Animal Species and Identity Testing: Developments, Challenges, and Applications to Non-Human Forensics

Le résumé fourni par la source

Biological samples of non-human origin, commonly encountered in wildlife crime investigations, present distinct challenges regarding forensic DNA analysis efforts. Although the types of samples encountered in human identity testing can vary to some degree, analyzing DNA from one species is facilitated by unified processes, common genetic marker systems, and national DNA databases. In contrast, non-human animal species identification is confounded by a diverse range of target species and a variety of sampling materials, such as feathers, processed animal parts in traditional medicine, and taxidermy specimens, which often contain degraded DNA in low quantities, are contaminated with chemical inhibitors, and may be comingled with other species. These complexities require specialized analytical approaches. Compounding these issues is a lack of validated non-human species forensic sampling and typing kits, and the risk of human DNA contamination during evidence collection. Markers residing on the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) are routinely sought because of the large datasets available for comparison and their greater sensitivity of detection. However, the barcoding results can be complicated at times for achieving species-level resolution, the presence of nuclear inserts of mitochondrial DNA (NUMTs), and the limitation of mtDNA analysis alone to detect hybrids. Species-specific genetic markers for identification have been developed for a few high-profile species; however, many CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora)-listed organisms lack specific, validated forensic analytical tools, creating a significant gap in investigative enforcement capabilities. This deficiency stems in part from the low commercial nature of wildlife forensics efforts, a government research-driven field, the difficulty of obtaining sufficient reference samples from wild populations, limited training and education infrastructure, and inadequate funding support.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.