479,99 zł
Forensic Microbiology focuses on newly emerging areas of microbiology relevant to medicolegal and criminal investigations: postmortem changes, establishing cause of death, estimating postmortem interval, and trace evidence analysis. Recent developments in sequencing technology allow researchers, and potentially practitioners, to examine microbial communities at unprecedented resolution and in multidisciplinary contexts. This detailed study of microbes facilitates the development of new forensic tools that use the structure and function of microbial communities as physical evidence. Chapters cover: * Experiment design * Data analysis * Sample preservation * The influence of microbes on results from autopsy, toxicology, and histology * Decomposition ecology * Trace evidence This diverse, rapidly evolving field of study has the potential to provide high quality microbial evidence which can be replicated across laboratories, providing spatial and temporal evidence which could be crucial in a broad range of investigative contexts. This book is intended as a resource for students, microbiologists, investigators, pathologists, and other forensic science professionals.
Ebooka przeczytasz w aplikacjach Legimi na:
Liczba stron: 875
Cover
Title Page
About the editors
List of contributors
Foreword
Preface
References
CHAPTER 1: A primer on microbiology
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Microbial characteristics
1.3 Microorganisms and their habitats
1.4 Competition for resources
1.5 The ecology of some forensically relevant bacteria
1.6 Archaea and microbial eukaryotes
1.7 Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
CHAPTER 2: History, current, and future use of microorganisms as physical evidence
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Methods for identification
2.3 Estimating PMI
2.4 Cause of death
2.5 Trace evidence
2.6 Other medicolegal aspects
2.7 Needs that must be met for use in chain of custody
2.8 Summary
Acknowledgments
References
CHAPTER 3: Approaches and considerations for forensic microbiology decomposition research
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Challenges of human remains research
3.3 Human remains research during death investigations
3.4 Human surrogates in research
3.5 Considerations for field studies
3.6 Descriptive and hypothesis‐driven research
3.7 Experiment design
3.8 Validation studies
Acknowledgments
References
CHAPTER 4: Sampling methods and data generation
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Materials
4.3 Sample collection techniques
4.4 Sample preservation, storage, and handling techniques
4.5 Data considerations
4.6 Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
CHAPTER 5: An introduction to metagenomic data generation, analysis, visualization, and interpretation
5.1 Introduction
5.2 DNA extraction
5.3 DNA sequencing
5.4 Marker gene data analysis, visualization, and interpretation
5.5 Multi‐omics data analysis, visualization, and interpretation
5.6 Statistical analysis
5.7 Major challenges and future directions
References
CHAPTER 6: Culture and long‐term storage of microorganisms for forensic science
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The value of culturing microorganisms
6.3 Collection and handling of samples
6.4 Protocols
6.5 Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
CHAPTER 7: Clinical microbiology and virology in the context of the autopsy
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The historical view of autopsy microbiology
7.3 Which samples should you collect and how?
7.4 Which methods are available for the diagnosis of infection?
7.5 How do you put the results into context?
7.6 What are the risks of transmission of infection in the postmortem room?
7.7 How does autopsy microbiology contribute to the diagnosis of specific conditions?
7.8 Conclusion
References
CHAPTER 8: Postmortem bacterial translocation
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Bacterial translocation in health and disease
8.3 Bacterial translocation in humans
8.4 Physiological changes after death influencing the selection of commensal bacteria
8.5 Consequences of bacterial translocation
8.6 Conclusion
References
CHAPTER 9: Microbial impacts in postmortem toxicology
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Microbial factors complicating postmortem toxicological analyses
9.3 Precautions taken to limit microbial impacts
9.4 Experimental protocols used to investigate postmortem drug and metabolite degradation due to microbial activity
9.5 Examples of microbially mediated drug degradation
9.6 Concluding remarks
References
CHAPTER 10: Microbial communities associated with decomposing corpses
10.1 Introduction
10.2 The soil microbiology of decomposition
10.3 Freshwater and marine decomposition
10.4 The microbiology of nonhuman models of terrestrial decomposition
10.5 The microbiology of terrestrial human decomposition
10.6 Is there a universal decomposition signature?
10.7 Using microbial signatures to estimate PMI
10.8 Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
CHAPTER 11: Arthropod–microbe interactions on vertebrate remains:
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Framework for understanding microbe–arthropod interactions on vertebrate remains
11.3 Postcolonization interval
11.4 Future directions and conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
CHAPTER 12: Microbes, anthropology, and bones
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Bone microstructure
12.3 Microbially mediated decomposition
12.4 Bone bioerosion
12.5 Reconstructing postmortem histories
12.6 Conclusions
References
CHAPTER 13: Forensic microbiology in built environments
13.1 Introduction
13.2 The human skin microbiome
13.3 The microbiota of the built environment
13.4 Tools for the forensic classification of the built environment microbiome
13.5 Forensic microbiology of the built environment
13.6 Conclusion
References
CHAPTER 14: Soil bacteria as trace evidence
14.1 The forensic analysis of soil
14.2 Assessing the biological components of soil
14.3 Bacteria in soil
14.4 Molecular techniques for the forensic analysis of soil
14.5 Soil microbial profile data analysis methods
14.6 Feasibility of next‐generation sequencing for forensic soil analysis
14.7 Consensus on methodologies for soil collection and analysis
Acknowledgments
References
CHAPTER 15: DNA profiling of bacteria from human hair
15.1 An introduction to human hair as a forensic substrate
15.2 Current research into hair microbiomes
15.3 Importance of hair sample collection, storage, and isolation of microbial DNA
15.4 DNA sequencing of hair microbiomes
15.5 Conclusions and future directions
Acknowledgments
References
Index
End User License Agreement
Chapter 01
Table 1.1 Phyla of domain Bacteria included in the list of prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature, http://www.bacterio.net
Table 1.2 Glossary of terms commonly used to describe the habitat preferences and metabolic strategies of microorganisms
Table 1.3 General classification of enzymes commonly associated with microorganisms
Table 1.4 General characteristics of two genera recognized as coryneform bacteria
Table 1.5 Some general characteristics of the classes that comprise phylum Proteobacteria classes
Table 1.6 Grouping of enteric bacteria by metabolic product
Chapter 02
Table 2.1 Sequencing methods and applications
Table 2.2 Advantages and limitations of culture‐based versus molecular‐based microbiological methods
Table 2.3 Examples of human and zoonotic bacterial, parasitic, and viral pathogens transmitted through environmental contamination
