棉织物上血斑洗涤后无损取材方式及DNA提取方法研究

目的 探究不同无损取材方式及DNA提取方法对棉织物上洗涤血斑DNA分析成功率的影响。方法 采用棉签擦拭法、植绒拭子擦拭法、脱落细胞粘取器粘取法富集洗涤棉织物上的血痕。分别采用Chelex 100法、过柱法和磁珠法提取DNA。采用常规PCR和复合PCR技术扩增目标片段并分别运用琼脂糖凝胶电泳和毛细管电泳技术检测目标产物。结果 植绒拭子擦拭法取材的效果最差,通过脱落细胞粘取器粘取法获得的DNA浓度、STR分型成功率均高于棉签擦拭法,且粘取法操作较简单,实践中优先推荐选择粘取法作为该类检材的取材方式。此外,DNA浓度和STR分型结果均表明过柱法提取DNA的效果优于Chelex法,而磁珠法在3种DNA提取方法中效果最差,建议实践中选择过柱法作为此类检材DNA提取的首选方法。结论 针对棉织物检材上洗涤血痕无损取材及DNA分析,优先推荐选择脱落细胞粘取器粘取法和过柱法分别进行样本取材以及DNA提取。     

自动化工作站与Chelex-100法对血样本检验效果比较

目的比较自动化工作站与Chelex-100法对不同浓度血液样本的检验效果。方法取新鲜血液,按倍量稀释法制成2~1 024倍10种不同浓度的血样本,分别采用自动化工作站和Chelex-100法提取模板DNA,应用Identifiler Plus试剂盒进行扩增及毛细管电泳检测,并对电泳结果进行比较。结果稀释2~32倍的血样本,采用两种方法的检验成功率均可达到100%;稀释64倍的样本,Chelex-100法成功率为41.3%、完整分型数为78.3%,自动化工作站成功率为13.0%、完整分型数为43.5%,两者比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.01);稀释128倍的样本,成功率在Chelex-100法(8.7%)和自动化工作站(2.4%)之间比较,其差异无统计学意义(P0.05);稀释256倍以上,两种方法均无法获得分型结果。结论自动化工作站适用于一定浓度血样的检验,而对于微量血样,Chelex-100法的效果可能更优。     

口腔拭子DNA检验的实时定量研究

目的寻求提高口腔拭子的DNA检验效率的方法。方法对来源于不同个体或同一个体不同擦拭次数的口腔拭子用Chelex-100或磁珠法提取的DNA用实时定量PCR技术进行定量,同时用Identifiler复合扩增系统在ABI3100遗传分析仪上对这些DNA样品进行STR分型。结果在建立的Identifiler系统8μl扩增体系中,3个月内的口腔拭子用Chelex-100法提取的DNA模板1μl量较3μl量扩增效果好,磁珠法提取的DNA模板用量大小对复合扩增检测影响较小。结论用棉签擦拭颊粘膜5次制备口腔拭子,取其头部的约1/4用200μlChelex-100法提取DNA,然后用1μl模板进行复合扩增,是提高口腔拭子的DNA检验效率的简便可行的方法,但陈旧口腔拭子用磁珠法提取更能保证复合扩增分型成功。     

阴茎拭子在1例强奸案件中的应用

1案件简介李某(女)报案称:于某日凌晨2时许酒后休息时朦胧中被左某强奸,但左某拒不承认。法医提取受害人李某血样及阴道擦拭物、提取左某的阴茎(龟头)拭子及血样进行DNA检验。执行标准GA/T383-2002标准方法,阴棉、卫生纸上未检出精子。用Chelex法分别提取阴茎拭子上细胞DNA及受害人李某、嫌疑人左某血液DNA。用Promega-powePlex16系统,经PCR方法符合扩增多个STR基因座,用ABI-3100序列分析仪进行基因分析,得到基因分型(见表1)。表1 DNA分型结果D3S1358 TH01 D21S51 D18S51李某15/17 9 29/30 14/19阴茎拭子15/17 9 29/30 14/19…     

水浸和洗涤血样本的DNA检验

目的对经水作用的血样本DNA分型检验结果进行分析探讨。方法全血样本分为两组,水稀释组用水将全血样本稀释5、10、20、25、30倍后制作血斑;洗涤组分为纯水手洗、肥皂弱洗、肥皂强洗、84消毒液浸洗和洗衣粉机洗等5种洗涤方式。所有样本用IQ试剂盒提取DNA,Identifiler PlusTM试剂盒扩增,并进行分型检测。结果血液稀释组中心部位检材,均无等位基因丢失,除30倍稀释样本外,峰高均衡性均大于70%;外周部位检材出现2～10个等位基因丢失,峰高均衡性均小于50%。洗涤组中除84消毒液洗涤样本未检出DNA谱带外,其余均无等位基因丢失,而峰高及均衡性以手洗和肥皂弱洗样本更好。结论经水稀释或洗涤剂清洗的血样本,即使联苯胺预实验结果为阴性,选取合适的检验部位,仍可获得DNA分型。     

