ArticleMicrobiome2021
The impact of cross-kingdom molecular forensics on genetic privacy.
Article in Microbiome, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Forensic Microbiomics and Trace Microbial Evidence: Molecular Innovations for Linking Suspects, Objects, and Environments.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Diversity and distinctive characteristics of the global RNA virome in urban and peri-urban environments.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Review
- Microbial genomics: a potential toolkit for forensic investigations.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2025Review
- Genomic privacy and security in the era of artificial intelligence and quantum computing.Discover computing · 2025Review
- Microbiome Geographic Population Structure (mGPS) Detects Fine-Scale Geography.Genome biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Astronaut omics and the impact of space on the human body at scale.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Microbial fingerprints reveal interaction between museum objects, curators, and visitors.iScience · 2023Article
- Identification of Skeletal Remains Using Genetic Profiling: A Case Linking Italy and Poland.Genes · 2023Article
- Article
- Routine omics collection is a golden opportunity for European human research in space and analog environments.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advances in metagenomic technology and computational prediction may inadvertently weaken an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy. Through cross-kingdom genetic and metagenomic forensics, we can already predict at least a dozen human phenotypes with varying degrees of accuracy. There is also growing potential to detect a "molecular echo" of an individual's microbiome from cells deposited on public surfaces. At present, host genetic data from somatic or germ cells provide more reliable information than microbiome samples. However, the emerging ability to infer personal details from different microscopic biological materials left behind on surfaces requires in-depth ethical and legal scrutiny. There is potential to identify and track individuals, along with new, surreptitious means of genetic discrimination. This commentary underscores the need to update legal and policy frameworks for genetic privacy with additional considerations for the information that could be acquired from microbiome-derived data. The article also aims to stimulate ubiquitous discourse to ensure the protection of genetic rights and liberties in the post-genomic era. Video abstract.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.