Chapter 03
Table 3.1 Animal surrogates from publications that have been used in global research for making inferences of human remains decomposition
Chapter 04
Table 4.1 Metadata information for submission of resulting sequencing data for each sample as determined by the MIMARKS‐compliant metadata template
Table 4.2 Metadata information for submission of resulting sequencing data for each sample as determined by the MIMARKS‐compliant metadata template
Chapter 05
Table 5.1 Commonly used DNA extraction methods for microbiome studies
Table 5.2 Comparison of next‐generation sequencing platforms
Table 5.3 List of commonly used software for multi‐omics data analyses
Chapter 06
Table 6.1 Subset of postmortem bacteria isolated from the skin of a decomposing swine (
Sus scrofa domesticus
) carcass on Oahu, Hawaii (E. Junkins, Chaminade University of Honolulu, unpublished data), where + indicates the presence of a taxon
Table 6.2 Subset of Illumina 16S taxa significantly correlated with oxidation–reduction potential isolated from the larval mass on decomposing swine (
Sus scrofa domesticus
) (Junkins, unpublished data)
Table 6.3 Overview of agar and broth media that are commonly used to culture microorganisms
Table 6.4 A non‐inclusive list of media designed for the growth of anaerobes
Chapter 07
Table 7.1 Standard procedure to ensure optimal quality in microbiological sampling at autopsy
Table 7.2 Techniques routinely available for microbiological analysis of autopsy specimens
Table 7.3 Guide to interpretation of culture results from different anatomical sites
Table 7.4 Characteristics of procalcitonin and C‐reactive protein as biochemical markers of sepsis
Table 7.5 Identification of the risk factors for transmission of infection when undertaking a risk assessment
Table 7.6 Clinical and statutory guidelines on biosafety in the work environment
Table 7.7 Agents with bioterrorism potential as categorized by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006)
Table 7.8 Diagnostic samples and microbiology tests for category A bioterrorism agents
Chapter 08
Table 8.1 Bacteria isolated from blood samples on different remains, in relation to the postmortem interval (Mesli, 2013)
Chapter 09
Table 9.1 Some functionalities found susceptible to microbial metabolism
Chapter 10
Table 10.1 Presence of several bacterial taxa in three decomposition models: mouse, swine, and human
preface
Figure P.1 Forensic microbiology and microbial ecology is a broad field that contributes to investigations ranging from pathology and bioterrorism to the quality of food and the environment. This text will focus on newly emerging areas of forensic microbiology related to postmortem microbiology and trace evidence (indicated in gray). The text will also serve to direct readers to established texts on other aspects of forensic microbiology, particularly bioterrorism and food microbiology
Chapter 01
Figure 1.1 Scanning electron micrograph showing some of the contrasting morphologies observed in microbial cells including the widely observed coccus (a:
Staphylococcus cohnii
) and rod (b:
Bacillus subtilis
) shapes, which can vary and occur in association with other morphologies (c). Microbial cells can be observed as several other shapes including spiral (spirilla), curved rods (vibrio), and club shaped (coryneform), the latter of which is observed in
Sporosarcina contaminans
(d)
Figure 1.2 The growth rate of microorganisms is regulated, in part, by the availability of resources. Zymogenous () microbes are able to use resources and multiply rapidly so they can dominate a habitat in which resources are abundant. In contrast, autochthonous () microbes tend to represent the basal, resting community that uses resources and multiplies slowly and forms the foundation of a microbial community
Figure 1.3 Scanning electron micrograph of endospore‐forming Firmicutes
Bacillus subtilis
(a) and
Sporosarcina contaminans
(b) collected from the skin of a decomposing swine carcass on Oahu, Hawaii
Figure 1.4 Scanning electron micrographs of enteric Proteobacteria
Ignatzschineria indica
collected from the skin of a decomposing swine carcass on Oahu, Hawaii presented as a colony (a) and as a single cell on a filter (b)
Chapter 02
Figure 2.1 Examples of bacteria isolated on agar (a) and broth (b) growth media
Figure 2.2 Mouse model displaying stages of decomposition. Fresh stage immediately after sacrifice (a), 3–4 hours after death showing signs of discolorization and livor mortis (b), and 5–7 hours after death showing rigor mortis (c). The remaining stages include bloat (d), active decay, shown here with purging of body fluids (e), and drying of tissues later in the stage (f), and natural mummification (g) or skeletonization (not shown). Mouse mass and length varied between 16–22 g and 7.5–8.5 cm, respectively
Figure 2.3 Enactment of collecting microbial trace evidence from a cadaver with a sterile cotton swab
Figure 2.4 Enactment of proper aseptic conditions to ensure samples avoid contamination and meet the proper chain of custody needs
Chapter 03
Figure 3.1 Pechal
et al.
(2013) conducted a manipulation experiment where necrophagous arthropods were either allowed to (a) naturally interact with and colonize the carcasses or (b) were excluded from accessing and interacting with the carcasses for 5 days of decomposition using mesh netting that was sealed at the bottom edges with plastic and soil. The exclusion treatments were 99% effective at preventing any arthropods from accessing the treatment (excluded) carcasses. Inadvertent arthropod access into the exclusion treatments was monitored by small glue traps (i.e., white rectangle attached to the wire case in panel (b) placed inside the mesh cages. The small cages made of chicken wire in both (a) and (b) were antivertebrate scavenging cages to prevent access of vertebrates to the carcasses. Both worked at 100% efficiency in preventing vertebrate scavenging
Figure 3.2 Examples of common types of pseudoreplication: (a) simple, (b) sacrificial, and (c) temporal. The larger rectangles represent the experimental unit with the circles denoted as one set of rodent remains that is sampled. In the case of temporal pseudoreplication, the same set of remains is sampled repeatedly over time and each sampling event is incorrectly considered a replicate sample from that carcass
Chapter 04
Figure 4.1 Examples of sampling methodologies for collecting microbial communities from various substrates. (a) Inverted cone trap for collecting insects. A bait resource, in this instance the white arrow pointing to a “stink jar” consisting of decomposed liver and water, is placed at the bottom opening as an attractant for necrophagous insects. (b) An antiscavenging cage placed over a swine carcass the field is an excellent place to attached passive trapping methods, such as glue traps (see (c) for an up close view), for collecting flying invertebrates attracted to carrion. (d) Swabs can be effectively used to collect the epinecrotic microbial communities from cadavers. (e) In aquatic habitats, stable structures placed in an aqueous habitat, such as these unglazed ceramic tiles attached to a brick, create a standardized area for biofilm formation and can be left for weeks to months or up to a year depending on the scope of the study
Chapter 05
Figure 5.1 Flow diagram of a typical multi‐omics workflow
Figure 5.2 Schematic showing barcoded fusion primer design for (a) Ion Torrent PGM/454 and (b) MiSeq
®
sequencing platforms
Chapter 06
Figure 6.1 Generalized methodology for the collection and analysis of microbial samples.
