Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Microbial forensics: the next forensic challenge

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pathogens and toxins can be converted to bioweapons and used to commit bioterrorism and biocrime. Because of the potential and relative ease of an attack using a bioweapon, forensic science needs to be prepared to assist in the investigation to bring perpetrators to justice and to deter future attacks. A new subfield of forensics—microbial forensics—has been created, which is focused on characterization of evidence from a bioterrorism act, biocrime, hoax, or an inadvertent release. Forensic microbiological investigations are essentially the same as any other forensic investigation regarding processing. They involve crime scene(s) investigation, chain of custody practices, evidence collection, handling and preservation, evidence shipping, analysis of evidence, interpretation of results, and court presentation. In addition to collecting and analyzing traditional forensic evidence, the forensic investigation will attempt to determine the etiology and identity of the causal agent, often in a similar fashion as in an epidemiologic investigation. However, for attribution, higher-resolution characterization is needed. The tools for attribution include genetic- and nongenetic-based assays and informatics to attempt to determine the unique source of a sample or at least eliminate some sources. In addition, chemical and physical assays may help determine the process used to prepare, store, or disseminate the bioweapon. An effective microbial forensics program will require development and/or validation of all aspects of the forensic investigative process, from sample collection to interpretation of results. Quality assurance (QA) and QC practices, comparable to those used by the forensic DNA science community, are being implemented. Lastly, partnerships with other laboratories will be requisite, because many of the necessary capabilities for analysis will not reside in the traditional forensic laboratory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Carus SW (2000) Bioterrorism and biocrimes: the illicit use of biological agents since 1900. Fredonia Books, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pearson GS (1998) The threat of deliberate disease in the 21st century. Henry L Stimson Center Report, no. 24. Stimson Center, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  3. Christopher GW, Cieslak TJ, Pavlin JA, Eitzen EM (1997) Biological warfare: a historical perspective. JAMA 278:412–417

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Derbes VJ (1966) De Mussis and the great plague of 1348: a forgotten episode of bacteriological war. JAMA 196:59–62

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eitzen E, Pavlin J, Cieslak T, Christopher G, Culpepper R (eds) (1998) Medical management of biological casualties handbook, 3rd edn. U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD

  6. Robertson AG, Robertson LJ (1995) From asps to allegations: biological warfare in history. Mil Med 160:369–373

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ciesielski C, Marianos D, Ou CY, Dumbaugh R, Witte J, Berkelman R, Gooch B, Myers G, Luo CC, Schochetman G et al (1992) Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in a dental practice. Ann Intern Med 116:798–805

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gonzalez-Candelas F, Bracho MA, Moya A (2003) Molecular epidemiology and forensic genetics: application to a hepatitis C virus transmission event at a hemodialysis unit. J Infect Dis 187(3):352–358

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kolavic SA, Kimura A, Simons SL, Slutsker L, Barth S, Haley CE (1997) An outbreak of Shigella dysenteriae type 2 among laboratory workers due to intentional food contamination. JAMA 278:396–398

    Google Scholar 

  10. Metzker ML, Mindell DP, Liu X, Ptak RG, Gibbs RA, Hillis DM (2002) Molecular evidence of HIV-1 transmission in a criminal case. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:14292–14297

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ou CY, Kwok S, Mitchell SW, Mack DH, Sninsky JJ, Krebs JW, Feorino P, Warfield D, Schochetman G (1988) DNA amplification for direct detection of HIV-1 in DNA of peripheral mononuclear cells. Science 239:295–297

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ou CY, Ciesielski C, Myers G, Bandea CI, Luo CC, Korber BT, Mullins JI, Schochetman G, Berkelman RL, Economou AN et al (1992) Molecular epidemiology of HIV transmission in a dental practice. Science 256:1165–1171

    Google Scholar 

  13. Robbins KE, Weidle PJ, Brown TM, Saekhou AM, Coles B, Holmberg SD, Folks TM, Kalish ML (2002) Molecular analysis in support of an investigation of a cluster of HIV-1-infected women. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 18:1157–1161

    Google Scholar 

  14. Torok TJ, Tauxe RV, Wise RP, Livengood JR, Sokolow R, Mauvais S, Birkness KA, Skeels MR, Horan JM, Foster LR (1997) A large community outbreak of salmonellosis caused by intentional contamination of restaurant salad bars. JAMA 278:389–395

