Microbial Forensics: Detection and Characterization in the Twenty-first Century

  • K. Lane Warmbrod
  • Michael Montague
  • Nancy D. ConnellEmail author


The use of a biological agent during the commission of a crime or as weapon of terrorism or war is criminalized under national and international law. Like their counterparts in the chemical and physical sciences, biologists have begun to develop the means to investigate the malicious use of pathogens and toxins, a process that entails the detection and characterization of the means of delivery or dispersal, characterization of the agent, and, eventually, attribution of the attack to an individual, organization, or state actor. Each of these investigative steps can be approached first by traditional forensic biological approaches. We limit our discussion to microbial forensics, leaving attribution to other venues. The last decade has seen great progress in molecular forensic capability, and we explore recent and/or novel molecular biological tools that allow the analysis of evidentiary samples. We will argue that DNA is central to the analysis of microbial weapons, as increased access to synthetic biological methodology in the context of digitalization of biomaterials paves the way for the potential construction of bioagents for malicious use. DNA sequencing and analysis permits some prediction of the methods used to synthesize and manipulate DNA as well as the means to detect engineered genetic elements. Other issues of high relevance include approaches to international data sharing, sample and reference collection, pertinent disease surveillance mechanisms and statistical methods. We conclude with a discussion of gaps and challenges in the field.


  1. Addgene: Homepage. n.d.. Accessed 27 June 2019.
  2. Amerithrax or Anthrax Investigation. n.d. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed 29 June 2019.
  3. Beecher, D. 2006. Forensic application of microbiological culture analysis to identify mail intentionally contaminated with Bacillus Anthracis spores. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72 (8): 5304–5310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behjati, S., and P. Tarpey. 2013. What is next generation sequencing? Archives of Disease in Childhood. Education and Practice Edition 98 (6): 236–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J., T. Bharucha, and J. Breuer. 2018. Encephalitis diagnosis using metagenomics: Application of next generation sequencing for undiagnosed cases. Journal of Infection 76 (3): 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budowle, B., S. Schutzer, A. Einseln, L. Kelley, A. Walsh, J. Smith, B. Marrone, J. Robertson, and J. Campos. 2003. Building microbial forensics as a response to bioterrorism. Science 301 (5641): 1852–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, T., A. Gomez, H. Singh, K. Nelson, and L. Brinkac. 2017. Integrating the microbiome as a resource in the forensics toolkit. Forensic Science International: Genetics 30: 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costello, E., C. Lauber, M. Hamady, N. Fierer, J. Gordon, and R. Knight. 2009. Bacterial community variation in human body habitats across space and time. Science 326 (5960): 1694–1697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coyotzi, S., J. Pratscher, J. Murrell, and J. Neufeld. 2016. Targeted metagenomics of active microbial populations with stable-isotope probing. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 41 (2016): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cymet, C., and G. Kerkvliet. 2004. What is the true number of victims of the postal anthrax attack of 2001? The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 104 (11): 452.Google Scholar
  11. Daniel, R. 2005. The metagenomics of soil. Nature Reviews Microbiology 3 (6): 470–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. David, L., A. Materna, J. Friedman, M. Campos-Baptista, M. Blackburn, A. Perrotta, S. Erdman, and E. Alm. 2014. Host lifestyle affects human microbiota on daily timescales. Genome Biology 15 (7): R89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Decker, S. 2018. Recounting the anthrax attacks: terror, the task force, and the evolution of forensics in the FBI. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
  14. Dick, G., A. Andersson, B. Baker, S. Simmons, B. Thomas, A. Yelton, and J. Banfield. 2009. Community-wide analysis of microbial genome sequence signatures. Genome Biology 10 (8): R85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dulger, B., E. Ugurlu, C. Aki, T. Suerdem, A. Camdeviren, and G. Tazeler. 2005. Evaluation of antimicrobial activity of some endemic Verbascum., Sideritis., and Stachys. Species from Turkey. Pharmaceutical Biology 43 (3): 270–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards, R., B. Rodriguez-Brito, L. Wegley, M. Haynes, M. Breitbart, D. Peterson, M. Saar, S. Alexander, E.C. Alexander, and F. Rohwer. 2006. Using pyrosequencing to shed light on deep mine microbial ecology. BMC Genomics 7 (1): 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fernandez, E., M. Larrondo Petrie, and T. Sorgente. 2004. Security models for medical and genetic information. In Proceedings of the IADIS international conference (e-Society 2004), 509–516. Avila.Google Scholar
  18. Fierer, N., and R. Jackson. 2006. The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communitites. PNAS 103 (3): 626–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fierer, N., C. Lauber, N. Zhou, D. McDonald, E. Costello, and R. Knight. 2010. Forensic identification using skin bacterial communities. PNAS 107 (14): 6477–6481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert, J., M. Blaser, J.G. Caporaso, J. Jansson, S. Lynch, and R. Knight. 2018. Current understanding of the human microbiome. Nature Medicine 24 (4): 392–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glover, A. 2012. The 21st century: The age of biology. Presented at the OECD Forum on Global Biotechnology, Paris, November 12. Accessed 26 June 2019.