Figure 6.2 Sampling the larval mass in the oral cavity of a decomposing swine (
Sus scrofa domesticus
) carcass (a) and the streaking for growth in a Petri dish containing standard nutrient agar (b) resulting in the growth of several colonies with contrasting morphology (c) at room temperature following incubation in a laminar flow cabinet (d)
Figure 6.3 Aseptic technique of flaming the collection loop (a) to obtain bacterial cells of
Ignatzschineria indica
for broth culture (b). Cells are scraped on the inside of the culture tube (c) to be washed down into broth medium and placed on incubation shaker (d) until turbid. Turbidity can occur within 24 hours at room temperature
Figure 6.4 Turbidity of broth medium in a culture tube (a) indicates growth and readiness for cryostorage in a 2 mL microfuge tube containing 1.5 mL of broth (b) and 0.5 mL of glycerol (c) mixed thoroughly via vortex (d) and placed in cryobox for storage at −80°C
Figure 6.5 Portable anaerobic jars are great options for incubation under anoxic and microaerophilic conditions or for short‐term transportation of anaerobes. Pictured are two versions of the BD GasPak™ (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) incubating at room temperature (a) and in a 37°C incubator (b). The anaerobic jar in (a) contains a sachet of activated charcoal to remove oxygen and five Petri dishes (9 cm diameter, 1.5 cm height)
Figure 6.6 Anaerobic chambers come in a range of specifications including rigid (a) and soft‐sided (b). These chambers can be enhanced with the inclusion of instrumentation. For example, the large Coy Laboratory Products vinyl chamber (b) contains a plate reader and liquid handling robot to facilitate high‐throughput culturing and interrogation of cultures. The pass box is located on the left of the both chambers, which allows for the movement of samples between aerobic and anaerobic conditions
Chapter 08
Figure 8.1 Bacterial species and quantification depending on the location on the gastrointestinal tract
Figure 8.2 Mechanisms and factors involved in bacterial translocation.
Figure 8.3 Running paths of bacteria through enterocytes.
Figure 8.4 Bacterial proliferation of
Escherichia coli
in relation to temperature.
Square root model (full line), Ratkowsky model (slight dotted line), and exponential sum model (heavy dotted line) obtained from nonlinear regression analysis
.
Figure 8.5 Bacterial proliferation of
Clostridium perfringens
in relation to temperature on three different substrates.
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1 Succession of microbial decomposers during human decomposition. The microbial (bacterial, eukaryotic, and fungal) communities associated with two human cadavers at Sam Houston State University’s Southeast Texas Applied Forensic Science Facility were determined using deep marker gene sequencing and analysis of samples collected from the cadavers throughout decomposition. A small subset of taxa associated with specific decomposition stages are highlighted here. Shown here is a photo of a fly larval mass under the skin during active decay and a skull during dry remains.
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1 A framework of the postmortem interval (PMI) divided into the preappearance interval (PAI), development interval (DI), and presence interval (PI) as proposed by Matuszewski (2011).
Figure 11.2 Framework proposed by Tomberlin
et al.
(2011) for entomology‐based phases of the decomposition process.
Figure 11.3 Adult
Chrysomya rufifacies
(Diptera: Calliphoridae) resting on vegetation.
Figure 11.4 Adult
Nicrophorus marginatus
Fabricius (Coleoptera: Silphidae) present on swine carrion.
Figure 11.5 Swine carrion exhibiting (a) fresh, (b) active, and (c) skeletal stages of decomposition.
Chapter 12
Figure 12.1 Thin section of a human femur. Secondary osteons, Haversian canals (H), a Volkmann’s canal (V), and lamellar bone (L) are visualized under transmitted light and marked accordingly (a). Birefringence of mineralized collagen fibrils arranged in concentric lamellae in osteons is observed in polarized light (b). Several osteons display Maltese cross extinction patterns of birefringence (arrows).
Figure 12.2 Section of a metacarpal from a 64‐year‐old male with disseminated coccidiodomycosis, a fungal infection caused by
Coccidoides immitis
endemic to the San Joaquin Valley in California and the Rio Grande River Valley of Texas and New Mexico. The section shows chronic inflammation with fibrosis and granuloma formation, causing loss of bone (B). The section is decalcified and stained with haematoxylin and eosin (National Museum of Health and Medicine 2009.0004; AFIP Orthopathology Study Set A, MS78.
Figure 12.3 Schematic representation of microbial alteration of bone at the microscopic level displaying linear longitudinal (1), budded (2), lamellate (3), and (4) Wedl tunneling.
Figure 12.4 Bioerosion of bone indicated by arrows in a thin section of human femur displaying bacterial alteration under normal light (a) and polarized light (b). Thin section of cattle bone displaying fungal alteration (c).
Figure 12.5 Complete transverse thin section of a human rib (a) with a magnified image showing adipocere crystalline structures (b).
