| Title |
Metagenomic analyses of bacteria on human hairs: a qualitative assessment for applications in forensic science
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Investigative Genetics, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13323-014-0016-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Silvana R Tridico, Dáithí C Murray, Jayne Addison, Kenneth P Kirkbride, Michael Bunce |
| Abstract |
Mammalian hairs are one of the most ubiquitous types of trace evidence collected in the course of forensic investigations. However, hairs that are naturally shed or that lack roots are problematic substrates for DNA profiling; these hair types often contain insufficient nuclear DNA to yield short tandem repeat (STR) profiles. Whilst there have been a number of initial investigations evaluating the value of metagenomics analyses for forensic applications (e.g. examination of computer keyboards), there have been no metagenomic evaluations of human hairs-a substrate commonly encountered during forensic practice. This present study attempts to address this forensic capability gap, by conducting a qualitative assessment into the applicability of metagenomic analyses of human scalp and pubic hair. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 12% |
| United States | 5 | 12% |
| Turkey | 3 | 7% |
| Spain | 3 | 7% |
| Australia | 3 | 7% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Poland | 1 | 2% |
| Egypt | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 19 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 34 | 81% |
| Scientists | 8 | 19% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 155 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 14% |
| Researcher | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 15% |
| Unknown | 33 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 42 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 37 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 45 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 219. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2022.
All research outputs
#175,753
of 25,386,384 outputs
Outputs from Investigative Genetics
#3
of 94 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,799
of 360,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Investigative Genetics
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,386,384 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 94 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.