精子富集柱分离技术的研究

目的在传统差异裂解法基础上,研究建立新的混合斑检材中精子分离技术。方法根据精细胞的结构特点,研制精子富集柱。取混合斑检材经第一步消化后的混合液,加入精子富集柱中离心,使DNA等小分子物质透过,而精细胞被特异性黏附和拦截在富集层中。采用本文技术和常规裂解方法对12份混合斑检材中精子进行分离,分离后精子DNA采用Identifiler试剂盒进行PCR扩增和电泳检测。结果混合斑检材经精子富集柱分离后均获得单一男性精子的STR分型结果,而12份检材用常规裂解方法分离,其中有6份检材女性成分去除不完全或未能检出精子STR基因型。结论本研究建立的精子富集柱分离技术适用于常见混合斑检材中精子的分离,特别适合对含有大量女性混合物而精子量较少检材的分离提取。     

DNA检案中混合拭子提取方法的优化

正在强奸案中,阴道拭子作为犯罪证据,其重要性不可替代。通常精斑预实验阳性的阴道拭子检材即为混合斑的拭子,分离检验方法是采用差异裂解法(两步法)先除去精子外的其他细胞DNA,保留精子DNA[1],再通过DNA IQTMSystem提取精子DNA,获得纯精子的DNA图谱。但在实际操作中,混合斑中的阴道上皮细胞和精子DNA未作定量检测,使用该方法提取精子DNA时,往往会出现女性DNA去除不干     

3种分离提取混合斑精子DNA的方法比较

性犯罪案件中最常见的生物学检材为精液与阴道分泌液混合斑,其精子DNA的提取通常情况下采用常规的差异裂解细胞法结合酚、氯仿抽提[1],但由于检材条件各不相同,有些混合斑中精子细胞极少,核酸得率和纯度较低,有检测失败的可能或致使精子STR分型困难[2]。文献曾报道过多种改良方法[3,4],但其成功与否很大程度上受到检验人员的经验、水平等主观因素以及检材的具体条件影响。本文作者应用差异裂解法、Phase lock GelTM法[5]和D ifferexTM法[6]对三组不同条件的混合斑样品分离提取精子DNA,使用Powerplex16TM试剂盒分型,对3种方法进行比…     

尼龙膜套管分离技术对混合斑中精子细胞DNA的提取

目的建立新型的混合斑中精子细胞分离的方法,并评价其应用价值。方法收集性侵案件中的40份混合斑检材,分别采用常规差异裂解法和尼龙膜套管分离技术进行精子细胞分离,使用硅膜试剂盒(Forensic DNA Extraction Kit for Soft Tissues)提取精子细胞DNA,Amp FlSTR~ Identifiler~ Plus PCR扩增试剂盒进行PCR扩增,3500x L基因分析仪进行电泳检测,并对两种分离方法的结果进行对比。结果 40份混合斑检材中,采用尼龙膜套管分离技术的检材仅3份有女性成分微弱残留,余均获得了完整的单一男性分型。而采用常规差异裂解法分离的检材中,有25份完全未检出男性精子细胞STR分型,15份检出男性精子细胞STR分型(7份不完整男性精子细胞STR分型,6份有女性成分残留,2份单一的男性精子细胞STR分型)。结论本研究建立的尼龙膜套管分离技术适用于混合斑中精子细胞的分离,特别是对含有大量女性细胞而精子细胞较少的检材提取效果明显,整个提取实验成本低廉、快速简便。     

DNase-I纯化结合碱性裂解法提取混合斑精子DNA

目的研究脱氧核糖核酸酶I(DNase-I)纯化结合碱性裂解法提取混合斑精子DNA的方法在法医学中的应用。方法收集79份性犯罪案件混合斑检材,分别用DNase-I纯化结合碱性裂解法和差异裂解法提取精子DNA,采用STR荧光标记复合扩增体系进行16个STR基因座分型,并比较检验结果。结果应用DNase-I纯化结合碱性裂解法提取精子DNA,64例检材分型成功;应用差异裂解法提取精子DNA,57例检材分型成功;两种方法比较结果存在显著性差异(P=0.039),DNase-1纯化结合碱性裂解法提取精子DNA的STR分型成功率更高,成本低廉。结论DNase-I纯化结合碱性裂解法提取混合斑精子DNA可提高检验成功率,操作简便,快速,易于自动化,适于法医学个体识别鉴定。     