Chapter 13
Figure 13.1 Predicted relative contributions of different occupants to the microbial communities associated with six home surfaces over the course of a 4‐week sampling window. Microbial sources were inferred through the Source Tracker algorithm. Note that when Person 1 leaves the residence for travel, as indicated by the black bars along the
x
‐axis, their predicted microbial contribution to the home surfaces either vanishes or diminishes, and increases after their return to the home
Chapter 14
Figure 14.1 Hypothetical abundance chart displaying soil microbial profiles from three soil samples. The evidentiary soil profile is visually more similar to the profile produced from the crime scene soil than the alibi location, indicating the latter can be excluded as the possible source of the evidentiary soil
Figure 14.2 Exemplary MDS plot ordinating replicate bacterial profiles from an alibi location (A) and a crime scene (B). An evidentiary sample profile (unknown) is clustering with the profiles from the crime scene; thus, it is more similar to this location than the alibi location
Figure 14.3 Exemplary HCA dendrogram displaying clusters of hypothetical crime scene (A), alibi location (B), and evidentiary (unknown) microbial profiles. The evidentiary profile is clustering with the soil samples collected at the crime scene, indicating it is more similar to those samples than alibi location soils
Chapter 15
Figure 15.1 Morphology of the three growth stages of human hair roots: anagen (a: 100× magnification), catagen (b: 200×), and telogen (c: 200×)
Figure 15.2 Example of an amplicon‐based next‐generation workflow diagram
Figure 15.3 Avenues in which contamination of hair evidence may occur prior to sample collection (blue) and post sample collection (red)
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
ii
iii
iv
v
ii
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxii
xxv
xxvi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
American Academy of Forensic Sciences
Published and forthcoming titles in the Forensic Science in Focus series
Published
The Global Practice of Forensic ScienceDouglas H. Ubelaker (Editor)
Forensic Chemistry: Fundamentals and ApplicationsJay A. Siegel
Forensic MicrobiologyDavid O. Carter, Jeffery K. Tomberlin, M. Eric Benbow and Jessica L. Metcalf
Forthcoming
The Future of Forensic ScienceDaniel A. Martell
Humanitarian Forensics and Human IdentificationPaul Emanovsky and Shuala M. Drawdy
Forensic Anthropology: Theoretical Framework and Scientific BasisClifford Boyd and Donna Boyd
EDITED BY
David O. CarterChaminade University of Honolulu, USA
Jeffery K. TomberlinTexas A&M University, USA
M. Eric BenbowMichigan State University, USA
Jessica L. MetcalfColorado State University, USA
This edition first published 2017 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right David O. Carter to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Offices111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UKThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyThe publisher and the authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every situation. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of experimental reagents, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each chemical, piece of equipment, reagent, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. The fact that an organization or website is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the author or the publisher endorses the information the organization or website may provide or recommendations it may make. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this works was written and when it is read. No warranty may be created or extended by any promotional statements for this work. Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for any damages arising here from.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication data applied for
ISBN: 9781119062554
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: Courtesy of David O. Carter
This work is dedicated to all donors (human and nonhuman) that allowed for much of this research to be completed. You are not forgotten and your contribution to science is timeless.
David O. Carter would like to thank his wife, Charlotte, for her never‐ending support and encouragement.
Jeffery K. Tomberlin would like to thank his family (Laura, Celeste, and Jonah) for putting up with his late nights with his computer, constant texting about work, and simply allowing him to enjoy his pursuit of knowledge. He would like to extend a special thanks to Tawni L. Crippen for being patient with him as he explored the world of microbiology under her tutelage and his constant leaning on her sterile bench tops. She has truly opened his eyes to the wonderful world of bacteria and their importance in nature. You are a great friend and colleague.
M. Eric Benbow would like to thank Melissa, Arielle, and Alia for their tremendous support, encouragement, and understanding while he travels to continue his passion that leads to efforts like this project. He would also like to thank Jen Pechal for her extra attention to reviewing several of the chapters of this book and for “maintaining the ship” of writing and productivity while he explores new avenues of science like that related to many topics of the book.
Jessica L. Metcalf would like to thank her forensic collaborators for being excellent and patient colleagues, coauthors, and coeditors. She would like to thank Rob Knight for his support of pursuing microbial tools for forensic science. She would also like to thank her family for their support and contributions to her scientific endeavors.
Dr. David O. Carter is Director and Associate Professor of Forensic Sciences at Chaminade University of Honolulu. He also serves as Principal Investigator of the Laboratory of Forensic Taphonomy. His primary research interest is the decomposition of human remains, particularly in tropical environments. Current research projects focus on the structure and function of antemortem and postmortem microbial communities: using microbiomes as spatial and temporal evidence. He is interested in understanding the relationships between decomposing remains, microbial communities, and the environment. Dr. Carter’s ultimate goal is to get quality science and technology in the hands of first responders and investigators.
Dr. Carter is an active member of the forensic science community with a significant interest in undergraduate education. He is a Fellow in the Pathology/Biology Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and has recently served as Program Chair for the Pathology/Biology Section. Dr. Carter also serves on the Medicolegal Death Investigation Subcommittee in the Organization of Scientific Area Committees, a joint endeavor between the US Department of Justice and US Department of Commerce. He incorporates this experience into undergraduate education where he plays an active role in curriculum development, assessment, academic advising, and recruiting.
Dr. Jeffery K. Tomberlin is an Associate Professor and Co‐Director of the Forensic & Investigative Sciences Program and Principle Investigator of the Forensic Laboratory for Investigative Entomological Sciences (FLIES) Facility (forensicentomology.tamu.edu) in the Department of Entomology at Texas A&M University. Research in the FLIES Facility examines species interactions on ephemeral resources such as vertebrate carrion, decomposing plant material and animal wastes in order to better understand the mechanisms regulating arthropod behavior as related to arrival, colonization and succession patterns. The goals of his program are to refine current methods used by entomologists in forensic investigations. His research also is focused on waste management in confined animal facilities and the production of alternate protein sources for use as livestock, poultry, and aquaculture feed. Since arriving on campus at Texas A&M University in 2007, eight Ph.D. and fourteen M.S. students have completed their degrees under his supervision.
Dr. Tomberlin has been very active within the forensic science community. He, along with a colleague, initiated the first forensic entomology conference in North America as well as the formation of the North America Forensic Entomology Association of which he served as its first president. He is also a Fellow in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and has served as the Chair of the Pathology/Biology Section. Dr. Tomberlin is also one of 18 entomologists board certified by the American Board of Forensic Entomology (ABFE). He has served a number of roles with the ABFE including Secretary and Chair.
Dr. M. Eric Benbow is an Associate Professor in the Department of Entomology and the Department of Osteopathic Medical Specialties at Michigan State University. The research in his lab focuses on microbial‐invertebrate community interactions in aquatic ecosystems, disease systems and carrion decomposition. These research foci use basic science to inform applications in areas such as human health, natural resources management and forensics. Dr. Benbow has authored or co‐authored a collection of over 120 peer‐reviewed papers, book chapters, and proceedings, many of which relate to carrion decomposition ecology, forensic entomology and forensic microbiology. He has served on two National Research Council committees related to aquatic ecology, and is regularly invited as a speaker at international and national academic meetings related to decomposition ecology and forensics. Dr. Benbow has led workshops at the international level discussing experimental design, statistical analyses and the importance of novel basic ecological concepts in advancing the field of carrion ecology and applications in forensics. Dr. Benbow was part of the inaugural executive committee for the North American Forensic Entomology Association (NAFEA) where he served as the Editor‐in‐ Chief of the annual NAFEA Newsletter and NAFEA Webmaster (www.nafea.net) for eight years. He was the president of NAFEA from 2012–2013 and has served as an expert witness and worked on several cases that involved insects as evidence during investigations or water resource litigation. He continues a recognized and collaborative research program in microbe‐insect interactions that supports undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral associates. Dr. Benbow continues to mentor and co‐mentor students and postdoctoral associates through research and teaching. He sees the future of ecology, evolution and applications in forensics to be fundamentally in the hands of students and early career scientists worldwide.
