SavedAdd your journal

Journals / European Journal of Biology / 2026 / Volume: 83 Issue: 1

Bacterial Diversity of the Corpses

Ahmet Asan(TRAKYA UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY)0000-0002-4132-3848
Pages
—
Publication Date
2024-05-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This study is thought to be able to fill this important gap.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The study presents the importance of forensic bacteriology, its use in forensic cases, the methods for bacteriological sampling from corpses, the types and species of bacteria isolated from human and pig corpses, which are most commonly used in forensic biology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The microbial changes that occur after death remain unclear.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study is thought to be able to fill this important gap.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Forensic bacteriology · Forensic microbiology · Bacteria

Abstract

The study presents the importance of forensic bacteriology, its use in forensic cases, the methods for bacteriological sampling from corpses, the types and species of bacteria isolated from human and pig corpses, which are most commonly used in forensic biology. The microbial changes that occur after death remain unclear. Postmortem microbiology is a relatively new field of research. After death, the failure of the immune system and other physical barriers leads to the proliferation and spread of microbes. In order for bacteriological information to be accepted within the scope of forensic bacteriology, the court must find suspicion to be present about whether the bacteria seen on the body will contribute to solving the case. Experts must be appointed to examine the issue in line with this suspicion, and these experts must prepare and submit their reports to the court at the requested time. When considering the literature studies, forensic bacteriology has been suggested to be a scientific discipline in the developmental stage and to only be able to provide circumstantial evidence in forensic cases as opposed to primary evidence. According to the literature review, most bacterial studies isolated from corpses were conducted in Romania. Although bacterial samples were isolated from various parts of the corpses, bacteria were mostly isolated from their blood samples. According to literature searches from various scientific journal databases, no study has occurred with a list of the bacteria isolated from corpses. This study is thought to be able to fill this important gap.

🔖

Cite This Article

Asan, A. (2024). Bacterial Diversity of the Corpses. European Journal of Biology, Volume: 83 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1441286

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (66)

