首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      

硅藻硝酸消化法与浮游生物16S rDNA PCR法在溺死鉴定中的比较
引用本文:韩军鸽,王程宝,李兴彪,范琰琰,冯相平.硅藻硝酸消化法与浮游生物16S rDNA PCR法在溺死鉴定中的比较[J].法医学杂志,2013(5):356-359.
作者姓名:韩军鸽  王程宝  李兴彪  范琰琰  冯相平
作者单位:[1]温州医科大学法医学系,浙江温州325035 [2]皖南医学院法医学院,安徽芜湖241002
基金项目:浙江省教育厅科研资助项目(Y201016768)
摘    要:目的比较和探讨硅藻硝酸消化法与浮游生物16S rDNA PCR法在溺死鉴定中的应用价值。方法收集40例温州医科大学法医学系2010—2011年受理并证实溺死的鉴定案件,每例案件标本包括肺、肾、肝及现场水样4份样本,分别运用硅藻硝酸消化法与浮游生物16S rDNA PCR法对标本进行检验,硅藻硝酸消化法和浮游生物16S rDNA PCR法所需各器官检材量分别为约20g和2g,现场水样分别为15mL和1.5mL,从所需检验时间以及检出率等方面进行比较分析。结果硅藻硝酸消化法检出硅藻主要为中心硅藻纲和羽纹硅藻纲,浮游生物16S rDNA PCR法可扩增出一条162 bp的条带。平均检验每例案件所需的检验时间,硅藻硝酸消化法为(95.30±2.78)min,少于浮游生物16S rDNA PCR法(325.33±14.18)min(P0.05)。两种方法对现场水样及肺样本的检出率均为100%,而对肝及肾样本的检出率,浮游生物16S rDNA PCR法均为80%,高于硅藻硝酸消化法40%和30%(P0.05)。结论在溺死的法医学鉴定中,应根据具体情况来挑选合适的实验室检验方法。与硅藻硝酸消化法相比,浮游生物16S rDNA PCR法具有检材用量少、信息量大、特异性高等特点,有一定的推广和实践价值。

关 键 词:法医病理学  溺水  S  rDNA  聚合酶链反应  硝酸消化法  浮游生物  硅藻类

Comparative Analysis between Diatom Nitric Acid Digestion Method and Plankton 16S rDNA PCR Method
HAN Jun-ge,WANG Cheng-bao,LI Xing-biao,FAN Yan-yan,FENG Xiang-ping.Comparative Analysis between Diatom Nitric Acid Digestion Method and Plankton 16S rDNA PCR Method[J].Journal of Forensic Medicine,2013(5):356-359.
Authors:HAN Jun-ge  WANG Cheng-bao  LI Xing-biao  FAN Yan-yan  FENG Xiang-ping
Institution:1. Department of Forensic -Medicine, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325035, China; 2. School of Forensic Medicine, Wannan Medical College, Wuhu 241002, China)
Abstract:Objective To com pare and explore the application value of diatom nitric acid digestion method and plankton 16S rDNA PCR method for drow ning identification. Methods Forty drow ning cases from 2010 to 2011 were collected from Department of Forensic Medicine of Wenzhou Medical University. Sam ples including lung, kidney, liver and field water fromeach case were tested with diatom nitric acid digestion method and plankton 16S rDNAPCR method, respectively. The Diatom nitric acid digestion method and plankton 16S rDNAPCR method required 20 gand 2g of each organ,and 15 mL and 1.5 mL of field water, respectively. The inspection time and detection rate were com pared between the two methods. Results Diatom nitric acid digestion method m ainly detected two species of diatom s, Centriae and Pennatae, while plankton 16S rDNA PCR method am plified a length of 162 bp band. The average inspection time of each case of the Diatom nitric acid digestion method was (95.30±2.78) min less than (325.33±14.18)min of plankton 16S rDNA PCR method (P〈0.05).The detection rates of two methods for field water and lung were both 100% . For liver and kidney, the detection rate of plankton 16S rDNA PCR method was both 80% , higher than 40% and 30% of diatom nitric acid digestion method (P〈0.05), respectively. Conclusion The laboratory testing method needs to be appropriately selected according to the specific circum stances in the forensic appraisal of drow ning. Com pared with diatom nitric acid digestion method, plankton 16S rDNA PCR method has practice values with such advantages as less quantity of sam ples, huge inform ation and high specificity.
Keywords:forensic pathology  drow ning  16S rD N A  polym erase chain reaction  nitric acid digestion m ethod  plankton  diatom s
本文献已被 CNKI 维普 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号