Dr. Jessica L. Metcalf is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Animal Sciences at Colorado State University. Her research uses high‐throughput sequencing and bioinformatic tools in an ecological and evolutionary framework to understand changes of the human microbiome during life and after death. Her microbiome research projects span the fields of forensic science, medicine, agriculture, and vertebrate ecology. A main focus of her research is developing a microbial stopwatch for estimating the postmortem interval. Dr. Metcalf strives to provide foundational microbiome science that can be developed into tools for the justice system.
Dr. Metcalf has a background in evolutionary biology, ancient DNA, experimental microbial ecology, and microbiome science. Her training includes expertise in generating genomic data from a broad range of sample types, including fossil remains and other low‐biomass samples, and analyzing large genomic data sets. Dr. Metcalf is currently building her microbiome science program as part of the microbiome cluster at Colorado State University.
Kate M. BarnesDepartment of Natural SciencesUniversity of DerbyDerby, UK
M. Eric BenbowDepartment of Entomology and Department of Osteopathic Medical SpecialtiesMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI, USA
Sibyl R. BucheliDepartment of Biological SciencesSam Houston State UniversityHuntsville, TX, USA
Michael BunceTrace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Laboratory, Department of Environment and AgricultureCurtin UniversityPerth, Western Australia, Australia
Zachary M. BurchamDepartment of Biological SciencesMississippi State UniversityStarkville, MS, USA
Danielle M. ButzbachToxicology SectionForensic Science SAAdelaide, South Australia, Australia
David O. CarterLaboratory of Forensic Taphonomy, Forensic Sciences Unit, Division of Natural Sciences and MathematicsChaminade University of HonoluluHonolulu, HI, USA
Jared W. CastleSchool of Chemical and Physical SciencesFlinders UniversityAdelaide, South Australia, Australia
Tawni L. CrippenSouthern Plains Agricultural Research Center Agricultural Research ServiceUnited States Department of AgricultureCollege Station, TX, USA
Franklin E. DamannCentral Identification Laboratory—Offutt Air Force BaseDefense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyBellevue, NE, USA
David R. ForanForensic Science Program, School of Criminal JusticeandDepartment of Integrative BiologyMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI, USA
Jack A. GilbertDepartment of Ecology and Evolution and Department of SurgeryUniversity of ChicagoChicago, ILandInstitute for Genomics and Systems BiologyArgonne National LaboratoryLemont, ILandMarine Biological LaboratoryWoods Hole, MA, USA
Valery HedouinLille University School of Medicine, CHU LilleForensic Taphonomy Unit, UTML, Lille, France
James M. HopkinsForensic Science Program, School of Criminal JusticeMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI, USACurrent address:St. Jude Children’s Research HospitalMemphis, TN, USA
Embriette R. HydeKnight Laboratory, Department of PediatricsUniversity of California, San DiegoSan Diego, CA, USA
Miranda M.E. JansCentral Identification Laboratory—Hickam Air Force BaseDefense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyHonolulu, HI, USA
Ellen M. JesmokForensic Science Program, School of Criminal JusticeMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI, USACurrent address:Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension LaboratorySt. Paul, MN, USA
Heather R. JordanDepartment of Biological SciencesMississippi State UniversityStarkville, MS, USA
Emily N. JunkinsLaboratory of Forensic Taphonomy, Forensic Sciences Unit, Division of Natural Sciences and MathematicsChaminade University of HonoluluHonolulu, HI, USAandDepartment of Microbiology and Plant Biology, University of OklahomaNorman, OK, USA
K. Paul KirkbrideSchool of Chemical and Physical SciencesFlinders UniversityAdelaide, South Australia, Australia
Rob KnightDepartment of PediatricsandDepartment of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of California, San DiegoSan Diego, CA, USA
Whitney A. KodamaLaboratory of Forensic Taphonomy, Forensic Sciences Unit, Division of Natural Sciences and MathematicsChaminade University of HonoluluHonolulu, HI, USA
Simon LaxDepartment of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, ILandInstitute for Genomics and Systems BiologyArgonne National LaboratoryLemont, IL, USA
Claire E. LenehanSchool of Chemical and Physical SciencesFlinders UniversityAdelaide, South Australia, Australia
Aaron M. LynneDepartment of Biological SciencesSam Houston State UniversityHuntsville, TX, USA
Vadim MesliLille University School of Medicine, CHU LilleForensic Taphonomy Unit, UTMLLille, France
Jessica L. MetcalfDepartment of Animal SciencesColorado State UniversityFort Collins, CO, USA
Dáithí C. MurrayTrace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Laboratory, Department of Environment and AgricultureCurtin UniversityPerth, Western Australia, Australia
Christel NeutClinical Bacteriology LaboratoryINSERM U995 LIRIC, University of LilleLille, France
Jennifer L. PechalDepartment of EntomologyMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI, USA
Mohammad RazaDepartment of Medical Microbiology and VirologySheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustSheffield, UK
Frank ReithSchool of Biological Sciences Sprigg Geobiology CentreUniversity of AdelaideandCSIRO Land and WaterEnvironmental Contaminant Mitigation and Technologies, PMB2Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Elisabeth J. RidgwayDepartment of Medical Microbiology and VirologySheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustSheffield, UK
Baneshwar SinghDepartment of Forensic ScienceVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmond, VA, USA
Bala M. SubramanianDepartment of Medical Microbiology and VirologySheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustSheffield, UK
Jeffery K. TomberlinDepartment of EntomologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX, USA
Silvana R. TridicoForensic Science & Wildlife MattersAdelaide, South Australia, Australia
G. Stewart WalkerSchool of Chemical and Physical SciencesFlinders UniversityAdelaide, South Australia, Australia
In recent years, technology improvements have enabled forensic scientists to analyze smaller and smaller samples. However, with new and expanded capabilities often comes the challenge of providing appropriate meaning to that evidence. Use of information from microbial communities in forensic investigations may open new avenues for answering important questions in crime‐solving efforts. This book provides a look into current applications, and future possibilities, with microbial analysis aiding forensic investigations.