DNase-Ⅰ纯化结合碱性裂解法提取混合斑精子DNA

目的研究脱氧核糖核酸酶I(DNase-I)纯化结合碱性裂解法提取混合斑精子DNA的方法在法医学中的应用。方法收集79份性犯罪案件混合斑检材,分别用DNase-I纯化结合碱性裂解法和差异裂解法提取精子DNA,采用STR荧光标记复合扩增体系进行16个STR基因座分型,并比较检验结果。结果应用DNase-I纯化结合碱性裂解法提取精子DNA,64例检材分型成功;应用差异裂解法提取精子DNA,57例检材分型成功;两种方法比较结果存在显著性差异(P=0.039),DNase-1纯化结合碱性裂解法提取精子DNA的STR分型成功率更高,成本低廉。结论DNase-I纯化结合碱性裂解法提取混合斑精子DNA可提高检验成功率,操作简便,快速,易于自动化,适于法医学个体识别鉴定。     

改良差异裂解法结合硅珠法提取混合斑精子DNA

目的采用改良差异裂解法结合硅珠法提取混合斑中精子DNA,并评价其应用价值。方法收集52例经常规差异裂解法检验含有女性分型的混合斑检材,采用改良差异裂解法结合硅珠法提取精子细胞DNA,IdentifilerTM试剂盒进行PCR扩增检验。并将常规差异裂解法结果作为对照。结果52例混合斑检材中,采用改良差异裂解法结合硅珠法检出单一男性精子成分有38例,男性分型检出率达到98．08％。结论改良差异裂解法结合硅珠法适合提取混合斑中精子DNA。     

DNA IQ^TM系统在混合斑精子DNA检验中的应用

笔者在强奸案件混合斑精子的DNA检验中,以差异裂解法第一步消化去除女性细胞得到精子沉淀后,采用DNA IQTM系统直接提取混合斑中精子DNA,在200余份检材的检验中获得较满意结果。现将方法报告如下:1材料与方法1.1材料取自本实验室日常检案积累的混合斑样本216份。主要仪器和试剂采用9700PCR扩增仪(美国ABI公司)、ABI3100型遗传分析仪(美国ABI公司)、DNA IQTM系统(Promega公司)、AmpF1STRIdentifiler试剂盒((美国ABI公司)。1.2方法1.2.1 DNA提取参照差异裂解法,经过套管离心去除女性细胞后,得到沉淀精子,加入100~200ulDNA …     

限制性组合分析法推定男女混合斑中个体分型初探

正混合斑是指包含两名或两名以上个体的混合生物检材,在多数情况下,此类检材的DNA分型往往表现为两人或多人的混合分型,使结果分析较为复杂[1]。本文尝试采用2005年国际法医遗传学会(ISFG)推荐的关于混合斑结果分析中的计算方法对混合斑案件中单一个体DNA分型结果进行分析。1材料与方法1.1样本及检验样本由公安部物证鉴定中心提供强奸案件中床单上混合斑检材1份,为日常检案积累,根据案情调查证实该检材系混合斑。DNA检验采用Chelex法提取上述检材DNA,经DNATyperTM15 plus试剂盒扩增后在ABI 3130遗     

应用Differex~(TM)法提取混合斑中精子DNA

对混合斑中精子的检验,采用传统的Chelex-100两步消化法存在消化时间长、离心洗涤次数不易控制等缺点,一旦操作不当,就会因此而引起DNA混合、损失,导致PCR反应失败。本文应用D ifferexTM系统法,解决了部分混合斑检材的精子DNA提取问题,在实际的案件鉴定中取得了满意的效果。1材料与方法1.1案件检材所用检材系案件鉴定中含有精子的现场提取床单上的混合斑、被害人的短裤、擦拭用的报纸、被害人的阴道及口腔拭子,以及在室温下存放约1年的阴道拭子。1.2 DNA提取方法1.2.1 Chelex-100两步消化法[1]取适量检材剪碎,加入适量TNE,37℃水浴…     

