DNA profiling of azoospermic semen samples from vasectomized males by using Y-PLEX 6 amplification kit

Post-vasectomized azoospermic semen samples (N = 6) were analyzed for short tandem repeats (STR) on the Y-chromosome by using Y-PLEX 6 and the 310 Genetic Analyzer. We have observed a wide variation in the yield of extracted DNA from 12.5-1,000 ng. This variation was attributed to the number of epithelial and/or white blood cells that are present in these azoospermic samples. DNA profiles of these vasectomized males were obtained for all six Y-STR loci, namely DYS393, DYS 19, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, and DYS385 amplified by using the Y-PLEX 6.     

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.     

A potentially catastrophic outcome from a false-positive urinary drug screen immunoassay

Background: Urinary drug screens are routinely administered for patients returning from leave from forensic psychiatric wards, and are required to be negative for patients to continue to use their allocated leave. Case: A 35-year-old woman took leave from her low-secure psychiatric unit. On return, her urine screened positively for 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). She strongly denied she had taken it; however, all her leave was cancelled. Her clinical state greatly deteriorated, and she attempted to hang herself the following day. After stabilisation of the patient and continued denial of taking MDMA, the urine was sent for toxicology analysis. In the weeks that followed, she started self-harming and deteriorated to the point of needing electroconvulsive therapy. The toxicological report came back as a false-positive due to recently started Mebeverine. Conclusion: Clinicians must be mindful that urinary drug screens are not diagnostic, but also that not being believed can be devastating, especially for long-stay forensic inpatients.