全自动核酸提取仪联合真空浓缩仪在法医学中的应用

目的探讨全自动核酸提取仪联合真空浓缩仪在法医学DNA提取中的应用价值。方法采集人外周静脉血稀释成40、80、120、160、200、240、280和320倍的梯度样本,并对每一梯度的样本分别进行无抑纯化提取,提取后的DNA洗脱液取6μL直接进行扩增,剩余部分使用真空浓缩仪进行浓缩,浓缩前后的DNA均使用Investigator 26plex QS试剂盒进行扩增、检测。结果添加果酸的梯度样本仅在40倍稀释时获得完整STR分型结果,另外5种方式处理的梯度样本在40～160倍稀释时均获得完整的STR分型。DNA浓缩后的STR分型结果显示,平均峰高和基因座检出率均有一定程度的提高,但是效果并不明显。结论全自联合使用可提高法医学检材的检验成功率。     

锡纸表面接触性DNA检验方法比较

目的研究不同检验方法对锡纸表面接触性DNA分型结果的影响。方法1名志愿者洗手后分别触捏锡纸条10s,每次实验30份样本均为当天分两次制作完成。分别采取植绒拭子擦拭转移直扩法、植绒拭子擦拭转移M48磁珠法、锡纸实物整体浸入M48磁珠法进行实验。结果30个样本采用植绒拭子擦拭转移直扩法全部获得完整STR分型,且不受表面粘附灰尘抑制物影响;30个样本采用植绒拭子擦拭转移M48磁珠法提取纯化,5个样本存在不同程度等位基因缺失;30个样本采用实物整体浸入M48磁珠法提取纯化,均未获得STR分型。结论采取植绒拭子擦拭转移直扩法检验结果最好,且操作方便,可作为首选;植绒拭子擦拭转移M48磁珠法效果仅次于直扩法,可视情况选用;但实物整体浸入M48磁珠法提取纯化效果最差,不可采用。     

采用植绒拭子提取物证破获系列盗窃案1例

<正>1案例2013年11月,某市某别墅区及周边宿舍一夜间有六户被盗,被盗金额高达百万元。现场勘验时,仔细查看犯罪嫌疑人在作案过程中攀爬时最有可能触摸的部位,如天然气管、防护栏等,发现有明显的徒手接触痕迹,于是用植绒拭子(美国AB公司)擦拭提取。擦拭物用M48试剂盒(德国QIAGEN公司)的裂     

5种免提取试剂盒检验滤纸血痕结果的比较

目的探讨5种免提取试剂盒对滤纸血痕样本检验的效果。方法陈旧滤纸血痕(存放时间12～14个月)及新鲜滤纸血痕(存放时间小于1个月)各920份,分别随机分为5组。应用AGCU 17+1、Goldeneye 20A、Powerplex16HS、Identifiler Plus、Identifiler Direct 5种免提取试剂盒进行检验,对比各组检验结果。结果陈旧滤纸血痕5种试剂盒的检验成功率为98.91%～100%,各组间无差异(P>0.05);新鲜滤纸血痕,Identifiler Plus和Identifiler Direct试剂盒检验成功率高于AGCU17+1、Goldeneye 20A及Powerplex 16HS试剂盒(P<0.01);将样本做陈旧化处理后再用成功率较低的3种试剂盒进行检验,成功率分别升至100%、99.46%、99.46%;Identifiler Plus试剂盒扩增循环27次效果优于28次。结论本文5种试剂盒均可用于滤纸血痕的直接扩增检验,但使用AGCU17+1、Goldeneye 20A及Powerplex 16HS试剂盒需将新鲜血痕做陈旧化处理;Identifiler Plus试剂盒需将循环次数降为27次。     