4种固相颗粒吸附法提取滤纸血痕DNA效果的比较

目的探讨4种固相颗粒吸附法提取滤纸血痕样本DNA的效果。方法含有1μL静脉血的滤纸血痕180份,分为4组,每组45份。分别采用4种固相颗粒吸附法(DNAIQ~(TM)系统、D盾超敏DNA提取试剂盒、超高效硅珠纯化DNA提取试剂盒和常规的硅珠法)对上述样本进行DNA提取,对比各组DNA溶液的浓度及STR分型检验结果。结果 D盾超敏DNA提取试剂盒[(3.764±1.790)μg/mL]、超高效硅珠纯化DNA提取试剂盒(3.634±1.112)及常规硅珠法(3.350±1.250)提取到DNA溶液的浓度无统计学差异(P0.05),但均高于DNA IQ~(TM)系统(1.864±1.207)(P0.001);D盾超敏DNA提取试剂盒、超高效硅珠纯化DNA提取试剂盒及常规硅珠法样本图谱峰高大于DNA IQ~(TM)系统(P0.001),超高效硅珠纯化DNA提取试剂盒和常规硅珠法样本图谱峰高大于D盾超敏DNA提取试剂盒(P0.01)。结论 D盾超敏DNA提取试剂盒、超高效硅珠纯化DNA提取试剂盒及常规硅珠法对于滤纸血痕的DNA提取效率高于DNA IQ~(TM)系统;超高效硅珠纯化DNA提取试剂盒和常规硅珠提取到的DNA溶液可能具有更高的质量。     

Recovery of DNA from bone without demineralization

This study assessed the performance of five different DNA extraction methods for the recovery of DNA from bone: ChargeSwitch® gDNA Plant Kit, DNA IQ™ System Kit, DNeasy® Blood & Tissue Kit, PrepFiler® BTA Forensic DNA Extraction Kit and phenol-chloroform-isoamyl alcohol. DNA was extracted from pig rib and femur bones that was fresh, had undergone surface decomposition for three months, and had undergone surface decomposition for one year. Extracted DNA was analyzed using real-time PCR and amplification of an in-house PCR multiplex that assessed the quality and quantity of DNA and for the presence of inhibitors. The phenol-chloroform-based method consistently yielded the highest amounts of DNA and DNA IQ the lowest; however, all methods produced relatively high yields of DNA from both pig rib and femur samples that could be amplified without any detected inhibition. The data demonstrate that with reasonable quality bone samples any of the tested methods can isolate DNA that can be successfully analyzed. The effective use of internal PCR controls is also demonstrated.     

Development of a one-tube extraction and amplification method for DNA analysis of sperm and epithelial cells recovered from forensic samples by laser microdissection

Laser microdissection can be used in forensic casework to isolate specific cell types from mixtures of biological samples. Extraction of DNA from selected cells is still required prior to STR amplification. Because of the relatively pristine nature of the recovered cells, laser microdissection is more sensitive than more traditional methods of DNA analysis, theoretically resulting in DNA profiles from less cellular material. A one-tube extraction and amplification method minimises loss of DNA through liquid transfers and reduces the potential for contamination events occurring. In this paper, the development of a one-tube method for the effective extraction of DNA from laser microdissected sperm and epithelial cells is described. The performance of the in-house method was compared to that of a commercial DNA extraction kit for extraction of DNA from sperm and the downstream compatibility with STR amplification was determined for both sperm and epithelial samples. Full Identifiler™ profiles after 28 amplification cycles were obtained from as few as 15 epithelial cells and 30 sperm.     

Utility validation of extraction of genomic DNA from hard tissues, bone and nail, using PrepFiler™ Forensic DNA Extraction Kit

STR profiling using hard tissues obtained from a severely decomposed body is sometimes a laborious work. There is now on a market a new DNA extraction kit, PrepFiler™ Forensic DNA Extraction Kit (AppliedBiosystems), and we tested it for missing persons. Postmortem intervals ranged from weeks to several years. Fifteen bone fragments and eleven nails were used in this report. Genomic DNA was quantified by QuantiFiler^® DUO Quantification Kit (AppliedBiosystems), and STRs were analyzed using AmpFlSTR^® Identifiler^® PCR Amplification Kit (AppliedBiosystems). The profiling of 16 STR loci was successful in all nail samples. However, STR profiling was successful in only 6 of 15 bone materials. Nine cases failed to analyze STR polymorphisms using another DNA extraction kit, the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (QIAGEN). For bone samples, it seems that STR profiling depends on the quality of samples.     

