Optical characterization of epidermal cells and their relationship to DNA recovery from touch samples.
F1000Research, 2015
Study Design
Addressed Question
investigation of the relative contribution of extracellular and intracellular DNA to touch DNA
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
8
Replicates per Individual and Condition
2
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
Depositor & Contact
Depositor Characteristics
N/A
Criteria for Shedder Status
N/A
Previous Activities
(handwashing)
Contact Scenario
(Handwashing -) Hand deposit - sampling
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
sterile conical plastic tube
Primary Substrate Material
Deposit
holding 5 min
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
direct
Persistence
N/A
Sampling Method
double swabbing (wet +dry), elution into 1 mL water
Sampling Area
tube surface
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
Isolation of extracellular and cell pellet DNA by centrifugation and Amicon filtration; phenol-chloroform extraction of pelleted cells
DNA Quantification
Investigator Quantiplex Human Kit, ABI Prism 7500 SDS
Input for Profiling
N/A
Profiling
N/A
Reference Samples
N/A
Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis
N/A
RNA Data Interpretation
N/A
Results
DNA Quantity
0-4.646 ng
Profile Quality
N/A
Parameter Used for Comparison
cell counts, DNA yield from cell pellet and eDNA fraction
Summary of Results
Flow cytometry characterization of touch samples: two distinct fractions (fully differentiated keratinocytes and cellular debris/fragments, no indication of buccal cells); high cell counts from all touch samples (washed hands > unwashed hands), but low amounts of DNA in cellular fraction (max. 0.22 ng); higher amounts of DNA recovered from eDNA fraction: unwashed hands (up to 4.646 ng) >> washed hands (max. 0.242 ng); no correlation between cell counts and the amount of eDNA; no correlation between quantity of DNA and dominant hand; total eDNA proportion: 84-100%
Raised Questions
presence of buccal cells (possibly deformed and thus indistinguishable from corneocytes) could be confirmed by the use of antibodies; manner of contact: does rubbing increase the amount of iDNA vs. eDNA (indications by preliminary experiments); identification of factors non-DNA factors for the identification of individuals via DNA-free skin cells
Cautionary Remarks
Can useful profiling results be obtained from eDNA (n.s.)? review already happened in 2015, only V1 published, questions from reviewers (can useful profiles be obtained?) not answered