The microbiome has been at the center of a cross-section of disciplines with a wide range of applications and research methodologies, the impact of which is also reflected in forensic science. The skin microbiome is considered a “microbial fingerprint” due to its highly personalized characteristics and can be used for forensic individual identification. This narrative review systematically combs through the literature on skin microbiome and forensic applications, focusing on the characteristics, current applications, challenges, and future prospects of the skin microbiome in the field of forensic individual identification. It first explores host specificity, temporal stability, and marker characteristics. Then, by linking individuals with objects, individuals, and the environment, it analyzes the applications in forensic scenarios. It also introduces two commonly used main analytical techniques and their respective advantages and disadvantages. With the development of technology, machine learning has gradually been applied to forensic work. However, there are still four major challenges in practical application, namely ethical, technical, database and biological challenges. In this context, we provide a standardized process through a hypothetical case and propose a multi-omics collaborative analysis framework for the first time, combining metagenomics, metabolomics, and non-omics data (such as geographical information, image records) to illustrate its enhanced effects in scenarios such as sexual assault and disaster victim identification. Overall, despite the challenges, the application of skin microbiome in forensic science is promising and is expected to play an important role in the future of forensic practice.
WankhadeTDIngaleSWMohitePM, et al.Artificial intelligence in forensic medicine and toxicology: the future of forensic medicine. Cureus2022; 14: e28376.
2.
SkowronKBauza-KaszewskaJKraszewskaZ, et al.Human skin microbiome: impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on skin microbiota. Microorganisms2021; 9: 543.
3.
LeungMHYWilkinsDLeePKH. Insights into the pan-microbiome: skin microbial communities of Chinese individuals differ from other racial groups. Sci Rep2015; 5: 11845.
4.
FiererNHamadyMLauberCL, et al.The influence of sex, handedness, and washing on the diversity of hand surface bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2008; 105: 17994.
5.
VindenesHKDrengenesCAminH, et al.Longitudinal analysis of the skin microbiome in association with hand eczema, hand hygiene practices and moisturizer use. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol2024; 38: 2118–2129.
6.
LiZXiaJJiangL, et al.Characterization of the human skin resistome and identification of two microbiota cutotypes. Microbiome2021; 9: 47.
7.
ChoH-WEomY-B. Forensic analysis of human microbiome in skin and body fluids based on geographic location. Front Cell Infect Microbiol2021; 11: 695191.
8.
RossAADoxeyACNeufeldJD. The skin microbiome of cohabiting couples. mSystems2017; 2: e00043.
9.
KongHH. Skin microbiome: genomics-based insights into the diversity and role of skin microbes. Trends Mol Med2011; 17: 320.
10.
JiangSLiHZhangL, et al.Generic Diagramming Platform (GDP): a comprehensive database of high-quality biomedical graphics. Nucleic Acids Res2025; 53: D1670–D1676.
11.
PerezGIPGaoZJourdainR, et al.Body site is a more determinant factor than human population diversity in the healthy skin microbiome. PLoS ONE2016; 11: e0151990.
12.
WangYYuQZhouR, et al.Nationality and body location alter human skin microbiome. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol2021; 105: 5241–5256.
13.
OhJByrdALParkM, et al.Temporal stability of the human skin microbiome. Cell2016; 165: 854.
14.
JavanGTFinleySJAbidinZ, et al.The thanatomicrobiome: a missing piece of the microbial puzzle of death. Front Microbiol2016; 7: 225.
15.
Pérez-LosadaMCrandallKA. Spatial diversity of the skin bacteriome. Front Microbiol2023; 14: 1257276.
16.
SchmedesSEWoernerAENovroskiNMM, et al.Targeted sequencing of clade-specific markers from skin microbiomes for forensic human identification. Forensic Sci Int Genet2018; 32: 50–61.
17.
YılmazSSKuşkucuMAÇakanH, et al.Effective use of skin microbiome signatures for fingerprint identification. Skin Res Technol2024; 30: e70052.
18.
PhanKBarashMSpindlerX, et al.Retrieving forensic information about the donor through bacterial profiling. Int J Legal Med2020; 134: 21–29.
19.
WatanabeHNakamuraIMizutaniS, et al.Minor taxa in human skin microbiome contribute to the personal identification. PLoS ONE2018; 13: e0199947.
20.
GrahamEHClarkeJLFernandoSC, et al.The application of the skin virome for human identification. Forensic Sci Int Genet2022; 57: 102662.
21.
HoisingtonAJStamperCEBatesKL, et al.Human microbiome transfer in the built environment differs based on occupants, objects, and buildings. Sci Rep2023; 13: 6446.
22.
ProcopioNSguazziGErikssonEV, et al.Transferability of human and environmental microbiome on clothes as a tool for forensic investigations. Genes (Basel)2024; 15: 375.
23.
MeadowJFAltrichterAEGreenJL. Mobile phones carry the personal microbiome of their owners. PeerJ2014; 2: e447.
24.
HeJShenXZhangN, et al.Smartphones as an ecological niche of microorganisms: microbial activities, assembly, and opportunistic pathogens. Microbiol Spectr2022; 10: e01508.
