Purification of crime scene DNA extracts using centrifugal filter devices.

Lina Norén, Ronny Hedell, Ricky Ansell, Johannes Hedman
{"title":"Purification of crime scene DNA extracts using centrifugal filter devices.","authors":"Lina Norén, Ronny Hedell, Ricky Ansell, Johannes Hedman","doi":"10.1186/2041-2223-4-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The success of forensic DNA analysis is limited by the size, quality and purity of biological evidence found at crime scenes. Sample impurities can inhibit PCR, resulting in partial or negative DNA profiles. Various DNA purification methods are applied to remove impurities, for example, employing centrifugal filter devices. However, irrespective of method, DNA purification leads to DNA loss. Here we evaluate the filter devices Amicon Ultra 30 K and Microsep 30 K with respect to recovery rate and general performance for various types of PCR-inhibitory crime scene samples.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Recovery rates for DNA purification using Amicon Ultra 30 K and Microsep 30 K were gathered using quantitative PCR. Mock crime scene DNA extracts were analyzed using quantitative PCR and short tandem repeat (STR) profiling to test the general performance and inhibitor-removal properties of the two filter devices. Additionally, the outcome of long-term routine casework DNA analysis applying each of the devices was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Applying Microsep 30 K, 14 to 32% of the input DNA was recovered, whereas Amicon Ultra 30 K retained 62 to 70% of the DNA. The improved purity following filter purification counteracted some of this DNA loss, leading to slightly increased electropherogram peak heights for blood on denim (Amicon Ultra 30 K and Microsep 30 K) and saliva on envelope (Amicon Ultra 30 K). Comparing Amicon Ultra 30 K and Microsep 30 K for purification of DNA extracts from mock crime scene samples, the former generated significantly higher peak heights for rape case samples (P-values <0.01) and for hairs (P-values <0.036). In long-term routine use of the two filter devices, DNA extracts purified with Amicon Ultra 30 K were considerably less PCR-inhibitory in Quantifiler Human qPCR analysis compared to Microsep 30 K.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Amicon Ultra 30 K performed better than Microsep 30 K due to higher DNA recovery and more efficient removal of PCR-inhibitory substances. The different performances of the filter devices are likely caused by the quality of the filters and plastic wares, for example, their DNA binding properties. DNA purification using centrifugal filter devices can be necessary for successful DNA profiling of impure crime scene samples and for consistency between different PCR-based analysis systems, such as quantification and STR analysis. In order to maximize the possibility to obtain complete STR DNA profiles and to create an efficient workflow, the level of DNA purification applied should be correlated to the inhibitor-tolerance of the STR analysis system used.</p>","PeriodicalId":89160,"journal":{"name":"Investigative genetics","volume":"4 1","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3640930/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Investigative genetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-4-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The success of forensic DNA analysis is limited by the size, quality and purity of biological evidence found at crime scenes. Sample impurities can inhibit PCR, resulting in partial or negative DNA profiles. Various DNA purification methods are applied to remove impurities, for example, employing centrifugal filter devices. However, irrespective of method, DNA purification leads to DNA loss. Here we evaluate the filter devices Amicon Ultra 30 K and Microsep 30 K with respect to recovery rate and general performance for various types of PCR-inhibitory crime scene samples.

Methods: Recovery rates for DNA purification using Amicon Ultra 30 K and Microsep 30 K were gathered using quantitative PCR. Mock crime scene DNA extracts were analyzed using quantitative PCR and short tandem repeat (STR) profiling to test the general performance and inhibitor-removal properties of the two filter devices. Additionally, the outcome of long-term routine casework DNA analysis applying each of the devices was evaluated.

Results: Applying Microsep 30 K, 14 to 32% of the input DNA was recovered, whereas Amicon Ultra 30 K retained 62 to 70% of the DNA. The improved purity following filter purification counteracted some of this DNA loss, leading to slightly increased electropherogram peak heights for blood on denim (Amicon Ultra 30 K and Microsep 30 K) and saliva on envelope (Amicon Ultra 30 K). Comparing Amicon Ultra 30 K and Microsep 30 K for purification of DNA extracts from mock crime scene samples, the former generated significantly higher peak heights for rape case samples (P-values <0.01) and for hairs (P-values <0.036). In long-term routine use of the two filter devices, DNA extracts purified with Amicon Ultra 30 K were considerably less PCR-inhibitory in Quantifiler Human qPCR analysis compared to Microsep 30 K.

Conclusions: Amicon Ultra 30 K performed better than Microsep 30 K due to higher DNA recovery and more efficient removal of PCR-inhibitory substances. The different performances of the filter devices are likely caused by the quality of the filters and plastic wares, for example, their DNA binding properties. DNA purification using centrifugal filter devices can be necessary for successful DNA profiling of impure crime scene samples and for consistency between different PCR-based analysis systems, such as quantification and STR analysis. In order to maximize the possibility to obtain complete STR DNA profiles and to create an efficient workflow, the level of DNA purification applied should be correlated to the inhibitor-tolerance of the STR analysis system used.

Abstract Image

使用离心过滤装置纯化犯罪现场 DNA 提取物。
背景:法医 DNA 分析的成功与否受到犯罪现场生物证据的大小、质量和纯度的限制。样本杂质会抑制 PCR,导致部分或阴性 DNA 图谱。有多种 DNA 纯化方法可用于去除杂质,例如采用离心过滤装置。然而,无论采用哪种方法,DNA 纯化都会导致 DNA 损失。在此,我们对Amicon Ultra 30 K和Microsep 30 K过滤装置的回收率和一般性能进行了评估,适用于各种类型的PCR抑制性犯罪现场样本:采用定量 PCR 方法收集了使用 Amicon Ultra 30 K 和 Microsep 30 K 纯化 DNA 的回收率。使用定量 PCR 和短串联重复序列 (STR) 分析法对模拟犯罪现场 DNA 提取物进行分析,以测试这两种过滤装置的总体性能和去除抑制剂的特性。此外,还评估了使用每种装置进行长期常规案件 DNA 分析的结果:结果:使用 Microsep 30 K 可回收 14% 至 32% 的输入 DNA,而 Amicon Ultra 30 K 则可保留 62% 至 70% 的 DNA。过滤纯化后纯度的提高抵消了部分 DNA 的损失,使牛仔布(Amicon Ultra 30 K 和 Microsep 30 K)上血液和信封(Amicon Ultra 30 K)上唾液的电泳图峰高略有增加。比较 Amicon Ultra 30 K 和 Microsep 30 K 对模拟犯罪现场样本 DNA 提取物的纯化效果,前者对强奸案样本产生的峰高明显更高(P 值结论):Amicon Ultra 30 K 比 Microsep 30 K 性能更好,因为 DNA 回收率更高,而且能更有效地去除 PCR 抑制物质。过滤装置的不同性能可能是由过滤器和塑料器皿的质量造成的,例如它们的 DNA 结合特性。使用离心过滤装置进行 DNA 纯化,对于成功分析不纯的犯罪现场样本 DNA 以及保持不同 PCR 分析系统(如定量分析和 STR 分析)之间的一致性十分必要。为了最大限度地获得完整的 STR DNA 图谱并创建高效的工作流程,DNA 纯化的程度应与所使用的 STR 分析系统的抑制剂耐受性相关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书