  1. Oren A, Garrity GM. Valid publication of the names of forty-two phyla of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2021;71:005056. doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.005056 google scholar
  2. Asan A, Giray G, Aydoğdu H. Türkiye arke ve bakterileri listesine ilaveler-1 (New additions to the list of Archaea and Bacteria of Turkiye-1). Bağbahçe Bil Derg. 2022;9:91-99. google scholar
  3. Asan A, Giray G, Aydoğdu H. Türkiye arke ve bakterileri listesine ilaveler: İkinci güncelleme. Bağbahçe Bil Derg. 2023;10:380-388. google scholar
  4. Euzeby JP. LPSN-List of prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature. 1997. Avaliable from: www.bacterio.net (Access: May 08, 2024). google scholar
  5. Atlas RM. Microbiology fundamentals and applications. Sec. Ed. 984 pp. Macmillan Publishing Comp. New York, 1984. google scholar
  6. Madigan MT, Aiyer J, Buckley DH, Sattley WM, Stahl DA. Brock biology of microorganisms. 16. Ed. Global Ed. 1129 pp. USA. Pearson Education Limited, 2022. google scholar
  7. Altıntaş Kazar G, Asan H, Aygül A, et al. Türkiye Arke ve Bakterileri Listesi (Checklist of the Archaea and Bacteria of Turkey). Asan A, Aydoğdu H, Karaltı I, Kocagöz ZT. (eds), First Ed. İstanbul. 951 pp. Ali Nihat Gökyiğit Vakfı Yayını, 2021. google scholar
  8. Carter DO, Junkins EN, Kodama WA. A primer on microbiology. pp 1-24. In: Carter DO, Tomberlin JK, Benbow ME, Metcalf, JL. (Eds). Forensic Microbiology. XXVI + 391 pp. By John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017. google scholar
  9. Hyde ER, Metcalf JL, Bucheli SR, Lynne AM, Knight R. Mi-crobial communities associated with decomposing corpses. pp 245-273. In: Carter DO, Tomberlin JK, Benbow ME, Metcalf JL. (Eds). Forensic Microbiology. XXVI + 391 pp. By John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017. google scholar
  10. Garcia MG, Perez-Carceles MD, Osuna E, Legaz I. Impact of the human microbiome in forensic sciences: A system-atic review. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;86):e01451-20. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01451-20 google scholar
  11. Clements JD. (Chair). Science needs for microbial forensics: De-veloping ınitial ınternational research priorities. XXIV + 228 pp. Washington D.C. The National Academies Press, 2014. www.nap.edu google scholar
  12. Conlon CP, Paul J. A checklist of bacteria associated with infection in humans. In John Firth, Christopher Conlon, and Timothy Cox (eds), Oxford Textbook of Medicine, 6 edn (Oxford, 2020; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Jan. 2020), doi:10.1093/med/9780198746690.003.0151 (accessed 31 Jan. 2024). https://academic.oup.com/book/41095/chapter-abstract/351074866?redirectedFrom=fulltext google scholar
  13. Christoffersen, S. The importance of microbiological testing for establishing cause of death in 42 forensic autopsies. Forensic Sci Int. 2015;250:27-32. google scholar
  14. Taylor LH, Latham SM, Woolhouse ME. Risk factors for hu-man disease emergence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Biol Soc. 2001;356:983-989. google scholar
  15. Narang D, Kulshreshtra R, Khan F, et al. Microbes in foren-sic medicine: A microbiologist perspective. Int J Bioassays. 2016;5.10:4913-4919. google scholar
  16. Gunn A, Pitt SJ. Microbes as forensic indicators. Trop Biomed. 2012;29:311-330. google scholar
  17. Burcham ZM, Jordan HR. History, current, and future use of microorganisms as physical evidence. pp 25-55. In: Carter DO, Tomberlin JK, Benbow ME, Metcalf JL. (Eds). Forensic Micro-biology. XXVI + 391 pp. By John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017. google scholar
  18. Ventura Spagnolo E, Mondello C, Stassi C, et al. Forensic mi-crobiology: A case series analysis. Euromediterranean Biomed J (Formerly: Capsula Eburnea). 2019;14:117-121. google scholar
  19. Robinson JM, Pasternak Z, Mason CE, Elhaik E. Foren-sic applications of microbiomics: A review. Front Microbiol. 2021;11:608101. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.608101 google scholar
  20. Moitas B, Caldas IM, Sampaio-Maia B. Forensic microbiology and geographical location: A systematic review. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2023; (In Press). doi:10.1080/00450618.2023.2191993 google scholar
  21. Finley SJ, Benbow ME, Javan GT. Microbial communities as-sociated with human decomposition and their potential use as postmortem clocks. Int J Legal Med. 2015;129:623-632. google scholar
