The Successful Recovery of Low Copy Number and Degraded DNA from Bones Exposed to Seawater Suitable for Generating a DNA STR Profile

A universal method allowing for DNA profiling from bones exposed to seawater has not been reported yet. This study refers on the identification of a body immersed in seawater for 8 months. The biological material for identification was the mandibular body, usually characterized by low success rates of DNA analysis. Initially, two extraction protocols were performed with negative results: one used for bones immersed in fresh water and a silica‐column procedure. A third protocol was performed, which combined the extraction of a higher amount of bone powder, the use of multi‐silica‐based extraction columns followed by a concentration step. This protocol allowed to obtain low copy number DNA and to generate a 12‐loci STR profile by combining conventional STR typing and mini‐STR technologies. This protocol could be suitable when human bones have been exposed to severe environmental conditions, and the available nuclear DNA is highly degraded and in low copy number.     

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.