Biobanks in veterinary forensic medicine: A systematic review on Advances, challenges, and applications in combating wildlife trafficking.

Abstract

Background and aim: Biobanks represent organized repositories of biological samples linked to associated data, designed for long-term scientific, clinical, and forensic utilization. In veterinary medicine, animal biobanks facilitate biomedical research, genetic resource preservation, species conservation, and forensic investigations. The present systematic review aimed to synthesize advances, persistent challenges, and practical applications of biobanks in veterinary forensic medicine, with particular emphasis on their contribution to detection, investigation, and suppression of wildlife trafficking.

Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across Periódicos Capes, PubMed, SciELO, and ScienceDirect databases, covering publications from 2013 to 2023. Search strings combined terms such as "animal biobank", "animal biorepository", "wildlife forensic", "wildlife trafficking", and "forensic veterinary" (English), together with Portuguese equivalents. Only peer-reviewed articles published in English or Portuguese that explicitly addressed biobanks in veterinary forensic contexts or wildlife crime were included. The review adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Screening involved title/abstract evaluation followed by full-text assessment. Data were narratively synthesized.

Results: Of 1,495 records identified, 15 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria after exclusion of 1,460 irrelevant or non-qualifying publications. No eligible articles appeared between 2013 and 2014. From 2015 onward, publications demonstrated progressive refinement, transitioning from molecular barcoding for species identification toward integrated applications in geographic origin assignment, chain-of-custody documentation, and evidentiary support in judicial proceedings. Key materials included DNA from muscle, scales, claws, and feathers; cryopreserved gonadal tissues; and somatic cells derived from minimally invasive sources (e.g., feather follicles) or roadkill specimens. Studies highlighted particular utility in identifying fraudulently labeled fishery products, counterfeit mammalian derivatives (e.g., fake tiger claws), and confiscated pangolin scales, as well as in tracing trafficking routes in high biodiversity regions.

Conclusion: Veterinary forensic biobanks offer substantial potential for accurate species and geographic provenance determination, thereby strengthening enforcement against illegal wildlife trade. Nevertheless, implementation remains constrained by absent standardized operating procedures, limited practitioner awareness, fragmented reference databases, inadequate inter-institutional connectivity, and elevated logistic/financial demands. Regionalized biobanks integrated with wildlife screening centers (CETAS), harmonized chain-of-custody protocols, and artificial intelligence-supported data curation are proposed as priority strategies to translate existing scientific advances into routine forensic and conservation practice.