  22. Goel, A. 2015. Anthrax: A disease of biowarfare and public health importance. World Journal of Clinical Cases 3 (1): 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffith, J., D. Blaney, S. Shadomy, M. Lehman, N. Pesik, S. Tostenson, L. Delaney, R. Tiller, A. DeVries, T. Gomez, M. Sullivan, C. Blackmore, D. Stanek, R. Lynfield, and The Anthrax Investigation Team. 2014. Investigation of inhalation anthrax case, United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20 (2): 280–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guillemin, J. 2011. American anthrax: Fear, crime, and the investigation of the nation’s deadliest bioterror attack. Times Books.Google Scholar
  25. Issa, I., S. Delbrück, and U. Hamm. 2019. Bioeconomy from experts’ perspectives – Results of a global expert survey. PLoS One 14 (5): e0215917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jansson, J., and K. Hofmockel. 2018. The soil microbiome—From metagenomics to metaphenomics. Current Opinion in Microbiology 43 (2018): 162–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keim, P., and K.L. Smith. 2002. Bacillus Anthracis evolution and epidemiology. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology 271: 21–32.Google Scholar
  28. Khodakova, A., R. Smith, L. Burgoyne, D. Abarno, and A. Linacre. 2014. Random whole metagenomic sequencing for forensic discrimination of soils. PLoS One 9 (8): e104996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kort, R., M. Caspers, A. van de Graaf, W. van Egmond, B. Keijser, and G. Roeselers. 2014. Shaping the oral microbiota through intimate kissing. Microbiome 2 (1): 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kougias, P., S. Campanaro, L. Treu, P. Tsapekos, A. Armani, and I. Angelidaki. 2018. Spatial distribution and diverse metabolic functions of lignocellulose-degrading uncultured bacteria as revealed by genome-centric metagenomics. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 84 (18): e01244–e01218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lax, S., D.P. Smith, J. Hampton-Marcell, S. Owens, K. Handley, N. Scott, S. Gibbons, P. Larson, B. Shogan, S. Weiss, J. Metcalf, L. Ursell, Y. Vazquez-Baeza, W. Van Rreuren, N. Hasan, M. Gibson, R. Colwell, G. Dantas, R. Knight, and J. Gilbert. 2014. Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment. Science 345 (6200): 1048–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lax, S., J. Hampton-Marcell, S. Gibbons, G. Colares, D. Smith, J. Eisen, and J. Gilbert. 2015. Forensic analysis of the microbiome of phones and shoes. Microbiome 3: 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Manter, D., J. Delgado, H. Blackburn, D. Harmel, A. Pérez de León, and C. Honeycutt. 2017. Opinion: Why we need a national living soil repository. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (52): 13587–13590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Metcalf, J., Z. Xu, A. Bouslimani, P. Dorrestein, D. Carter, and R. Knight. 2017. Microbiome tools for forensic science, trends in biotechnology. Special Issue: Environmental Biotechnology 35 (9): 814–823.Google Scholar
  35. Mitchell, A., F. Bucchini, G. Cochrane, H. Denise, P. ten Hoopen, M. Fraser, S. Pesseat, S. Potter, M. Scheremetjew, P. Sterk, and R. Finn. 2016. EBI metagenomics in 2016 - an expanding and evolving resource for the analysis and archiving of metagenomic data. Nucleic Acids Research 44 (1): D595–D603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Research Council. 2011. Review of the scientific approaches used during the FBI’s investigation of the 2001 anthrax letters. Washington, DC: National Academies.Google Scholar
  37. ———. 2014. Science needs for microbial forensics: Developing initial international research priorities. Washington, DC: National Academies.Google Scholar