24个基因座复合扩增系统的应用

目的建立24个基因座的复合扩增系统,并对其性能指标进行评价。方法选择24个基因座（包含D8S1179、D5S818、D2S1338、D18S51、D6S1043、D2S441、D3S1358、vWA、D19S433、D16S539、CSF1PO、Penta D、D22S1045、D13S317、D1S1656、D7S820、TPOX、Penta E、D10S1248、TH01、D12S391、D21S11、FGA等23个STR基因座及1个Amelogenin基因座）;合成引物,上游端标记荧光染料;收集DNA数据库建库血痕及口腔拭子样本及相关11种动物样本,采用本文方法进行复合扩增;并对方法的准确性、灵敏度、稳定性、种属特异性、检材适用性、混合样本的检验等系统性能指标进行验证。结果本文复合扩增系统对最长保存9年的各种血痕检材完整分型成功率为100%,且均衡性良好,无非特异性扩增,口腔拭子的成功率为97.8%,灵敏度达125pg,对含有抑制剂样本,在血红素浓度≤600μmol/L,腐殖酸浓度≤50ng/μL时检出效果稳定,种属特异性好。结论本文24个基因座复合扩增系统在DNA数据库建设中具有较好的应用价值。     

A comparison of DNA collection and retrieval from two swab types (cotton and nylon flocked swab) when processed using three QIAGEN extraction methods

The Metropolitan Police Service currently uses cotton swabs to retrieve DNA for forensic profiling. Recently, a new nylon flocked swab type has become available from Copan (MicroRheologics, Brescia, Italy) that it is claimed, offers increased sample recovery and release yields. If true, the flocked swab may have important applications in DNA evidence retrieval. This study examines the DNA retrieval capability of cotton and nylon flocked swabs when extracted using three common extraction platforms (QIAcube, BioRobot EZ1 and manually processed QIAamp DNA investigator kit). Results indicate that both swab types are capable of recovering high percentages of DNA (>50%); however, the extraction platform selected was shown to have a significant effect upon DNA retrieval. Across all experiments, the cotton swab combined with the spin-column extractions was shown to be most effective, with the nylon swab and BioRobot EZ1 combination being the least effective. These findings illustrate the importance of extraction method selection.     

Swabs as DNA Collection Devices for Sampling Different Biological Materials from Different Substrates

Currently, there is a variety of swabs for collection of biological evidence from crime scenes, but their comparative efficiency is unknown. Here, we report the results of an investigation into the efficiency of different swab types to collect blood, saliva and touch DNA from a range of substrates. The efficiency of extracting blood and saliva from each swab type was also tested. Some swabs were significantly more effective than others for sampling biological materials from different substrates. Swabs with the highest sampling efficiency, however, often did not have the highest extraction efficiency. Observations were recorded regarding practicality of each swab in a variety of situations. Our study demonstrates that selection of sampling device impacts greatly upon successful collection and extraction of DNA. We present guidelines to assist in evaluation of swab choice.     

Contribution to the Development of Guidelines in the Analysis of Biological Evidence in Sexual Assault Investigations

This investigation intends to study materials and techniques used for biological evidence collection in sexual assault cases and is divided into two stages: in stage one, methods for biological evidence collection (the single swab (including three variants) and the “double swab technique”) were compared; in stage two, swabs’ component material was compared. The sampling was composed of 42 heterosexual couples who provided mock samples. The collection methods in which the whole swab is covered by evidence presented significantly better outcomes (p < 0.001), such as the “double swab technique.” Additionally, nylon swabs proved to present significantly better features regarding the capacity of sample elution, providing significantly higher amounts of DNA (p ≤ 0.034). This study provides guidelines for better collection of biological evidence regarding the collection method using a swab and the proper swab material to utilize.     

Nondestructive Biological Evidence Collection with Alternative Swabs and Adhesive Lifters

In forensic science, biological material is typically collected from evidence via wet/dry double swabbing with cotton swabs, which is effective but can visibly damage an item's surface. When an item's appearance must be maintained, dry swabbing and tape‐lifting may be employed as collection techniques that are visually nondestructive to substrates' surfaces. This study examined the efficacy of alternative swab matrices and adhesive lifters when collecting blood and fingerprints from glass, painted drywall, 100% cotton, and copy paper. Data were evaluated by determining the percent profile and quality score for each STR profile generated. Hydraflock^® swabs, BVDA Gellifters^®, and Scenesafe FAST? tape performed as well as or better than cotton swabs when collecting fingerprints from painted drywall and 100% cotton. Collection success was also dependent on the type of biological material sampled and the substrate on which it was deposited. These results demonstrated that alternative swabs and adhesive lifters can be effective for nondestructive DNA collection from various substrates.     

