The process of using genetic markers to estimate CST rates should take into account several important factors to reduce bias. One is that the phylogenetic tree constructed in the analysis needs to capture the underlying epidemiological process generating the tree. The models need to account for how the genetic variability of a pathogen influences a disease in a species, not just general differences in genomic structure. Two, the strength of the analysis will depend on the amount of mutation accumulated since the pathogen was introduced in the system. This is due to many models using the number of mutations as an indicator of CST frequency. Therefore, efforts are focused on estimating either time since the introduction or the substitution rate of the marker (from laboratory experiments or genomic comparative analysis). This is important not only when using the MPR method but also for Likelihood approaches that require an estimation of the mutation rate. Three, CST will also affect disease prevalence in the potential host, so combining both epidemiological time series data with genetic data may be an excellent approach to CST study

Bayesian analysis
Bayesian frameworks are a form of maximum likelihood-based analyses and can be very effective in cross-species transmission studies. Bayesian inference of character evolution methods can account for phylogenetic tree uncertainty and more complex scenarios, with models such as the character diffusion model currently being developed for the study of CST in RNA viruses. A Bayesian statistical approach presents advantages over other analyses for tracking CST origins.
The study included a single dose as well as a combination of 3 daily doses (ranging from 0.2 to 20 micrograms/kg) given consecutively. It was determined that single doses did not result in noteworthy production of epithelial cells. Study 970136 (Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation). Intended to determine the safety and tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of a single dose, administered intravenously (ranging from 5–20 micrograms/kg) in 24 healthy volunteers. It was found that systematic exposure was proportional to the administered dose. Extravascular distribution of the drug was noted. Study 970290 (Open-label). Intended to evaluate pharmacokinetic properties intersubject variability of the drug in four, healthy male volunteers. It was determined that a high intersubject variability was not the cause of dosing errors in previous studies. Study 970276 (Dose-escalation). Intended to determine the safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics properties of the drug versus a placebo in 18 healthy volunteers. The study consisted of daily IV doses in three consecutive days (20 or 40 micrograms/kg). It was determined that subjects that received three daily doses of 40 micrograms/kg demonstrated adequate production of epithelial cells in the buccal mucosa. Predicted elevation in amylase and lipase were also determined. Study 20010192 (Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation). Intended to determine safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics properties of the drug versus a placebo by utilization of a single IV dose (ranging from 60 to 250 micrograms/kg) in 84 healthy volunteers.