25.
FiererNLauberCLZhouN, et al.Forensic identification using skin bacterial communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2010; 107: 6477.
26.
YangJTsukimiTYoshikawaM, et al.Cutibacterium acnes (Propionibacterium acnes) 16S rRNA genotyping of microbial samples from possessions contributes to owner identification. mSystems2019; 4: e00594–19.
27.
KodamaWAXuZMetcalfJL, et al.Trace evidence potential in postmortem skin microbiomes: from death scene to morgue. J Forensic Sci2019; 64: 791–798.
28.
SongSJLauberCCostelloEK, et al.Cohabiting family members share microbiota with one another and with their dogs. eLife2013; 2: e00458.
29.
WetzelsSUStrachanCRConradyB, et al.Wolves, dogs and humans in regular contact can mutually impact each other’s skin microbiota. Sci Rep2021; 11: 17106.
30.
NeckovicAvan OorschotRAHSzkutaB, et al.Investigation of direct and indirect transfer of microbiomes between individuals. Forensic Sci Int Genet2020; 45: 102212.
31.
WilliamsDWGibsonG. Classification of individuals and the potential to detect sexual contact using the microbiome of the pubic region. Forensic Sci Int Genet2019; 41: 177–187.
32.
YeZHuangJLiangZ, et al.A case study showing highly traceable sources of bacteria on surfaces of university buildings. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf2024; 281: 116632.
33.
HospodskyDQianJNazaroffWW, et al.Human occupancy as a source of indoor airborne bacteria. PLoS ONE2012; 7: e34867.
34.
MeadowJFAltrichterAEKembelSW, et al.Bacterial communities on classroom surfaces vary with human contact. Microbiome2014; 2: 7.
35.
Hampton-MarcellJTLarsenPAntonT, et al.Detecting personal microbiota signatures at artificial crime scenes. Forensic Sci Int2020; 313: 110351.
36.
WilkinsDTongXLeungMHY, et al.Diurnal variation in the human skin microbiome affects accuracy of forensic microbiome matching. Microbiome2021; 9: 129.
37.
MeadowJFAltrichterAEBatemanAC, et al.Humans differ in their personal microbial cloud. PeerJ2015; 3: e1258.
38.
CoilDANechesRYLangJM, et al.Bacterial communities associated with cell phones and shoes. PeerJ2020; 8: e9235.
39.
RichardsonMGottelNGilbertJA, et al.Microbial similarity between students in a common dormitory environment reveals the forensic potential of individual microbial signatures. mBio2019; 10: e01054–19.
40.
LaxSSmithDPHampton-MarcellJ, et al.Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment. Science2014; 345: 1048.
41.
ChenYKnightRGalloRL. Evolving approaches to profiling the microbiome in skin disease. Front Immunol2023; 14: 1151527.
42.
RanjanRRaniAMetwallyA, et al.Analysis of the microbiome: advantages of whole genome shotgun versus 16S amplicon sequencing. Biochem Biophys Res Commun2015; 469: 967.
43.
YangM-QWangZ-JZhaiC-B, et al.Research progress on the application of 16S rRNA gene sequencing and machine learning in forensic microbiome individual identification. Front Microbiol Epub ahead of print 2 February 2024; 15. DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2024.1360457
44.
ToyomaneKYokotaRWatanabeK, et al.Evaluation of CRISPR diversity in the human skin microbiome for personal identification. mSystems2021; 6: e01255.
45.
XuGTengXGaoX-H, et al.Advances in machine learning-based bacteria analysis for forensic identification: identity, ethnicity, and site of occurrence. Front Microbiol2023; 14: 1332857.
46.
TianLWuWYuT. Graph random forest: a graph embedded algorithm for identifying highly connected important features. Biomolecules2023; 13: 1153.
47.
DaniLMTóthDFrigyikAB, et al.Beyond Henssge’s formula: using regression trees and a support vector machine for time of death estimation in forensic medicine. Diagnostics2023; 13: 1260.
48.
CastroHMFerreiraJC. Linear and logistic regression models: when to use and how to interpret them?J Bras Pneumol2022; 48: e20220439.
49.
SherierAJWoernerAEBudowleB. Population informative markers selected using wright’s fixation index and machine learning improves human identification using the skin microbiome. Appl Environ Microbiol2021; 87: e01208.
50.
HuangLHuangHLiangX, et al.Skin locations inference and body fluid identification from skin microbial patterns for forensic applications. Forensic Sci Int2024; 362: 112152.
51.
HuangSHaiminenNCarrieriA-P, et al.Human skin, oral, and gut microbiomes predict chronological age. mSystems2020; 5: e00630.
52.
Tan-TorresALBrooksJPSinghB, et al.Machine learning clustering and classification of human microbiome source body sites. Forensic Sci Int2021; 328: 111008.
53.
SherierAJWoernerAEBudowleB. Determining informative microbial single nucleotide polymorphisms for human identification. Appl Environ Microbiol2022; 88: e00052.
54.
GhannamRBTechtmannSM. Machine learning applications in microbial ecology, human microbiome studies, and environmental monitoring. Comput Struct Biotechnol J2021; 19: 1092–1107.
