Advertisement

Microbial Community Analysis of Human Decomposition on Soil

  • Rachel A. ParkinsonEmail author
  • Kerith-Rae Dias
  • Jacqui Horswell
  • Paul Greenwood
  • Natasha Banning
  • Mark Tibbett
  • Arpad A. Vass

Abstract

Human decomposition is a complex process, involving a multitude of microbial species. Currently, little is known about the microbial species and processes that occur as cadavers decompose, particularly in outdoor environments. With the development of molecular ecology tools that allow the study of complex microbial communities, the ‘black box’ of the microbiology associated with decomposition is being opened. A preliminary study was performed to evaluate the changes in the soil bacterial and fungal communities that occur in response to human cadaver decomposition, and to assess the potential for using such changes in either of these two microbial communities for forensic time-since-death estimation. Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) and phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analyses were performed on soil samples collected from beneath decomposing human cadavers at the University of Tennessee's Forensic Anthropology Centre. The soil fungal and bacterial communities showed significant changes in response to decomposition events, with some succession patterns emerging as decomposition progressed. Evidence of sequential changes occurring in the soil microbial community provides support for the idea that specific microbes could be used as time-since-death biomarkers, although major differences in the way replicate cadavers decomposed in this study suggested that both the bacterial and fungal communities may need to be considered to ensure such a method is forensically useful. Some difficulties were also encountered with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) step in the T-RFLP method being inhibited by soil or decomposition compounds, which suggest that while DNA-based ‘profiling’ methods may be useful for studying the effects of decomposition on soil, other more specific techniques are likely to be most useful in a forensic post-mortem interval context.