Evaluation of five DNA extraction systems for recovery of DNA from bone

Five DNA extraction systems were assessed for their DNA extraction efficiency on samples of fresh pig bone. Four commercially available silica-based extraction kits (ChargeSwitch^® gDNA Plant Kit (Life Technologies), DNA IQ^TM System Kit (Promega), DNeasy^® Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen) and PrepFiler^® BTA Forensic DNA Extraction Kit (Life Technologies)) and a conventional phenol-chloroform method were tested in this study. Extracted DNA samples were quantitated with GoTaq^® qPCR Master Mix (Promega) using an Applied Biosystems^® 7500 Real-Time PCR System and the extracts were amplified using an in-house multiplex system. The phenol-chloroform extraction produced higher yields of DNA than the silica-based extraction methods. Among the silica-based extractions ChargeSwitch^® gDNA Plant Kit recovered the highest amounts of DNA. However, all methods produced DNA that could be amplified and none of the extracts contained any detectable inhibition.     

Efficiency of Casework Direct Kit for extraction of touch DNA samples obtained from cars steering wheels

Analysis of STR profiles obtained from touch DNA has been very useful to the elucidation of crimes. Extraction method may be determinant for the recovery of genetic material collected from different surfaces. Vehicle theft is one of the most common crimes in São Paulo city, Brazil, but collection of biological traces in car steering wheels is not considered, because of the belief that profiles generated won’t be able to identify the thief, only the owner. This study aimed to analyze the efficacy of extraction methods for obtaining DNA profiles in samples collected from steering wheels. Eight criminal acts were simulated with 2 different individuals each (mixture of victim and thief), in duplicate, in order to compare two extraction methods: DNA IQ™ and Casework Direct Kit (both Promega Corporation). Genetic material was collected by double swab method and quantified by Quantifiler™Trio (ThermoFisher Scientific). Amplification was conducted with PowerPlex® Fusion System (Promega). It was possible to obtain STR profiles for all experiments. The mixtures were compared with reference profiles to evaluated how many alleles of each donor were observed. Samples extracted with Casework Direct Kit obtained STR profiles with higher averages of alleles for primary and secondary donors (88.7% and 59.9%, respectively) than those extracted with DNA IQ™ (60.4% and 38.1%, respectively). This could be explained by the differences established in the protocols of both methods, since DNA IQ™ is based on successive washes and can result in loss of DNA, whereas Casework Direct Kit minimizes this problem. We concluded that Casework Direct Kit was more efficient for processing touch DNA samples than DNA IQ™.     

Extraction of high quality DNA from biological materials and calcified tissues

Calcified tissues, such as bone and tooth, and some other sample types, such as those containing adhesive, present a challenge to standard extraction protocols. We have developed a lysis reagent, BTA™ lysis buffer, which is designed for use with PrepFiler™ Kit reagents. The BTA™ lysis buffer disrupts calcified tissue matrices and achieves effective extraction of DNA from pulverized bone and tooth samples. In addition, the BTA™ lysis buffer mildly but efficiently extracts DNA from challenging substrates like tape, chewing gum, and cigarette butts and, as with bone and tooth, DNA from these lysates is purified using established PrepFiler™ reagent extraction protocols.We successfully extracted DNA from powdered human bone samples, chewed gum and smoked cigarettes using BTA™ lysis buffer. Extraction yields for bone, gum and cigarette samples tested were consistent and reproducible. This extraction method efficiently removed potential PCR inhibitors from all samples tested, and C_T values for the internal PCR control of Quantifiler^® Human DNA Quantification Kit were consistent and within the normal range. The DNA extracted from these samples also provided conclusive profiles that were free of PCR artifacts when amplified using the AmpF?STR^® Identifiler^® PCR Amplification Kit. The protocol is easily adapted for automation.     

