↓ Skip to main content

An overview to the investigative approach to species testing in wildlife forensic science

Overview of attention for article published in Investigative Genetics, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 Wikipedia page


66 Dimensions

Readers on

164 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
An overview to the investigative approach to species testing in wildlife forensic science
Published in
Investigative Genetics, January 2011
DOI 10.1186/2041-2223-2-2
Pubmed ID

Adrian Linacre, Shanan S Tobe


The extent of wildlife crime is unknown but it is on the increase and has observable effects with the dramatic decline in many species of flora and fauna. The growing awareness of this area of criminal activity is reflected in the increase in research papers on animal DNA testing, either for the identification of species or for the genetic linkage of a sample to a particular organism. This review focuses on the use of species testing in wildlife crime investigations. Species identification relies primarily on genetic loci within the mitochondrial genome; focusing on the cytochrome b and cytochrome oxidase 1 genes. The use of cytochrome b gained early prominence in species identification through its use in taxonomic and phylogenetic studies, while the gene sequence for cytochrome oxidase was adopted by the Barcode for Life research group. This review compares how these two loci are used in species identification with respect to wildlife crime investigations. As more forensic science laboratories undertake work in the wildlife area, it is important that the quality of work is of the highest standard and that the conclusions reached are based on scientific principles. A key issue in reporting on the identification of a particular species is a knowledge of both the intraspecies variation and the possible overlap of sequence variation from one species to that of a closely related species. Recent data showing this degree of genetic separation in mammalian species will allow greater confidence when preparing a report on an alleged event where the identification of the species is of prime importance. The aim of this review is to illustrate aspects of species testing in wildlife forensic science and to explain how a knowledge of genetic variation at the genus and species level can aid in the reporting of results.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Unknown 157 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 33 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 18%
Student > Master 29 18%
Researcher 23 14%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 11 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 74 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 21%
Environmental Science 16 10%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 18 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 June 2014.
All research outputs
of 15,659,478 outputs
Outputs from Investigative Genetics
of 95 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 332,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Investigative Genetics
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,659,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 95 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 332,612 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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.