  38. Nielsen, A., and C. Voigt. 2018. Deep learning to predict the lab-of-origin of engineered DNA. Nature Communications 9 (1): 3135–3145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oh, J., A. Byrd, C. Deming, S. Conlan, H. Kong, and J. Segre. 2014. Biogeography and individuality shape function in the human skin metagenome. Nature 514 (7520): 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oh, J., A. Byrd, M. Park, H. Kong, and J. Segre. 2016. Temporal stability of the human skin microbiome. Cell 165 (4): 854–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rasko, D., P. Worsham, T. Abshire, S. Stanley, J. Bannan, M. Wilson, R. Langham, R. Decker, L. Jiang, T. Read, A. Phillippy, S. Salzberg, M. Pop, M. van Ert, L. Kenefic, P. Keim, C. Fraser-Liggett, and J. Ravel. 2011. Bacillus Anthracis comparative genome analysis in support of the amerithrax investigation. PNAS 108 (12): 5027–5032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Riedel, S. 2005. Anthrax: A continuing concern in the era of bioterrorism. Proceedings Baylor University Medical Center 8 (3): 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ross, A., K. Müller, J. Weese, and J. Neufeld. 2018. Comprehensive skin microbiome analysis reveals the uniqueness of human skin and evidence for phylosymbiosis within the class mammalia. PNAS 115 (25): E5786–E5795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, R., T. Jeffries, B. Roudnew, A. Fitch, J. Seymour, M. Delpin, K. Newton, M. Brown, and J. Mitchell. 2012. Metagenomic comparison of microbial communities inhabiting confined and unconfined aquifer ecosystems: Aquifer metagenomics. Environmental Microbiology 14 (1): 240–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Song, S., C. Lauber, E. Costello, C. Lozupone, G. Humphrey, D. Berg-Lyons, J. Caporaso, D. Knights, J. Clemente, S. Nakielny, J. Gordon, N. Fierer, and R. Knight. 2013. Cohabiting family members share microbiota with one another and with their dogs. ELife 2 (4): e00458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stenson, P., M. Matthew, E.V. Ball, K. Evans, M. Hayden, S. Heywood, M. Hussain, A.D. Phillips, and D. Cooper. 2017. The human gene mutation database: Towards a comprehensive repository of inherited mutation data for medical research, genetic diagnosis and next-generation sequencing studies. Human Genetics 136 (6): 665–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. The United States Department of Justice. 2010. Amerithrax investigative summary.Google Scholar
  48. Tringe, S., C. von Mering, A. Kobayashi, A. Salamov, K. Chen, H. Chang, M. Podar, J. Short, E. Mathur, J. Detter, P. Bork, P. Hugenholtz, and E. Rubin. 2005. Comparative metagenomics of microbial communities. Science 308 (5721): 554–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ugalmugale, S., and R. Swain. 2016. Biotechnology market share size 2018–2024 growth forecast report, GMI784, Global Market Insights. Accessed 15 June 2019.
  50. Vieites, M., M. Guazzaroni, A. Beloqui, P. Golyshin, and M. Ferrer. 2009. Metagenomics approaches in systems microbiology. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 33 (1): 236–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whitaker, R. 2003. Geographic barriers isolate endemic populations of hyperthermophilic archaea. Science 301 (5635): 976–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ziogas, D., I. Kyrochristos, and D. Roukos. 2018. Next-generation sequencing: From conventional applications to breakthrough genomic analyses and precision oncology. Expert Review of Medical Devices 15 (1): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Lane Warmbrod
    • 1
  • Michael Montague
    • 1
  • Nancy D. Connell
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Center for Health SecurityJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations