Understanding the Forens-OMICS Approach: An Interview with Noemi Procopio, Part I

When a body is discovered, scientists are key to identifying the victim, determining the cause of death, and estimating the time since death (postmortem interval or PMI). Traditional PMI methods, like analyzing body temperature or insect activity, have limitations, especially with older remains (1). To improve accuracy, researchers at the University of Central Lancashire, led by Noemi Procopio, are developing a new “Forens-OMICS” approach, which uses proteomics, metabolomics, and metabarcoding to track molecular and microbial changes in the body after death (1,2). This method aims to provide more reliable PMI estimates, even when only skeletal remains are left.

As part of “From Sample to Verdict,” LCGC International sat down with Procopio to talk about her team’s work. In Part I of our conversation with Procopio, she discusses the development of the Forens-OMICS approach and how her team estimates PMI using metabolomics, proteomics, and metabarcoding.

What inspired you to develop the Forens-OMICS approach, and how does it address the limitations of traditional postmortem interval (PMI) estimation methods?

The Forens-OMICS project started with an idea that I had for a grant, which was combining what I did for my PhD, which was proteomics but applied to forensics and bones, and what I studied for my undergraduate and master’s degree, which is molecular biology. I studied a lot about omics and their applications in the medical field, more or less. I thought that the combination of what I learned, plus the proteomics that I learned a bit more during my PhD, and the application in forensics, was something that was missing because when people are doing research in forensics, sometimes they're coming from different backgrounds, not necessarily molecular biology. Maybe they are more from the practitioner side and they are aware of what is needed, but they might not necessarily have the skills to apply omics methods to forensics. Therefore, I decided to put all of it together into a grant proposal, which was submitted to a funding body in the United Kingdom.

I put together a group for the Forens-OMICS project, and the idea is to improve postmortem interval decimation and also age death. We are trying to find better ways to estimate in a more quantitative, objective, measurable way, together with errors, something that at this stage is just estimated, more or less in a subjective way, or with a lot of limitations, like, for example, estimating postmortem interval is tricky. We don't have methods that give you a precise estimation with a specific error rate. There is one method that is measured during the body temperature, but as you can imagine, for that one, you need to have a body. If you're working with a skeleton, you cannot apply that method. Our method is supposed to be applied to decomposing soft tissues. It was originally developed for bones. So we are trying to address these questions, which are even a bit trickier and a bit more complex in forensics than the standard bodies decomposing in relatively short times.

How do proteomics, metabolomics, and metabarcoding each contribute to estimating PMI, and why is it important to integrate these techniques?

We tried to tackle the questions from multiple angles. We looked at different sets of molecules—proteins, metabolites, lipids, and microbes—and tried to understand which time point could be the right one for these different methods, considering that different molecules may have longer or shorter lifespans and some of them may change over time faster than others. We tried to use this set, and what we found is that metabolites are changing the fastest. Therefore, they are potentially better targets for shorter timeframes because they change very rapidly. When the body dies, you will already see in hours the metabolites changing because of the metabolic processes going on in the body, whereas, for example, proteins in bones survive. We already know that proteins in bones survive for a much longer time than DNA. We find proteins in bones of dinosaur bones or fossils, so we know that they have a very long lifespan. Therefore, not surprisingly, it seems that they work better on a longer time scale. I like to think about a six-month time window, like before six months, it's better using metabolites as they are slightly more informative. And then on a longer time scale, from six months onwards, proteins and lipids may be the direction to take, whereas microbes, which are easily becoming my favorite, are just informative at all stages. So that's where this timescale doesn't necessarily apply.

I think that combining the microbiome signature with any other omics will be an advantage because it's adding an extra level of detail, whereas not necessarily combining all these other molecules is more informative than just using one. Maybe for a specific time frame, one omics application will be better than another one. We're trying to understand this. We are integrating these multiple single omics methods into a multi-omics method to see if it's improving postmortem intersegments or not.

This interview was lightly edited for clarity.

References

1. Procopio, N. Forens-omics: How a Multi-omic Approach Can Reveal the Mysteries of the Postmortem Interval. The Pathologist 2024, 6. Available at: https://thepathologist.com/issues/2024/articles/nov/forens-omics/ (accessed 2025-07-24)
2. Procopio, N.; Bonicelli, A. From Flesh to Bones: Multi-omics Approaches in Forensic Science. Prot. Sys. Biol. 2024, 24 (12–13), 2200355. DOI: 10.1002/pmic.202200335