Developmental Validation of the PrepFiler™ Forensic DNA Extraction Kit for Extraction of Genomic DNA from Biological Samples*

Abstract: The PrepFiler? Forensic DNA Extraction Kit enables isolation of genomic DNA from a variety of biological samples. The kit facilitates reversible binding of DNA with magnetic particles resulting in high DNA recovery from samples with very low and high quantities of biological materials: 0.1 and 40 μL of human blood (donor 2) provided 14 and 2883 ng of DNA, respectively. Following the revised SWGDAM guidelines, performance of the developed method was investigated using different sample types including saliva on swabs, semen stains on cotton fabric, samples exposed to environment, samples with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) inhibitors, blood stains (on denim, cotton cloth, and FTA^® paper), and touch evidence‐type samples. DNA yields for all samples tested were equal or better than those obtained by both phenol–chloroform extraction and commercial kits tested. DNA obtained from these samples was free of detectable PCR inhibitors. Short tandem repeat profiles were complete, conclusive, and devoid of PCR artifacts.     

DNA isolation success rates from dried and fresh wood samples of selected 20 tropical wood tree species for possible consideration in forensic forestry

The successful isolation of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) is essential for the investigation process of forestry molecular genetics. Samples used are usually retrieved either from soft or juvenile plant organs because of their excellent DNA source. However, in certain cases, aforesaid samples are hard to obtain, as for forensic purposes. Alternatively, woods possess potential as alternative source of DNA whose extraction method has been developed with varying degrees of success. However, to date, effectiveness on tropical wood grown in Indonesia has not been widely reported. Therefore, objective of this study was to compare the results of DNA isolation of various dried and fresh wood samples by using two isolation methods: Cetyl Trimethyl Ammonium Bromide (CTAB) and Qiagen DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (QDPMK). Extraction results were visualized in agarose gels and quantified using Nanophotometer NP80 Implen which were then amplified using two universal primers: ITS and rbcL for detecting DNA signals. Extraction results from dried wood indicated no visualization in the gel, while fresh wood samples showed thick smeared bands on both extraction methods. Quantity test results denoted higher concentration in CTAB-extracted samples compared to samples extracted using QDPMK, in both types of samples, even though both resulted in optical density ratios outside the range of purity (λ260/280: 1,8–2,0 and λ260/230: 2,0, respectively). Success rates of ITS and rbcL primary amplification in dried wood samples were quite low yet outputs from the two methods did not differ significantly. Meanwhile, outcome of ITS and rbcL amplification on fresh wood samples had a fairly high success.     

Comparisons of protocols for enhanced DNA profile quality from FTA®-deposited urine samples

Disputes over the identity of a urine sample donor have been reported, and urine authentication by genetic profiling has helped resolved the cases. However, since genotyping of urine is not always required, many drug-testing laboratories may face sample storage issues. Several studies have investigated the use of FTA® cards as a convenient tool for keeping specimen at room temperature for extended periods of time. However, generating complete STR profile from some FTA®-deposited urine samples remains challenging due to low levels of genetic material content, necessitating amendments to the laboratory’s standard protocols. This work therefore aims to evaluate the effects of two DNA template preparation methods, both employing FTA® cards as the storage medium, on the success rates of STR profiling from urine. Specimen from a female volunteer, representing a particularly low-yield sample, was employed. Aliquots of 1 and 2 mL were used as the starting material to evaluate DNA template preparation using the FTA® manufacturer’s protocol for disc purification against elution of DNA from the FTA® using Prepfiler™ Forensic DNA Extraction Kit. AmpFℓSTR™ Identifiler™ Plus PCR Amplification Kit was used to amplify the STR markers, and the PCR products were analysed using Applied Biosystems™ 3500xL Genetic Analyzer. The DNA profile qualities were examined in terms of number of loci detected and peak height balance. Comparisons with the profiles obtained from DNA isolated using QIAamp® DNA Micro Kit from 1 and 2 mL of the same batch of urine were also made. The optimised protocol was then tested on urine samples from three male volunteers. The results showed that the purification of FTA® punches according to the manufacturer’s protocol enabled full DNA profiles to be obtained from both 1 and 2 mL of urine from all samples tested, including male samples. In contrast, no DNA profile could be generated from the DNA eluted with the Prepfiler™ kit. When compared with the more conventional solid-phase DNA extraction method, the profiles generated from the FTA® punches exhibited similar reproducibility and quality to those from the template isolated by the QIAamp® Kit. This work further demonstrated the feasibility of FTA® cards as a tool for specimen storage and DNA template preparation from small volumes of urine for authentication by STR profiling. Full STR profiles could be generated from sample from both sexes without modification of the PCR conditions or injection time.