    Google Scholar 

  15. Budowle B, Burans J, Breeze RG, Wilson MR, Chakraborty R (2005) Microbial forensics. In: Breeze R, Budowle B, Schutzer S (eds) Microbial forensics. Academic Press (in press)

  16. Budowle B (2003) Defining a new forensic discipline: microbial forensics. Profiles in DNA 6(1):7–10

    Google Scholar 

  17. Murch RS (2001) Forensic perspective on bioterrorism and the proliferation of biological weapons. In: Firepower in the lab. Joseph Henry Press

  18. Murch RS (2003) Microbial forensics: building a national capacity to investigate bioterrorism. Bioterr Biosec 1(2):117–122

    Google Scholar 

  19. Butler JC, Cohen ML, Friedman CR, Scripp RM, Watz CG (2002) Collaboration between public health and law enforcement: new paradigms and partnerships for bioterrorism planning and response. Emerg Infect Dis 8:1152–1156

    Google Scholar 

  20. Morse SA, Khan AS (2005) Epidemiologic investigation for public health, biodefense, and forensic microbiology. In: Breeze RG, Budowle B, Schutzer SE (eds) Microbial forensics. Academic Press (in press)

  21. Treadwell TE, Koo D, Kuker K, Kahn AS (2003) Epidemiologic clues to bioterrorism. Public Health Rep 118:92–98

    Google Scholar 

  22. Budowle B, Schutzer SE, Einseln A, Kelley LC, Walsh AC, Smith JAL, Marrone BL, Robertson J, Campos J (2003) Building microbial forensics as a response to bioterrorism. Science 301:1852–1853

    Google Scholar 

  23. Breeze RG, Budowle B, Schutzer SE (eds) (2005) Microbial forensics. Academic Press (in press)

  24. Collins PJ, Hennessy LK, Leibelt CS, Roby RK, Reeder DJ, Foxall PA (2004) Developmental validation of a single-tube amplification of the 13 CODIS loci, D2S1338, D19S433, and amelogenin: the AmpFlSTR® Indentifiler® PCR amplification kit. J Forensic Sci 49(6):1265–1277

    Google Scholar 

  25. Krenke BE, Tereba A, Anderson SJ, Buel E, Culhane S, Finis CJ, Tomsey CS, Zachetti JM, Masibay A, Rabbach DR, Amiott EA, Sprecher CJ (2002) Validation of a 16-locus fluorescent multiplex system. J Forensic Sci 47(4):773–785

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Taylor LH, Latham SM, Woolhouse ME (2001) Risk factors for human disease emergence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Biol Soc 356:983–989

    Google Scholar 

  27. Greenwood DP (1997) A relative assessment of putative biological-warfare agents. Report no.: ESC-TR-97–054. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lexington, MA, p 17

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kortepeter MG, Parker GW (1999) Potential biological weapons threats. Emerg Infect Dis 5(4):523–527

    Google Scholar 

  29. Budowle B, Schutzer SE, Ascher MS, Atlas RM, Burans JP, Chakraborty R, Dunn JJ, Fraser CM, Franz DR, Leighton TJ, Morse SA, Murch RS, Ravel J, Rock DL, Slezak TR, Velsko SP, Walsh AC, Walters RA (2005) Toward a system of microbial forensics: from sample collection to interpretation of evidence. Appl Exp Microbiol (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  30. National Research Council (2002) Making the nation safer. The role of science and technology in countering terrorism. The National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  31. National Research Council (2002) Countering agricultural bioterrorism. The National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  32. Richard JL, Payne GA, Desjardins AE, Maragos C, Norred WP, Pestka JJ, Phillips TD, van Egmond HP, Vardon PJ, Whitaker TB, Wood G (2002) Mycotoxins. Risks in plant, animal, and human systems. Task Force Rep, no. 139. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA

  33. Rogers P, Whitby S, Dando M (1999) Biological warfare against crops. Sci Am 280:70–75

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wilson TM, Logan-Henfrey L, Weller R, Kellman B (2000) Agoterrorism, biological crimes, and biological warfare targeting animal agriculture. In: Brown C, Bolin C (eds) Emerging diseases of animals. ASM Press, Washington, DC, pp 23–57