  22. Tozzo P, Amico I, Delicati A, Toselli F, Caenazzo L. Post-mortem interval and microbiome analysis through 16S rRNA analysis: A systematic review. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12:2641. doi:10.3390/diagnostics12112641 google scholar
  23. Fatima M, Hussain S, Babar M, Aftab U, Mushtaq N, Rehman HM. Microbiome and metagenome signatures: The potential toolkit for futuristic forensic investigations. Int J Forensic Sci. 2022;7:1-13. google scholar
  24. Wang Z, Zhang F, Wang L, Yuan H, Guan D, Zhao R. Advances in artificial intelligence-based microbiome for PMI estimation. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:1034051. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.1034051 google scholar
  25. Metcalf JL, Wegener Parfrey L, Gonzalez A, et al. A micro-bial clock provides an accurate estimate of the postmortem interval in a mouse model system. Elife. 2013;15:e01104. doi:10.7554/eLife.01104 google scholar
  26. Wiltshire PEJ. Mycology in palaeoecology and forensic science. Fungal Biol. 2016;120:1272-1290. google scholar
  27. Vass AA. Beyond the grave-understanding human decomposition. Microbiol Today. 2011;28:190-192. google scholar
  28. Vass AA. The elusive universal post-mortem interval formula. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;204:34-40. google scholar
  29. Cockle DL. Human decomposition and the factors that affect it: A retrospective study of death scenes in Canada. PhD Thesis. XXXIV + 413 pp. Simon Fraser University (Canada). 2013. google scholar
  30. Donaldson R. Bacteriology in connection with forensic medicine. J State Med. (1912-1937). 1928;36:497-509. google scholar
  31. Takabe F, Oya M. An autopsy case of food poisoning associated with Bacillus cereus. Forensic Sci. 1976;7:97-101. google scholar
  32. Moar JJ, Miller SD. The value of autopsy bacteriology: A case report and review of techniques. SA Med J. 1984;66:192-193. google scholar
  33. Haelewaters D. Hebeloma, pioneer genus in forensic mycology. Fungi. 2013;6:47-48. google scholar
  34. Tranchida MC, Berruezo LEB, Stenglein SA, Cabello MN. Myco-biota associated with human cadavers: First record in Argentina. Can Soc Forensic Sci J. 2018;51:39-47. google scholar
  35. Lehman DC. Forensic Microbiology. Clin Lab Sci. 2012;25:114-119. google scholar
  36. Tranchida MC, Pelizza SA, EHades LA. The use of fungi in foren-sic science, a brief overview. Can Soc Forensic Sci J. 2021;54: 35-48. google scholar
  37. Yıldız SS. Ülkemizdeki adli vakalarda palinolojinin kullanımı ve yararları (Usage and benefits of palynology in forensic cases in our country). PhD Thesis. Ankara. XVI + 128 pp. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Fen Bil Enst, 2021. google scholar
  38. Fu X, Guo J, Finkelbergs D. Fungal succession during mam-malian cadaver decomposition and potential forensic impli-cations. Scientific Rep. 2019;9:12907. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-49361-0 google scholar
  39. Javan GT, Finley SJ. What is the “thanatomicrobiome” and what is its relevance to forensic investigations? (Chapter 6). In: Forensic Ecogenomics. The Application of Microbial Ecology Analyses in Forensic Contexts. pp. 133-143, 2018. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-809360-3.00006-0 google scholar
  40. Berikten D. Adli Mikrobiyoloji. pp 322-325. In: Külekçi, Y. (Ed): Suç Araştırmalarında Kriminal Yaklaşımlar. Akademisyen Kitapevi. İstanbul, 2020. Link: https://books.akademisyen.net/index.php/akya/catalog/download /1807/1844/42346?inline=1 (Access: 22.1.2022). google scholar
  41. Efeoğlu F, Çakan H, Kara U, Daş T. Forensic microbiological analysis of soil and the physical evidence buried in soil ob-tained from several towns in Istanbul. Cureus. 2022;14:e22329. doi:10.7759/cureus.22329 google scholar
  42. Asan A. Adli Mikoloji (Forensic mycology). Chapter 21. pp 584-618. In: Yamaç M, Asan A, Bıyık HH (Eds). Fungal Biy-oteknoloji Uygulamaları. e-book. First Ed. Konya. Mikolojik Araştırmalar Derneği Yayınları No 1. 694 pp. Konya, 2023. https://fbuproje.org.tr/ google scholar
  43. Yousefsaber F, Naseri Z, Hasani AH. A short review of forensic microbiology. Avicenna J Clin Microbiol Inf. 2022;9:88-96. google scholar
  44. Tomaso H, Neubauer H. Forensic Microbiology. Chapter 13. pp 293-306. 2011. www.intechopen.com google scholar