55.
HeQNiuXQiR-Q, et al.Advances in microbial metagenomics and artificial intelligence analysis in forensic identification. Front Microbiol Epub ahead of print 15 November 2022; 13. DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2022.1046733
56.
OliveiraMAmorimA. Microbial forensics: new breakthroughs and future prospects. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol2018; 102: 10377–10391.
57.
ClarkeTHGomezASinghH, et al.Integrating the microbiome as a resource in the forensics toolkit. Forensic Sci Int Genet2017; 30: 141–147.
58.
CaenazzoLTozzoP. Microbiome forensic biobanking: a step toward microbial profiling for forensic human identification. Healthcare2021; 9: 1371.
59.
RhodesR. Ethical issues in microbiome research and medicine. BMC Med2016; 14: 156. s12916-016-0702–7.
60.
NeckovicAA. H. van OorschotRSzkutaB, et al.Challenges in human skin microbial profiling for forensic science: a review. Genes (Basel)2020; 11: 1015.
61.
NeckovicAvan OorschotRAHSzkutaB, et al.Investigation into the presence and transfer of microbiomes within a forensic laboratory setting. Forensic Sci Int Genet2021; 52: 102492.
62.
EisenhoferRMinichJJMarotzC, et al.Contamination in low microbial biomass microbiome studies: issues and recommendations. Trends Microbiol2019; 27: 105–117.
63.
CullenCMAnejaKKBeyhanS, et al.Emerging priorities for microbiome research. Front Microbiol2020; 11: 136.
64.
Cláudia-FerreiraABarbosaDJSaegemanV, et al.The future is now: unraveling the expanding potential of human (necro)microbiome in forensic investigations. Microorganisms2023; 11: 2509.
65.
ZhangJLiuWSimayijiangH, et al.Application of microbiome in forensics. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics2023; 21: 97–107.
66.
VangayPBurginJJohnstonA, et al.Microbiome metadata standards: report of the national microbiome data collaborative’s workshop and follow-on activities. mSystems2021; 6: e01194.
67.
MukherjeeSOvchinnikovaGStamatisD, et al.Standardized naming of microbiome samples in Genomes OnLine Database. Database J Biol Databases Curation2023; 2023: baad001.
68.
YuanHWangZWangZ, et al.Trends in forensic microbiology: from classical methods to deep learning. Front Microbiol2023; 14: 1163741.
69.
WilkinsDLeungMHYLeePKH. Microbiota fingerprints lose individually identifying features over time. Microbiome2017; 5: 1.
70.
DixonREganSPayneM, et al.Bacterial transfer during sexual intercourse as a tool for forensic detection. iScience2025; 28: 111861.
71.
RuuskanenMOVatsDPotbhareR, et al.Towards standardized and reproducible research in skin microbiomes. Environ Microbiol2022; 24: 3840–3860.
72.
OgaiKNagaseSMukaiK, et al.A comparison of techniques for collecting skin microbiome samples: swabbing versus tape-stripping. Front Microbiol2018; 9: 2362.
73.
NearingJTComeauAMLangilleMGI. Identifying biases and their potential solutions in human microbiome studies. Microbiome2021; 9: 113.
74.
KlymiukIBambachIPatraV, et al.16S Based microbiome analysis from healthy subjects’ skin swabs stored for different storage periods reveal phylum to genus level changes. Front Microbiol2016; 7: 2012.
75.
BergGRybakovaDFischerD, et al.Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges. Microbiome2020; 8: 103.
76.
DakalTCXuCKumarA. Advanced computational tools, artificial intelligence and machine-learning approaches in gut microbiota and biomarker identification. Front Med Technol2025; 6: 1434799.
77.
Santiago-RodriguezTMHollisterEB. Multi ‘omic data integration: a review of concepts, considerations, and approaches. Semin Perinatol2021; 45: 151456.
78.
LuTChenYYoshijiS, et al.Circulating metabolite abundances associated with risks of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and depression: a Mendelian randomization study. Biol Psychiatry2024; 96: 782–791.
79.
KuehneAHildebrandJSoehleJ, et al.An integrative metabolomics and transcriptomics study to identify metabolic alterations in aged skin of humans in vivo. BMC Genomics2017; 18: 169.
80.
KaradayıS. Assessment of the link between evidence and crime scene through soil bacterial and fungal microbiome: a mock case in forensic study. Forensic Sci Int2021; 329: 111060.
81.
MeharPABhoyarLZMahakalkarAL. Integration of bite mark microbiome analysis with forensic DNA profiling: advancements, challenges, and synergistic approaches. Rambam Maimonides Med J2024; 15: e0014.
82.
KarstensLAsquithMDavinS, et al.Controlling for contaminants in low-biomass 16S rRNA gene sequencing experiments. mSystems2019; 4: e00290–19.
83.
ZhangJZhangZ. Ethics and governance of trustworthy medical artificial intelligence. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2023; 23: 7.
84.
KerasidouCMaloneMDalyA, et al.Machine learning models, trusted research environments and UK health data: ensuring a safe and beneficial future for AI development in healthcare. J Med Ethics2023; 49: 838–843.