The Human Microbiome effort over the past decade or so has built on information gained from the earlier Human Genome Project. Likewise, forensic microbiology will in many cases build on previous work with human forensic DNA testing. Forensic DNA analysis with human DNA began in 1984 with the pioneering work of Alec Jeffreys at Leicester University in the United Kingdom and a Nature publication the following year (Gill et al., 1985). Forensic microbiology is poised to have a similar trajectory, with several research groups having their work disseminated in several high impact publications. It remains to be seen whether recent advances in forensic microbiology will impact forensic science as human DNA testing, but it nevertheless has the potential to be equally revolutionary in some cases (Fierer et al., 2010). Bioterrorism and forensic pathology are two important areas where microbial analysis plays an important role, but these applications are being expanded as we understand the temporal and spatial value of microorganisms.
Perhaps in a future day the microbial environment around crime scenes and persons of interest will be rapidly assessed to answer important investigative questions. Massively parallel (next‐generation) sequencing can provide microbial and human DNA sequences on an unprecedented scale.
This book is part of a larger effort by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and Wiley to bring forensic science issues and capabilities into focus. It is hoped that the completed product is satisfying to both the authors and their future readers.
John M. Butler, Ph.D.NIST Fellow and Special Assistant to the Director for Forensic ScienceNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburg, MD, USA
The forensic sciences represent diverse, dynamic fields that seek to utilize the very best techniques available to address legal issues. Fueled by advances in technology, research and methodology, as well as new case applications, the forensic sciences continue to evolve. Forensic scientists strive to improve their analyses and interpretations of evidence and to remain cognizant of the latest advancements. This series results from a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) and Wiley to publish a select number of books that relate closely to the activities and objectives of the AAFS. The book series reflects the goals of the AAFS to encourage quality scholarship and publication in the forensic sciences. Proposals for publication in the series are reviewed by a committee established for that purpose by the AAFS and also reviewed by Wiley.
The AAFS was founded in 1948 and represents a multidisciplinary professional organization that provides leadership to advance science and its application to the legal system. The 11 sections of the AAFS consist of Criminalistics, Digital and Multimedia Sciences, Engineering Sciences, General, Pathology/Biology, Questioned Documents, Jurisprudence, Anthropology, Toxicology, Odontology, and Psychiatry and Behavioral Science. There are over 7000 members of the AAFS, originating from all 50 States of the United States and many countries beyond. This series reflects global AAFS membership interest in new research, scholarship, and publication in the forensic sciences.
Douglas H. UbelakerSenior ScientistSmithsonian InstitutionWashington, DC, USASeries Editor
Microorganisms have been used as physical evidence in “forensic” investigations for nearly as long as their existence has been known. These organisms have been used to reconstruct events as diverse as cause of death, food spoilage, and bioterrorism. Such diverse applications represent our definition of modern forensic microbiology. Ultimately, this text will serve as a resource for those interested in the relationship between microbiology and forensic science, particularly criminal and medicolegal death investigations.
We have approached the text with the perspective that forensic microbiology primarily draws from three fundamental disciplines: medical microbiology, environmental microbiology, and food microbiology (Figure P.1). The current text was inspired by a workshop presented at the 2014 American Academy of Forensic Sciences Conference in Seattle, Washington. From this workshop germinated the topics covered in the text. Topics reviewed include primarily newly emerging applications of microbiology to criminal and medicolegal death investigations. To do this, the contents focus on the characterization and interpretation of microbial communities through culturing and sequencing techniques. Our goal is to position forensic microbiology in a modern context of improved microbiome sequencing and analytical techniques beyond those that have been traditionally covered in microbial forensics that include bioterrorism and pathology (Caplan and Koontz, 2001; Budowle et al., 2011; Ray and Bhunia, 2013). Recent developments in sequencing technology and corresponding discoveries have allowed scientists to examine microbial communities at unprecedented resolution and in multidisciplinary contexts. The current text will highlight the potential new applications that these technologies can provide.
Figure P.1 Forensic microbiology and microbial ecology is a broad field that contributes to investigations ranging from pathology and bioterrorism to the quality of food and the environment. This text will focus on newly emerging areas of forensic microbiology related to postmortem microbiology and trace evidence (indicated in gray). The text will also serve to direct readers to established texts on other aspects of forensic microbiology, particularly bioterrorism and food microbiology
February 2017
David O. CarterJeffery K. TomberlinM. Eric BenbowJessica L. Metcalf
Budowle, B., Schutzer, S.E., Breeze, R.G.
et al.
(eds) (2011)
Microbial Forensics
, 2nd edn, Academic Press, Burlington.
Caplan, M.J. and Koontz, F.P. (2001)
Cumitech 35 Postmortem Microbiology
, American Society for Microbiology Press, Washington, DC.
Ray, B. and Bhunia, A. (2013)
Fundamental Food Microbiology
, 5th edn, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
David O. Carter1, Emily N. Junkins1,2 and Whitney A. Kodama1
1Laboratory of Forensic Taphonomy, Forensic Sciences Unit, Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Chaminade University of Honolulu, Honolulu, HI, USA
2Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
In many ways microorganisms are an ideal form of physical evidence. They can be found virtually everywhere and are certainly present in every habitat occupied by humans. Thus, microbes could be collected from every scene under a forensic investigation, yet not all microorganisms are everywhere; like many forms of trace evidence, some microbes are found only in certain locations due to having a preferred habitat, much like how insects, birds, and reptiles have a preferred habitat range. Another valuable characteristic of microorganisms is that many of them can transform themselves into a highly durable structure that is designed to survive harsh conditions, which increases the likelihood of their survival and discovery. Considering all of these attributes, it is probably not surprising that microorganisms have been used as physical evidence since the early days of forensic science, particularly to establish the cause of death (e.g., MacCallum and Hastings, 1899). Forensic microbiology has since grown into an exciting discipline relevant to several areas of forensic science including medicolegal death investigation (Caplan and Koontz, 2001; Forbes et al., 2016), bioterrorism (Budowle et al., 2011), and product authenticity (Brzezinski and Craft, 2012). It will be absolutely fascinating to learn of the new discoveries in forensic microbiology over the next few decades.
Historically microbes have been used almost exclusively as spatial evidence—physical evidence that is used to associate people with diseases, objects, and/or locations (Locard, 1930a, b, c; Caplan and Koontz, 2001; Tridico et al., 2014; Wiltshire et al., 2014; Young et al., 2015). This application is similar to the use of any other form of trace evidence, such as soil (Bisbing, 2016), paint (Kirkbride, 2016), glass (Almirall and Trejos, 2016), and fibers (Houck, 2016). However, recent research has shown that microorganisms represent a relatively unique form of physical evidence that can also serve as temporal evidence, evidence that is used to establish a timeline. This application uses the ability of microorganisms to respond rapidly to changes in their environment (e.g., Carter and Tibbett, 2006), and these changes are temporally predictable (Metcalf et al., 2013; Pechal et al., 2014; Guo et al., 2016; Metcalf et al., 2016), with an apparent ability to serve as an estimate of the postmortem interval (Chapter 2) and human habitation (Chapter 13) interval.
We are currently in an exciting time when multiple research groups around the world are leading advances in postmortem microbiology and trace microbiology (Fierer et al., 2010; Benbow et al., 2015; Lax et al., 2015; Metcalf et al., 2016). These advances are occurring rapidly and have great potential to significantly change how microorganisms are used as physical evidence. Microorganisms will likely play a greater role as physical evidence in the future, so the purpose of the current chapter is to provide an introduction to some fundamental aspects of microbiology and microbial ecology to help the reader develop an appreciation for the vast diversity of microorganisms and how they can be used to identify a location or time period of investigative interest. It is not possible for this chapter to review all known microorganisms, so the contents hereinafter will place an emphasis on bacteria that are of interest to the most recent research relevant to the scope of this book, postmortem microbiology and trace microbiology (e.g., Benbow et al., 2015; Iancu et al., 2015; Finley et al., 2016; Metcalf et al., 2016). However, domains Archaea and Eukarya are also highly relevant, and the current chapter will reference relevant work, when possible, that focuses on these very important taxa within a forensic context.
Microorganisms can differ in many ways including their morphology, method of movement (motility), metabolic strategy, environmental requirements, and several other characteristics (Brown, 2015). The current chapter will address this issue with relative simplicity by describing how microorganisms survive with a brief description of some relevant taxa.
Classification of life has proven to be a challenge. Presently, there are a number of opinions on how we should organize organisms in terms of their relationship to one another. Although not the focus of this chapter, this topic is of great importance as it impacts our ability to assess microbial communities in general. Thus, we suggest individuals with an interest in forensic microbiology remain cognizant of the ever‐shifting landscape of microbial taxonomy.
For this text, we focus our discussion on three major groups of microorganisms organized as domains: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya (Woese et al., 1990) although a new perspective on this classification was presented recently (Hug et al., 2016). The List of Prokaryotic Names with Standing in Nomenclature (http://www.bacterio.net) currently divides Bacteria into 30 phyla (Table 1.1) and Archaea into five phyla (Crenarchaeota, Euryarchaeota, Korarchaeota, Nanoarchaeota, Thaumarchaeota). These microbes can vary morphologically, with spherical (cocci; Figure 1.1a) and rod‐shaped (historically termed bacilli; Figure 1.1b) being the most common. Variations on these general morphologies exist (Figure 1.1c), as do other morphologies such as club‐shaped cells (coryneform; Figure 1.1d) and curved rods (e.g., vibrio). Thus, referring to a bacterium as a rod or a coccus is a helpful way to begin the identification process.
Table 1.1 Phyla of domain Bacteria included in the list of prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature, http://www.bacterio.net
Acidobacteria
Cyanobacteria
Nitrospira
Actinobacteria
Deferribacteres
Planctomycetes
Aquificae
Deinococcus–Thermus
Proteobacteria
Armatimonadetes
Dictyoglomi
Spirochaetes
Bacteroidetes
Elusimicrobia
Synergistetes
Caldiserica
Fibrobacteres
Tenericutes
Chlamydiae
Firmicutes
Thermodesulfobacteria
Chlorobi
Fusobacteria
Thermomicrobia
Chloroflexi
Gemmatimonadetes
Thermotogae
Chrysiogenetes
Lentisphaerae
Verrucomicrobia
Figure 1.1 Scanning electron micrograph showing some of the contrasting morphologies observed in microbial cells including the widely observed coccus (a: Staphylococcus cohnii) and rod (b: Bacillus subtilis) shapes, which can vary and occur in association with other morphologies (c). Microbial cells can be observed as several other shapes including spiral (spirilla), curved rods (vibrio), and club shaped (coryneform), the latter of which is observed in Sporosarcina contaminans (d)
As the term microbiology indicates, microbes are small. A bacterial cell will likely have a diameter of 1–5 µm (see Figure 1.1), which means that microscopy is necessary to view individual microbial cells. Thus, the shape and size of microbial cells can be used for a general identification, usually to exclude possible identities. Other commonly used characteristics to identify microbes include the reaction to the Gram stain and the ratio of nucleotides in a cell, which is presented as guanine–cytosine (GC) content.
Stains play a significant role in the identification of microorganisms. For example, the Gram stain was developed in the nineteenth century to help visualize microbial cells. Without staining, many microbial cells are transparent and difficult to see. The Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative designation also provides some insight into the structure of the microbial cell wall. The cell wall of a Gram‐positive bacterium is approximately 90% peptidoglycan, whereas the cell wall of a Gram‐negative bacterium is approximately 10% peptidoglycan (Madigan et al., 2012). Interestingly, the Gram designation also provides information about the taxonomy of bacteria. Gram‐positive bacteria are generally found in phyla Actinobacteria and Firmicutes. Some relatively well‐known Gram‐positive bacteria include genera Bacillus (rod), Clostridium (rod), and Streptococcus (coccus), all of which are in phylum Firmicutes. The GC content of a cell can be used to generally distinguish between Actinobacteria and Firmicutes. The GC content represents the proportion of the bacterial genome that comprises GC base pairs, rather than adenine–thymine base pairs, and is presented as high GC (>50% GC content) or low GC (<50% GC content). Phylum Actinobacteria includes high GC bacteria, while phylum Firmicutes includes low GC bacteria.
Microbes can also be identified based on their function. In fact, one of the reasons that microbes are so important to life on Earth is the vast diversity of functions that they carry out. Microbes decompose organic material, utilize carbon dioxide, fix nitrogen, and help plants and animals to acquire nutrients, and they contribute many other vital functions that keep habitats stable. These functions are the result of microorganisms competing for that which is essential to microbial life, water, energy, and nutrients, where the energy source is often organic (contains carbon) and the nutrients include several essential elements such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, and calcium. As seen with other organisms, the ability of microbes to function is greatly influenced by their environment: oxygen availability, temperature, chemistry (particularly pH and Eh), and light (Ball, 1997). Thus, humans live in habitats that are the result of several processes, many of which are carried out by microorganisms. To effectively use microorganisms as physical evidence, we must therefore understand where microbes live, what their function is within that habitat, and how their environment affects their function and survival.
Microbes use several strategies to acquire energy and nutrients, referred to here as metabolic strategy. Some microbes even have the ability to change their metabolic strategy depending on environmental conditions. A microbe that is restricted to a single metabolic strategy is known as obligate. An obligate aerobe is a microbe that requires oxygen, for example. A microbe that can change metabolic strategies is termed facultative. A facultative anaerobe is a microbe that can maintain metabolic function regardless of oxygen availability. Understanding these metabolic strategies is important for forensic microbiology because it forms the foundation for interpreting microbial evidence or identifying a particular microorganism. For example, one would expect to see decomposing remains associated with chemoorganotrophic microbes, like the Enterobacteriaceae (e.g., Benbow et al., 2015), because a dead body is a high quality source of water, energy, and nutrients (Carter et al., 2007b).
The metabolic terms defined in Table 1.2 are presented to help understand the diversity of metabolic strategies used by microbes and show that they are regularly described by their metabolic strategy. Phototrophs, such as those in the phylum Cyanobacteria, use light to conduct photosynthesis. Chemotrophs, such as those in class Gammaproteobacteria, consume organic compounds (e.g., human remains, plant detritus) to generate energy. Because of this they are often referred to as decomposers. These decomposers represent the bulk of microorganisms associated with decomposing remains and trace evidence. It is important to accept that some taxa have physiologies that are not easily described using the terminology in Table 1.2 because of the vast array of metabolic strategies employed by microorganisms (e.g., Slonczewski and Foster, 2011; Madigan et al., 2012)
Table 1.2 Glossary of terms commonly used to describe the habitat preferences and metabolic strategies of microorganisms
Aerobe
An organism that lives in the presence of oxygen
Aerotolerant
An organism that can live in aerobic and anaerobic conditions
Anaerobic
An organism that lives in the absence of oxygen
Autotrophy
Using carbon dioxide as the only source of carbon
Chemoautotrophy
Oxidizing chemical compounds to obtain energy while acquiring carbon only from carbon dioxide
Chemolithotrophy
Oxidizing inorganic compounds to obtain energy
Chemoorganotrophy
Oxidizing organic compounds to obtain energy
Chemotrophy
Oxidizing chemical compounds to obtain energy
Extremotroph, ‐phile
An organism that lives in extreme environmental conditions such as temperature and pH
Facultative
Not required, optional
Fermentation
Obtaining energy by using an organic compound as both an electron donor and an electron acceptor
Halotroph, ‐phile
An organism that lives in high salt concentrations
Heterotrophy
Using organic compounds as sources of carbon
Hyperthermotroph, ‐phile
An organism with an optimal growth temperature of ≥80°C
Mesotroph, ‐phile
An organism that lives at moderate temperature with an optimal growth temperature from 15 to 40°C
Metabolism
All reactions, anabolic and catabolic, in a cell
Microaerotroph, ‐phile
An organism that requires low levels of oxygen
Obligate
Required
Photoautotrophy
Using light as an energy source while acquiring carbon only from carbon dioxide
Photoheterotrophy
Using light as an energy source while using organic compounds as sources of carbon
Phototroph
An organism that obtains energy from light
Psychrotroph, ‐phile
An organism that lives at low temperature with an optimal growth temperature of <15°C
Respiration
Obtaining energy by oxidizing chemical compounds through a series of reactions to a terminal electron acceptor
Thermotroph, ‐phile
An organism that lives at high temperature with an optimal growth temperature from 45 to 80°C
See also Madigan et al. (2012) and Slonczewski and Foster (2011).
Enzymes are important in microbial ecology. Microbial activity and metabolism can be measured in many different ways (e.g., carbon mineralization, calorimetry), but these metrics are often the result of enzyme‐substrate reactions, if not a direct measure of potential enzyme activity (e.g., Carter et al., 2008). Microbial enzymes can be classified in many ways, for example, as hydrolase, lyase, oxidoreductase, and transferase enzymes (Table 1.3). They can also be classified as intracellular and extracellular, which are important distinctions to consider; intracellular enzymes react with substrates within the microbial cell, while extracellular enzymes are released from microbial cells so that the enzyme–substrate product can then be transported across the cell membrane into the cell. Microorganisms commonly release extracellular enzymes into their habitat so that they can use the products to acquire the resources necessary for survival. This degradative and overall enzyme profile can be used to determine the range of substrates that can be used by a microbe (e.g., Pechal et al., 2013), known as community level physiological profiling (Degens and Harris, 1997). This potential substrate use is then modified by resource availability/quality, decomposer community, and physicochemical environment (Swift et al., 1979; Killham and Prosser, 2007).
Table 1.3 General classification of enzymes commonly associated with microorganisms
Enzyme
Examples
Function
Hydrolase
Amylase, chitinase, lipase, peptidase, phosphatase, phosphodiesterase, protease, sulfatase, urease
Catalyzes the hydrolysis of chemical bonds
Lyase
Aldehyde lyase, amino acid decarboxylase, cyclase, dehydratase
Catalyzes an elimination reaction and oxidation to break chemical bonds
Oxidoreductase
Alcohol oxidoreductase, amino acid oxidoreductase, ammonia monooxygenase, glucose oxidase, nitrite oxidoreductase, methane monooxygenase, monoamine oxidase, peroxidase
Catalyzes the transfer of electrons from the electron donor (reductant) to the electron acceptor (oxidant)
Transferase
Amino transferase, CoA transferase, methyltransferase, polymerase, kinase
Catalyzes the transfer of a functional group from one molecule (donor) to another (acceptor)
The release of extracellular enzymes into a habitat does introduce some complexity into interpreting the ecology of a microbe. Once extracellular enzymes are released from a microbial cell, they can function independently of the microbial cell. This ability means that microbial habitats can contain free enzymes capable of reacting with substrates. As a result, a microbial cell might take up the product of a reaction that used an enzyme it did not release. To further complicate matters, these free enzymes do not necessarily react with substrates soon after release from the microbial cell. They can be bound to organic material and inorganic surfaces, such as soil minerals, and even accumulate in habitats so that the measurement of enzyme activity might provide a misleading metric of microbial activity (Carter et al., 2007a). This phenomenon must be researched in greater detail before we truly understand postmortem microbial ecology.
Microorganisms and their activity are greatly influenced by their environment. Temperature, relative humidity, pH, oxidation–reduction potential (Eh), and oxygen availability are all environmental parameters that play a role in defining the microbial community. For example, the Psychrobacter sp. observed by Carter et al. (2015) in gravesoil during the winter in Nebraska, United States, is a taxon that prefers cold temperature. Many of these environmental parameters, such as ambient temperature and precipitation, can be measured with relative ease (see Chun et al.