评估新的和传统的细胞分离技术的性侵犯调查。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Janine Schulte PhD, Simon Egger MSc, Sarah Kron, Eva Scheurer MD, Iris Schulz PhD
{"title":"评估新的和传统的细胞分离技术的性侵犯调查。","authors":"Janine Schulte PhD,&nbsp;Simon Egger MSc,&nbsp;Sarah Kron,&nbsp;Eva Scheurer MD,&nbsp;Iris Schulz PhD","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.70131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Biological evidence from sexual assaults frequently includes few male cells (i.e., spermatozoa) and numerous female cells (i.e., epithelial cells). In practice, their genetic analysis typically involves separating the victim's cells from the perpetrator's sperm using conventional differential extraction or advanced cell enrichment/capturing techniques. A descriptive study on simulated sexual assault samples was carried out by the recruitment of 10 heterosexual, monogamous couples. Post-coital swabs were collected before and after consensual sexual intercourse, with a sampling period of up to 96 h, and subjected to analysis to detect, quantify, and genotype adhering sperm by three distinct cell-separation techniques: differential extraction, laser capture microdissection, and DEPArray™. Methods differed in sperm detection and genotyping efficacy, while foreign DNA was identifiable up to 96 h. Time since intercourse and individuals were statistically significant factors (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.05) on male DNA yields, while hygienic behavior was not. Prior sperm enrichment was pivotal for cell capture technologies to counteract the abundance of epithelial cells, achieved by a prior mild digestion step for laser microdissection. Evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of standard and advanced methods provided a novel, comprehensive understanding of their merits, postulating that modern applications can assist conventional ones in challenging crime samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":15743,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":"70 5","pages":"1704-1720"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1556-4029.70131","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating novel and conventional cell-separation techniques for sexual assault investigations\",\"authors\":\"Janine Schulte PhD,&nbsp;Simon Egger MSc,&nbsp;Sarah Kron,&nbsp;Eva Scheurer MD,&nbsp;Iris Schulz PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1556-4029.70131\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Biological evidence from sexual assaults frequently includes few male cells (i.e., spermatozoa) and numerous female cells (i.e., epithelial cells). In practice, their genetic analysis typically involves separating the victim's cells from the perpetrator's sperm using conventional differential extraction or advanced cell enrichment/capturing techniques. A descriptive study on simulated sexual assault samples was carried out by the recruitment of 10 heterosexual, monogamous couples. Post-coital swabs were collected before and after consensual sexual intercourse, with a sampling period of up to 96 h, and subjected to analysis to detect, quantify, and genotype adhering sperm by three distinct cell-separation techniques: differential extraction, laser capture microdissection, and DEPArray™. Methods differed in sperm detection and genotyping efficacy, while foreign DNA was identifiable up to 96 h. Time since intercourse and individuals were statistically significant factors (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.05) on male DNA yields, while hygienic behavior was not. Prior sperm enrichment was pivotal for cell capture technologies to counteract the abundance of epithelial cells, achieved by a prior mild digestion step for laser microdissection. Evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of standard and advanced methods provided a novel, comprehensive understanding of their merits, postulating that modern applications can assist conventional ones in challenging crime samples.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15743,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"volume\":\"70 5\",\"pages\":\"1704-1720\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1556-4029.70131\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.70131\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.70131","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

性侵犯的生物学证据通常包括很少的男性细胞(即精子)和大量的女性细胞(即上皮细胞)。在实践中,他们的基因分析通常包括使用传统的差异提取或先进的细胞富集/捕获技术将受害者的细胞从肇事者的精子中分离出来。通过招募10对一夫一妻制的异性恋夫妇,对模拟性侵犯样本进行了描述性研究。在双方同意的性交之前和之后收集性交后拭子,采样周期长达96小时,并通过三种不同的细胞分离技术进行分析,以检测,量化和基因型粘附精子:差分提取,激光捕获显微解剖和DEPArray™。不同方法的精子检测和基因分型效果不同,外源DNA可识别至96 h。性交时间和个体对雄性DNA产率的影响有统计学意义(p≤0.05),而卫生行为对雄性DNA产率的影响无统计学意义。预先的精子富集是细胞捕获技术的关键,以抵消上皮细胞的丰度,通过预先温和的消化步骤实现激光显微解剖。评估标准和先进方法的优缺点提供了对其优点的新颖,全面的理解,假设现代应用可以协助传统方法挑战犯罪样本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluating novel and conventional cell-separation techniques for sexual assault investigations

Evaluating novel and conventional cell-separation techniques for sexual assault investigations

Biological evidence from sexual assaults frequently includes few male cells (i.e., spermatozoa) and numerous female cells (i.e., epithelial cells). In practice, their genetic analysis typically involves separating the victim's cells from the perpetrator's sperm using conventional differential extraction or advanced cell enrichment/capturing techniques. A descriptive study on simulated sexual assault samples was carried out by the recruitment of 10 heterosexual, monogamous couples. Post-coital swabs were collected before and after consensual sexual intercourse, with a sampling period of up to 96 h, and subjected to analysis to detect, quantify, and genotype adhering sperm by three distinct cell-separation techniques: differential extraction, laser capture microdissection, and DEPArray™. Methods differed in sperm detection and genotyping efficacy, while foreign DNA was identifiable up to 96 h. Time since intercourse and individuals were statistically significant factors (p ≤ 0.05) on male DNA yields, while hygienic behavior was not. Prior sperm enrichment was pivotal for cell capture technologies to counteract the abundance of epithelial cells, achieved by a prior mild digestion step for laser microdissection. Evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of standard and advanced methods provided a novel, comprehensive understanding of their merits, postulating that modern applications can assist conventional ones in challenging crime samples.

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
Journal of forensic sciences
Journal of forensic sciences 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
215
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) is the official publication of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). It is devoted to the publication of original investigations, observations, scholarly inquiries and reviews in various branches of the forensic sciences. These include anthropology, criminalistics, digital and multimedia sciences, engineering and applied sciences, pathology/biology, psychiatry and behavioral science, jurisprudence, odontology, questioned documents, and toxicology. Similar submissions dealing with forensic aspects of other sciences and the social sciences are also accepted, as are submissions dealing with scientifically sound emerging science disciplines. The content and/or views expressed in the JFS are not necessarily those of the AAFS, the JFS Editorial Board, the organizations with which authors are affiliated, or the publisher of JFS. All manuscript submissions are double-blind peer-reviewed.
×
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