Comparison of different methods of DNA recovery and PCR amplification in STR profiling of casings—a retrospective study.
International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2018
Authors
Journal
International Journal of Legal Medicine
Study Design
Addressed Question
Success of STR profiling from firearm casings comparing different sampling and amplification methods
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
698 casing collected from 125 cases
Replicates per Individual and Condition
1
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
Depositor & Contact
Depositor Characteristics
N/A
Criteria for Shedder Status
N/A
Previous Activities
case context
Contact Scenario
case context - sampling
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
cartridges
Primary Substrate Material
Deposit
handling, loading, shooting in case context
Delay
N/A
Secondary Substrate
Secondary Substrate Type
N/A
Secondary Substrate Material
N/A
Secondary Substrate Contact
N/A
Further Transfer
N/A
Sampling
Background DNA on Sampled Surface
Sampling Time
delayed (n.s.)
Persistence
N/A
Sampling Method
swabbing in saline solution or soaking (cp. Dieltjes et al 2011) casings
Sampling Area
whole outer surface of casings
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
proteolytic digestion, QIAamp DNA Mini kit, concentration to 10 µl
DNA Quantification
Quantifiler Human DNA Quantification kit
Input for Profiling
5µl used for profiling
Profiling
AmpFlSTR Identifiler or AmpFlSTR Identifiler Plus kit (Thermo Fisher), 3130 Genetic Analyzer, GeneMapper TM ID 3.2 software, threshold: 50 rfu
Reference Samples
dependent on case
Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis
profiles with alleles in >50% of loci (8) considered interpretable, all data shown for possible re-analysis
RNA Data Interpretation
N/A
Results
DNA Quantity
mostly <60 pg
Profile Quality
interpretable profiles (>50% of loci) in 15.6% of samples (related to 44.8% of cases)
Parameter Used for Comparison
interpretability of profiles (>50% of alleles)
Summary of Results
4% of profiles matching victims' profile; interpretable profiles: 1/2 single source, 1/2 mixtures; overall success rate of profiles generation: 15.6% per casing/44.8% per case; profiles mostly (84 %) inconclusive; DNA profile match with suspect or database search in 12/125 criminal cases; methods: Identifiler Plus > Identifiler kit, swabbing > soaking; Amplicon-length dependent decrease in amplification efficacy for soaked samples -> degradation or presence of inhibitors (possible dissolving during soaking process); degradation of amplicons >200bp generally observed phenomenon with Identifiler Plus kit performing better than older Identifiler kit
Raised Questions
how to define a successful PCR?; does soaking casings dissolve PCR inhibitors?
Cautionary Remarks
real case conditions: prone to uncontrollable effects