  45. Speruda M, Piecuch A, Borzçcka J, Kadej M, Ogorek R. Micro-bial traces and their role in forensic science. J Appl Microbiol. 2022;132:2547-2557. google scholar
  46. Kumari P, Prakash P, Yadav S, Saran V. Microbiome analy-sis: An emerging forensic investigative tool. Forensic Sci Int. 2022;340:111462. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111462 google scholar
  47. Ogbanga N, Nelson A, Ghignone S, et al. The oral microbiome for geographic origin: An Italian study. Forensic Sci Int Genetics. 2023;64:102841. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2023.102841 google scholar
  48. Sidrim JJC, Moreira Filho RE, Cordeiro RA, et al. Fungal mi-crobiota dynamics as a postmortem investigation tool: Focus on Aspergillus, Penicillium and Candida species. J Appl Microbiol. 2010;108:1751-1756. google scholar
  49. Palmiere C, Vanhaebost J, Ventura F, Bonsignore A, Bonetti LR. Cerebrospinal fluid PCR analysis and biochemistry in bodies with severe decomposition. J Forensic Leg Med. 2015;30: 21-24. google scholar
  50. Busic I. Forensic Microbiology. Zagreb. MSc Thesis. 47 pp. Uni-versity of Zagreb, School of Medicine. Zagreb, 2022. google scholar
  51. Fernandez-Rodriguez A, Alberola J, Cohen MC. Analisis mi-crobiologico post mortem [Post-mortem microbiology analysis]. Enferm Infec Microbiol Clin. 2013;31:685-691. google scholar
  52. Tang RK, Liu Y, Liu YZ, et al. Evaluation of post-mortem heart blood culture in a Chinese population. Forensic Sci Int. 2013;231:229-233. google scholar
  53. Tuomisto S, Karhunen PJ, Vuento R, Aittoniemi J, Pessi T. Eval-uation of postmortem bacterial migration using culturing and real-time quantitative PCR. J Forensic Sci. 2013;58:910-916. google scholar
  54. Singh B, Crippen TL, Tomberlin JK. An introduction to metage-nomic data generation, analysis, visualization, and interpretation. pp 94-126. In: Carter DO, Tomberlin JK, Benbow ME, Metcalf JL. (Eds). Forensic Microbiology. XXVI + 391 pp. By John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017. google scholar
  55. Giampaoli S, De Vittori E, Frajese GV, et al. A semi-automated protocol for NGS metabarcoding and fungal analysis in forensic. Forensic Sci Int. 2020;306:110052. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.110052 google scholar
  56. Maehly A. Die forensischen Wissenschaften gestern, heute und morgen. Fresenius Z Anal Chem. 1984;318:97-102. google scholar
  57. Maujean G, Guinet T, Fanton L, Malicier D. The interest of postmortem bacteriology in putrefied bodies. J Forensic Sci. 2013;58:1069-1070. google scholar
  58. Schneider V. Der wert bakteriologischer untersuchungen im rah-men gerichtlicher sektionen. Z Rechtsmed. 1985;94:81-92. google scholar
  59. Dermengiu D, Curca GC, Ceausu M, Hostiuc S. Particularities regarding the etiology of sepsis in forensic services. J Forensic Sci. 2013;58:1183-1188. google scholar
  60. Iancu L, Carter DO, Junkins EN, Purcarea C. Using bacte-rial and necrophagous insect dynamics for post-mortem inter-val estimation during cold season: Novel case study in Romania. Forensic Sci Int. 2015;254:106-117. (Erratum In: Forensic Sci Int 2016;258:80). google scholar
  61. Palmiere C, Egger C, Prod’Hom G, Greub G. Bacterial translo-cation and sample contamination in postmortem microbiological analyses. J Forensic Sci. 2016;61:367-374. google scholar
  62. Sunagawa K, Sugitani M. Post-mortem detection of bac-teremia using pairs of blood culture samples. Leg Med (Tokyo). 2017;24:92-97. google scholar
  63. Palmiere C, Tettamanti C. Positive bacteriological analyses in individuals with diabetes mellitus: Preliminary results from a forensic study. Amer J Forensic Med Pathol. 2018;39:126-129. google scholar
  64. Diac I, Keresztesi AA, Cerghizan AM, Negrea M, Dogaroiu C. Postmortem bacteriology in forensic autopsies-A single center ret-rospective study in Romania. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12:2024. doi:10.3390/diagnostics12082024 google scholar
  65. Zheng Z, Zhang L, Zhao C, et al. A forensic study of cultivating postmortem heart blood in 131 autopsies suspected of infectious diseases. Rom J Leg Med. 2022;30:1-7. google scholar
  66. Mesli V, Neut C, Hedouin V. Postmortem bacterial translocation. pp 192-211. In: Carter DO, Tomberlin JK, Benbow ME, Metcalf JL. (Eds). Forensic Microbiology. XXVI + 391 pp. By John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2017. google scholar