced STR profiles, whereas demineralized slices from the same bone samples yielded partial profiles. Samples underwent DNA repair, library preparation, and hybridization capture using the FORensic Capture Enrichment (FORCE) panel. Applying low-coverage (1X) analysis of high-throughput sequencing (HTS) data, demineralized slices outperformed those prepared by traditional pulverization methods (p < 0.05) and substantially increased the information recovered compared with conventional STR analysis methods. Based on HTS data from pulverized samples, DNA fragment length ranged from 27 to 95 bp, and FORCE SNP recovery was 33.23%. In contrast, for demineralized slices, DNA fragment length ranged from 85 to 114 bp, and FORCE SNP recovery was 83.24%. The required reagents and equipment are typically available in forensic labs, and the workflow outlined herein significantly increases the success of DNA recovery from challenging skeletal samples.
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.