Evaluation of the use of freezer mill to improve DNA retrieval from dried cotton swabs

This investigation evaluated the use of a freezer mill to improve retrieval of DNA from dried cotton swabs (using 100 μl saliva) compared to uncrushed swabs and whole saliva by measuring DNA yield and profile average peak height. Three treatments were tested; short, medium (as for a bone sample) and extended. The samples subjected to the freezer mill had the powder that remained on the freezer mill components collected (using a water and agitation method). All freezer mill samples returned a lower average DNA yield than either uncrushed swabs or whole saliva. The powder from the crushed swabs comprised an average of 35% of the total DNA yield, whereas the powder from the components comprised 65%. Allele drop-out was observed in samples exposed to extended treatments. Both short and medium treatments provided significantly higher peak heights than uncrushed cotton swabs with equal quantities of DNA (P < 0.05). Using a freezer mill on dried cotton swabs does not increase the DNA yield. This investigation suggests collecting powder from the freezer mill components will increase DNA yield, especially from trace samples.     

The use of DNA stabilizing solution to enable room temperature storage and transportation of buccal and trace sample swabs

It is proposed that a DNA stabilizing solution (DNA Genotek Inc.) designed to preserve DNA in saliva samples at room temperature can be extrapolated to the storage of swab heads. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the solution for the preservation of reference swabs (buccal) and trace samples (facial swabs). To this end, the solution was used during a twin-site DNA transfer project assessing background levels of carer DNA present in children. Tubes containing 400 μl of solution were used to store and transport swab heads. At the laboratory, samples were extracted using the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen), quantified using the Quantifiler Duo Kit and profiled using the AmpF?STR^® SGM Plus^® PCR Amplification Kit (both Applied Biosystems). Twenty-eight PCR cycles were applied to all samples. Thirty-four cycles or a longer electrophoresis injection time was applied to trace samples where necessary. All Reference swabs produced high quantities of DNA and full DNA profiles after 28 cycles. Profile morphology indicated good quality DNA with no degradation. Of the trace samples, sufficient profiles were achieved to study the transfer of carer DNA making the solution fit for continued use in this project. DNA stabilizing solution enables the storage and transportation of swabs without freezing. This is convenient, reduces transportation costs and enables instant analysis of samples upon arrival at the laboratory. This is a useful alternative for a multi-site research project as well as a reliable storage tool for use in remote areas.     

Implementation of Prep-n-Go™ Buffer for DNA extraction from buccal swabs

The efficacy of two extraction methods; room temperature and heat protocols was assessed for buccal swabs using the Prep-n-Go™ Buffer. DNA was extracted from buccal swabs using both extraction methods and their effectiveness to produce good quality DNA profiles was evaluated. Heat protocol was found to yield more DNA, however room temperature protocol produced better quality DNA profiles with fewer artefacts when the samples from both extraction methods were amplified directly without any normalisation with the VeriFiler™ Express PCR Amplification Kit.     

盗窃案件现场检材提取与DNA检测结果的统计分析

目的统计分析1574例盗窃案件中提取的2496个现场生物检材,为提高DNA在盗窃案件侦破中的应用成效提供参考。方法根据2496个生物检材的类型、现场提取方法、重点提取部位、DNA检测结果等进行统计和分析比较,总结常见类型盗窃案件现场生物检材的主要发现提取部位以及不同方法提取的现场生物检材DNA检出率。结果接触类检材已成为盗窃案件最多见的生物检材类型,但检出率仍然较低,对混合分型应进一步分析筛选以提高DNA的认定率;不同方法提取的现场生物检材在DNA检出率方面存在统计学差异,接触类生物检材以植绒拭子和原物提取的方式为首选;现场生物检材的主要发现提取部位根据盗窃案件的类型不同有所侧重。结论现场勘查人员在盗窃案件中发现和提取到有价值的生物检材是提高DNA检出认定能力的关键因素,应着力培养现场勘查人员的微量生物物证意识,提高现场勘查人员提取和处理微量生物检材的能力。     

A Comparison of Common Swabbing Materials for the Recovery of Organic and Inorganic Explosive Residues

The efficiency of solvent based extraction methods used to remove explosive residues from four different swab types was investigated. Known amounts of organic and inorganic residues were spiked onto a swab surface with acetonitrile or ethanol:water combined with ultrasonication or physical manipulation used to extract the residues from each swab. The efficiency of each procedure was then calculated using liquid chromatography‐ultraviolet detection for organic residues and ion chromatography for inorganic residues. Results indicated that acetonitrile combined with physical agitation proved to be the most efficient method; returning analyte recoveries c. 95% for both alcohol based swabs and cotton balls. Inorganic residues were efficiently extracted using ethanol:water, while the use of acetonitrile followed by water significantly reduced the recovery of inorganic residues. Swab storage conditions were then investigated with results indicating decreased storage temperatures are required to retain the more volatile explosives.