Keywords

Bacterial Community Internal Transcribe Spacer Fungal Community Soil Microbial Community Terminal Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Babapulle CJ and Jayasundera NP (1993). Cellular changes and time since death. Medicine, Science and the Law 33:213–222.Google Scholar
  2. Bocaz-Beneventi G, Tagliaro F, Bortolotti F, Manetto G and Havel J (2002). Capillary zone electrophoresis and artificial neural networks for estimation of the post-mortem interval (PMI). using electrolytes measurements in human vitreous humour. International Journal of Legal Medicine 116:5–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruns TD, White TJ and Taylor JW (1991). Fungal molecular systematics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 22:525–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter DO and Tibbett M (2003). Taphonomic mycota: fungi with forensic potential. Journal of Forensic Sciences 48:168–171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke KR (1993). Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drenovsky RE, Elliot GN, Graham KJ and Scow KM (2004). Comparison of phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA). and total soil fatty acid methyl esters (TSFAME). for characterizing soil microbial communities. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 36:1793–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards R, Chaney B and Bergman M (1987). Pest & Crop Newsletter 2:5–6.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher MM and Triplett EW (1999). Automated approach for ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis of microbial diversity and its application to freshwater bacterial communities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65:4630–4636.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Forbes SL, Stuart BH, Dadour IR and Dent BB (2004). A preliminary investigation of the stages of adipocere formation. Journal of Forensic Sciences 49:566–574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frostegard A, Baath E and Tunlid A (1993). Shifts in the structure of soil microbial communities in limed forests as revealed by phospholipid fatty acid analysis. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 25:723–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardes M and Bruns TD (1993). ITS primers with enhanced specificity of basidiomycetes: application to the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Molecular Ecology 2:113–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gill-King H (1997). Chemical and ultrastructural aspects of decomposition. In: Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains (Eds. WD Haglund and MH Sorg)., pp. 93–104. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  13. Haskell NH, Hall RD, Cervenka VJ and Clark MA (1997). On the body: Insects' life stage presence and their postmortem artifacts. In: Forensic Taphonomy: the Postmortem Fate of Human Remains (Eds. WD Haglund and MH Sorg)., pp. 415–441. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  14. Hauben L, Vauterin L, Swings J and Moore ERB (1997). Comparison of 16S ribosomal DNA sequences of all Xanthomonas species. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 47:328–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayashi H, Sakamoto M and Benno Y (2002). Phylogenetic analysis of the human gut microbiota using 16S rDNA clone libraries and strictly anaerobic culture-based methods. Microbiology and Immunology 46:535–548.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Heuer H, Krsek M, Baker P, Smalla K and Wellington EM (1997). Analysis of actinomycete communities by specific amplification of genes encoding 16S rRNA and gel-electrophoretic separation in denaturing gradients. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63:3233–3241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hitosugi M, Ishii K, Yaguchi T, Chigusa Y, Kurosu A, Kido M, Nagai T and Tokudome S (2006). Fungi can be a useful forensic tool. Legal Medicine 8:240–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hopkins DW, Wiltshire PEJ and Turner BD (2000). Microbial characteristics of soil from graves: an investigation at the interface of soil microbiology and forensic science. Applied Soil Ecology 14:283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horswell J, Cordiner SJ, Maas EW, Martin TM, Sutherland KB, Speir TW, Nogales B and Osborn AM (2002). Forensic comparison of soils by bacterial community DNA profiling. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47:350–353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Horton TR and Bruns TD (2001). The molecular revolution in ectomycorrhizal ecology: peeking into the blackbox. Molecular Ecology 10:1855–1871.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ishii K, Hitosugi M, Kido M, Yaguchi T, Nishimura K, Hosoya T and Tokudome S (2006). Analysis of fungi detected in human cadavers. Legal Medicine 8:188–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janaway RC (1996). The decay of buried human remains and their associated materials. In: Studies in Crime: An Introduction to Forensic Archaeology (Eds. J Hunter, C Roberts and A Martin)., pp. 58–85. Batesford, London.Google Scholar
  23. Leckie SE (2005). Methods of microbial community profiling and their application to forest soils. Forest Ecology and Management 220:88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu WT, Marsh TL, Cheng H and Forney LJ (1997). Characterization of microbial diversity by determining terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms of genes encoding 16S rRNA. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63:4516–4522.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Marchesi JR, Sato T, Weightman AJ, Martin TA, Fry JC, Hiom SJ, Dymock D and Wade WG (1998). Design and evaluation of useful bacterium-specific PCR primers that amplify genes coding for bacterial 16S rRNA. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64:795–799.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Osborn AM, Moore ER and Timmis KN (2000). An evaluation of terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP). analysis for the study of microbial community structure and dynamics. Environmental Microbiology 2:39–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reed HB (1958). A study of dog carcass communities in Tennessee with special references to the insects. American Midland Naturalist 59:213–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sagara N (1975). Ammonia fungi: a chemoecological grouping of terrestrial fungi. Contributions of the Biological Laboratory of Kyoto University 24:205–290.Google Scholar
  29. Sagara N (1995). Association of ectomycorrhizal fungi with decomposed animal wastes in forest habitats: a cleaning symbiosis. Canadian Journal of Botany 73:S1423–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sakamoto M, Hayashi H and Benno Y (2003). Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis for human fecal microbiota and its application for analysis of complex bifidobacterial communities. Microbiology and Immunology 47:133–142.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Swift B, Lauder I, Black S and Norris J (2001). An estimation of the post-mortem interval in human skeletal remains: a radionuclide and trace element approach. Forensic Science International 117:73–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vass AA (2001). Beyond the grave — understanding human decomposition. Microbiology Today 28:190–192.Google Scholar
  33. Vass AA, Bass WM, Wolt JD, Foss JE and Ammons JT (1992). Time since death determinations of human cadavers using soil solution. Journal of Forensic Sciences 37:1236–1253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Vass AA, Barshick SA, Sega G, Caton J, Skeen JT, Love JC and Synstelien JA (2002). Decomposition chemistry of human remains: a new methodology for determining the postmortem interval. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47:542–553.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Vass AA, Smith RR, Thompson CV, Burnett MN, Wolf DA, Synstelien JA, Dulgerian N and Eckenrode BA (2004). Decompositional odor analysis database. Journal of Forensic Sciences 49:760–769.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. White DC (1979). Lipid analysis of sediments for microbial biomass and community structure. In: Methodology for Biomass Determinations and Microbial Activities in Sediments (Eds. CD Litchfield and PL Seyfreid)., pp. 87–103. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  37. White TM, Bruns T, Lee S and Taylor J (1990). Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA for phylogenetics. In: PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications (Eds. MA Innis, DH Gelfand, JJ Sninsky and TJ White)., pp. 315–321. Academic, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  38. Wilson AS, Janaway RC, Holland AD, Dodson HI, Baran E, Pollard AM and Tobin DJ (2007). Modelling the buried human environment in upland climes using three contrasting field sites. Forensic Science International 169:6–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zelles L (1997). Phospholipid fatty acid profiles in selected members of soil microbial communities. Chemosphere 35:275–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zelles L, Bai Q Y, Beck T and Beese F (1992). Signature fatty acids in phospholipids and lipopolysaccharides as indicators of microbial biomass and community structure in agricultural soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 24:317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhou J, Xia B, Huang H, Palumbo AV and Tiedje J (2004). Microbial diversity and heterogeneity in sandy subsurface soils. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 70:1723–1734.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel A. Parkinson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kerith-Rae Dias
    • 2
  • Jacqui Horswell
    • 1
  • Paul Greenwood
    • 3
  • Natasha Banning
    • 3
  • Mark Tibbett
    • 3
  • Arpad A. Vass
    • 4
  1. 1.The Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited (ESR), Kenepuru Science CentrePoriruaNew Zealand
  2. 2.The Centre for Forensic Science, University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  3. 3.The Centre for Land Rehabilitation, University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  4. 4.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations