血液、口腔细胞、唾液和精液中基于甲基化的法医年龄估计:两种技术的比较。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Charlotte Sutter, Yael Marti, Cordula Haas, Jacqueline Neubauer
{"title":"血液、口腔细胞、唾液和精液中基于甲基化的法医年龄估计:两种技术的比较。","authors":"Charlotte Sutter,&nbsp;Yael Marti,&nbsp;Cordula Haas,&nbsp;Jacqueline Neubauer","doi":"10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Forensic age estimation of stain donors through DNA methylation has been intensively studied in recent years. To date, there are many published age estimation tools which are based on technologies including pyrosequencing, minisequencing, or MPS. With the implementation of such tools into routine forensic casework in many laboratories worldwide, there is a need for thorough evaluation and performance comparison. In this study, we tested published age estimation tools that are based on either minisequencing or MPS on four body fluids (blood, saliva, buccal cells and semen). All samples were analyzed with both technologies and the age estimates were compared. Biological replicates were taken from ten (blood, saliva, buccal cells) or 12 individuals (semen) to assess the reproducibility of each tool. Our study demonstrates high accuracy in estimating chronological age for various body fluids using both technologies, except for semen. The mean absolute errors (MAEs) ranged from three to five years for blood, saliva and buccal cells, while semen exhibited a higher MAE of seven to eight years. Despite the overall good performance for blood, saliva, and buccal cells, significant discrepancies were observed for some individuals both between the two technologies or when compared to their chronological age. Conclusively, we demonstrated that forensic age estimation tools based on two different technologies are similarly accurate for blood, saliva and buccal cells, while the semen tools need some adjustments before implementation into forensic casework. Our results could be helpful in the decision-making process for laboratories seeking to newly establish an age estimation workflow.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12341,"journal":{"name":"Forensic science international","volume":"367 ","pages":"Article 112325"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methylation-based forensic age estimation in blood, buccal cells, saliva and semen: A comparison of two technologies\",\"authors\":\"Charlotte Sutter,&nbsp;Yael Marti,&nbsp;Cordula Haas,&nbsp;Jacqueline Neubauer\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Forensic age estimation of stain donors through DNA methylation has been intensively studied in recent years. To date, there are many published age estimation tools which are based on technologies including pyrosequencing, minisequencing, or MPS. With the implementation of such tools into routine forensic casework in many laboratories worldwide, there is a need for thorough evaluation and performance comparison. In this study, we tested published age estimation tools that are based on either minisequencing or MPS on four body fluids (blood, saliva, buccal cells and semen). All samples were analyzed with both technologies and the age estimates were compared. Biological replicates were taken from ten (blood, saliva, buccal cells) or 12 individuals (semen) to assess the reproducibility of each tool. Our study demonstrates high accuracy in estimating chronological age for various body fluids using both technologies, except for semen. The mean absolute errors (MAEs) ranged from three to five years for blood, saliva and buccal cells, while semen exhibited a higher MAE of seven to eight years. Despite the overall good performance for blood, saliva, and buccal cells, significant discrepancies were observed for some individuals both between the two technologies or when compared to their chronological age. Conclusively, we demonstrated that forensic age estimation tools based on two different technologies are similarly accurate for blood, saliva and buccal cells, while the semen tools need some adjustments before implementation into forensic casework. Our results could be helpful in the decision-making process for laboratories seeking to newly establish an age estimation workflow.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic science international\",\"volume\":\"367 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112325\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forensic science international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824004079\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic science international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824004079","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,通过DNA甲基化来估计染色供体的法医年龄得到了广泛的研究。迄今为止,有许多已发表的年龄估计工具是基于焦磷酸测序、微测序或MPS等技术。随着这些工具在世界各地许多实验室的日常法医案件工作中的实施,有必要进行彻底的评估和性能比较。在这项研究中,我们测试了已发表的年龄估计工具,这些工具基于四种体液(血液、唾液、口腔细胞和精液)的微测序或MPS。所有样本都用两种技术进行了分析,并对年龄估计值进行了比较。从10个个体(血液、唾液、口腔细胞)或12个个体(精液)中进行生物重复,以评估每种工具的可重复性。我们的研究表明,除了精液外,使用这两种技术估算各种体液的实际年龄具有很高的准确性。血液、唾液和口腔细胞的平均绝对误差为3 - 5年,而精液的平均绝对误差为7 - 8年。尽管血液、唾液和口腔细胞的总体表现良好,但在两种技术之间或与他们的实际年龄相比,观察到一些个体存在显著差异。最后,我们证明了基于两种不同技术的法医年龄估计工具对血液、唾液和口腔细胞的准确性相似,而精液工具在应用于法医案件工作之前需要进行一些调整。我们的结果可以帮助实验室在决策过程中寻求新的年龄估计工作流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methylation-based forensic age estimation in blood, buccal cells, saliva and semen: A comparison of two technologies
Forensic age estimation of stain donors through DNA methylation has been intensively studied in recent years. To date, there are many published age estimation tools which are based on technologies including pyrosequencing, minisequencing, or MPS. With the implementation of such tools into routine forensic casework in many laboratories worldwide, there is a need for thorough evaluation and performance comparison. In this study, we tested published age estimation tools that are based on either minisequencing or MPS on four body fluids (blood, saliva, buccal cells and semen). All samples were analyzed with both technologies and the age estimates were compared. Biological replicates were taken from ten (blood, saliva, buccal cells) or 12 individuals (semen) to assess the reproducibility of each tool. Our study demonstrates high accuracy in estimating chronological age for various body fluids using both technologies, except for semen. The mean absolute errors (MAEs) ranged from three to five years for blood, saliva and buccal cells, while semen exhibited a higher MAE of seven to eight years. Despite the overall good performance for blood, saliva, and buccal cells, significant discrepancies were observed for some individuals both between the two technologies or when compared to their chronological age. Conclusively, we demonstrated that forensic age estimation tools based on two different technologies are similarly accurate for blood, saliva and buccal cells, while the semen tools need some adjustments before implementation into forensic casework. Our results could be helpful in the decision-making process for laboratories seeking to newly establish an age estimation workflow.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forensic science international
Forensic science international 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
285
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: Forensic Science International is the flagship journal in the prestigious Forensic Science International family, publishing the most innovative, cutting-edge, and influential contributions across the forensic sciences. Fields include: forensic pathology and histochemistry, chemistry, biochemistry and toxicology, biology, serology, odontology, psychiatry, anthropology, digital forensics, the physical sciences, firearms, and document examination, as well as investigations of value to public health in its broadest sense, and the important marginal area where science and medicine interact with the law. The journal publishes: Case Reports Commentaries Letters to the Editor Original Research Papers (Regular Papers) Rapid Communications Review Articles Technical Notes.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信