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lipton KL, Edmundson W, Manchester A (1998) The food and fiber system: contributing to the U.S. and world economies. Agric Inf Bull 742

    Google Scholar 

  36. CDC (2004) Diagnosis and management of foodborne illnesses: a primer for physicians and other health care professionals. MMWR Recomm Rep 53:1–33

    Google Scholar 

  37. Cello J, Paul AV, Wimmer E (2002) Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science 297:1016–1018

    Google Scholar 

  38. Allos BM, Moore MR, Griffin PM, Tauxe RV (2004) Surveillance for sporadic foodborne disease in the 21st century: the FoodNet perspective. Clin Infect Dis Suppl 38:115–120

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bean NH, Martin SM, Bradford H Jr (1992) PHLIS: an electronic system for reporting public health data from remote sites. Am J Public Health 82(9):1273–1276

    Google Scholar 

  40. Buehler JW, Hopkins RS, Overhage JM, Sosin DM, Tong V (2004) Framework for evaluating public health surveillance systems for early detection of outbreaks. MMWR 53(RR05):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  41. Koo D, Wetterhall SF (1996) History and current status of the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. J Public Health Manag Pract 2:4–10

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LF, Bresee JS, Shapiro C, Griffin PM, Tauxe RV (1999) Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis 5(5):607–625

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Swaminathan B, Barrett TJ, Hunter SB, Tauxe RV (2001) PulseNet: the molecular subtyping network for foodborne bacterial disease surveillance, United States. Emerg Infect Dis 7:382–389

    Google Scholar 

  44. Yang S (1998) FoodNet and Enter-net: emerging surveillance programs for foodborne diseases. Emerg Infect Dis 4:457–458

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cummings CA, Relman DA (2002) Microbial forensics: cross-examining pathogens. Science 296:1976–1978

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rose L, Jensen B, Peterson A, Banerjee SN, Arduino MJ (2004) Swab materials and Bacillus anthracis spore recovery from nonsporous surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis 10(6):1023–1029

    Google Scholar 

  47. Miller JM, Holmes HT ( 2003) Specimen collection, transport and storage. In: Murray PR, Baron EJ, Pfaller MA, Tenover FC, Yolken RH (eds) Manual of clinical microbiology, 7th edn. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, pp 33–63

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Jung J, Borer UV, Comey CT, Dirnhofer R (1991) PCR-based typing of DNA extracted from cigarette butts. Int J Leg Med 104:229–233

    Google Scholar 

  49. Walsh PS, Metzger DA, Higuchi R (1991) Chelex 100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. Biotechniques 10(4):506–513

    Google Scholar 

  50. Keim P, Price LB, Klevytska AM, Smith KL, Schupp JM, Okinaka R, Jackson PJ, Hugh-Jones ME (2000) Multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis reveals genetic relationships within Bacillus anthracis. J Bacteriol 182:2928–2936

    Google Scholar 

  51. Keim P, Van Ert MN, Pearson T, Vogler AJ, Huynh LY, Wagner DM (2004) Anthrax molecular epidemiology and forensics: using the appropriate marker for different evolutionary scales. Infect Genet Evol 4(3):205–213

    Google Scholar 

  52. Pearson T, Busch JD, Ravel J, Read TD, Rhoton SD, U’Ren JM, Simonson TS, Kachur SM, Leadem RR, Cardon ML, Van Ert MN, Huynh LY, Fraser CM, Keim P (2004) Phylogenetic discovery bias in Bacillus anthracis using single-nucleotide polymorphisms from whole-genome sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101(37):13536–13541

    Google Scholar 

  53. Keim P, Smith KL, Keys C, Takahashi H, Kurata T, Kaufmann A (2001) Molecular investigation of the Aum Shinrikyo anthrax release in Kameido, Japan. J Clin Microbiol 39:4566–4567

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jackson PJ, Hugh-Jones ME, Adair DM, Green G, Hill KK, Kuske CR, Grinberg LM, Abramova FA, Keim P (1998) PCR analysis of tissue samples from the 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax victims: the presence of multiple Bacillus anthracis strains in different victims. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:1224–1229

    Google Scholar 

  55. Budowle B (2004) Genetics and attribution issues that confront the microbial forensics field. Forens Sci Int 146(Suppl):5185–5188

