↓ Skip to main content

Identifying a hunter responsible for killing a hunting dog by individual-specific genetic profiling of wild boar DNA transferred to the canine during the accidental shooting

Overview of attention for article published in Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 350)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Identifying a hunter responsible for killing a hunting dog by individual-specific genetic profiling of wild boar DNA transferred to the canine during the accidental shooting
Published in
Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12024-016-9806-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Schleimer, Alain C. Frantz, Johannes Lang, Phillipe Reinert, Mike Heddergott

Abstract

While genetic profiling can be a powerful tool to solve wildlife crime, comparably few examples of individual identification in wildlife forensics are available in the literature. Here, we report a case of an accidental shooting of a hunting dog during a wild boar drive hunt. The market value of trained hunting dogs can reach several thousand euro. No one admitted to killing the dog. Wild boar hairs were found in the dog's wound, suggesting that the bullet first hit a wild boar and then the dog. Since it was known who harvested each boar, we aimed to use individual-specific genetic profiles to link these hairs to a bagged animal and to identify the culprit. We genotyped 19 harvested boar and the unknown hair sample using 13 STRs. In the case of the hair sample, we performed multiple genotyping to ensure the reliability of the genetic profile. We showed that we genotyped sufficient loci to distinguish between separate individuals with certainty. While the three most informative loci were enough to differentiate the 19 reference individuals, we did find a perfect match at all 13 STRs between the hair DNA and one tissue sample. Since our methods were reliable and reproducible, we passed the relevant information on to forestry officials who will use the information we have provided to attempt to find an amicable solution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 20%
Other 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Other 3 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 30%
Chemical Engineering 1 10%
Chemistry 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,446,262
of 11,349,388 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology
#42
of 350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,573
of 320,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,349,388 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 350 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.