    Google Scholar 

  56. Budowle B, Chakraborty R (2004) Genetic considerations for interpreting molecular microbial forensic evidence. In: Doutremepuich C, Morling N (eds), Progress in forensic genetics, vol. 10. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 56–58

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kotewicz ML, Brown EW, LeClerc JE, Cebula TA (2003) Genomic variability among enteric pathogens: the case of the mutS–rpoS intergenic region. Trends Microbiol 11:2–6

    Google Scholar 

  58. LeClerc JE, Li B, Payne WL, Cebula TA (1996) High mutation frequencies among Escherichia coli and Salmonella pathogens. Science 274:1208–1211

    Google Scholar 

  59. Schofield MJ, Hsieh P (2003) DNA mismatch repair: molecular mechanisms and biological function. Annu Rev Microbiol 57:579–608

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sniegowski PD, Gerrish PJ, Lenski RE (1997) Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli. Nature 387:703–705

    Google Scholar 

  61. Schleifer KH (2004) Microbial diversity: facts, problems, prospects. Syst Appl Microbiol 27:3–9

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hill KK, Ticknor LO, Okinaka RT, Asay M, Blair H, Bliss KA, Laker M, Pardington PE, Richardson AP, Tonks M, Beecher DJ, Kemp JD, Kolsto AB, Wong AC, Keim P, Jackson PJ (2004) Fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis of Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus cereus, and Bacillus thuringiensis isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol 70(2):1068–1080

    Google Scholar 

  63. Radnedge L, Agron PG, Hill KK, Jackson PJ, Ticknor LO, Keim P, Andersen GL (2003) Genome differences that distinguish Bacillus anthracis from Bacillus cereus and Bacillus thuringiensis. Appl Environ Microbiol 69(5):2755–2764

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Jain R, Rivera MC, Moore JE, Lake JA (2002) Horizontal gene transfer in microbial genome evolution. Theor Popul Biol 61(4):489–495

    Google Scholar 

  65. Jain R, Rivera MC, Lake JA (1999) Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: the complexity hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96(7):3801–3806

    Google Scholar 

  66. Pennisi E (2004) Researchers trade insights about gene swapping. Science 305:334–335

    Google Scholar 

  67. Read TD, Salzberg SL, Pop M, Shumway M, Umayam L, Jiang L, Holtzapple E, Busch JD, Smith KL, Schupp JM, Solomon D, Keim P, Fraser CM (2002) Comparative genome sequencing for discovery of novel polymorphisms in Bacillus anthracis. Science 296(5575):2028–2033

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kingman JFC (1982) The coalescent. Stoch Process Their Appl 13:235–248

    Google Scholar 

  69. Eckart JD, Sobral BW (2003) A life scientist’s gateway to distributed data management and computing: the PathPort/ToolBus framework. OMICS 7(1):79–88

    Google Scholar 

  70. Schaldach CM, Bench G, DeYoreo J, Esposito T, Ferreira J, Gard E, Grant P, Horn J, Huser T, Kashgarian M, Knezovich J, Lane S, Pitesky M, Talley C, Woods B, Wu KJ, Velsko SP (2005) State of the art in characterizing threats: non-DNA methods for biological signatures. In: Breeze RG, Budowle B, Schutzer SE (eds) Microbial forensics. Academic Press (in press)

  71. Keim P (2003) Microbial forensics: a scientific assessment. American Academy of Microbiology, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  72. Budowle B, SWGMGF Members (2003) Quality assurance guidelines for laboratories performing microbial forensic work. Forensic Sci Commun 5(4):http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/current/2003_10_guide01.htm

Download references

Acknowledgements

We especially would like to thank Paul Keim, Northern Arizona University, for kindly providing the figures for this paper. This is publication number 05-03 of the Laboratory Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Names of commercial manufacturers are provided for identification only and inclusion does not imply endorsement by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory Division, FBI, Quantico, VA, 22135, USA

    Bruce Budowle

  2. Office of the Vice President for Research, Virginia Tech, Alexandria, VA, 22314, USA

    Randall Murch

  3. Center for Genome Information, Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA

    Ranajit Chakraborty

Authors
  1. Bruce Budowle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Randall Murch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ranajit Chakraborty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Budowle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Budowle, B., Murch, R. & Chakraborty, R. Microbial forensics: the next forensic challenge. Int J Legal Med 119, 317–330 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-005-0535-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-005-0535-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation