RNA cell typing and DNA profiling of mixed samples: Can cell types and donors be associated?
Science & Justice, 2013
Authors
Journal
Science & Justice
Study Design
Addressed Question
Can DNA and RNA peak heights from cell type mixtures be correlated to identify the donor of a specific cell type?
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
6
Replicates per Individual and Condition
2
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
Depositor & Contact
Depositor Characteristics
N/A
Criteria for Shedder Status
N/A
Previous Activities
N/A
Contact Scenario
taking body fluid sampling - (extraction) - mixture in designated mixture ratio - profiling
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
cotton fabric cloths
Primary Substrate Material
Deposit
extensive rubbing over hands and forehead
Delay
N/A
Secondary Substrate
Secondary Substrate Type
N/A
Secondary Substrate Material
N/A
Secondary Substrate Contact
mixture of two lysates/body fluids
Further Transfer
N/A
Sampling
Background DNA on Sampled Surface
Sampling Time
direct/delayed
Persistence
temperature: -80°C, 4°C, 20°C, 37°C for 1, 4, 7 days, humidity: 37°C + water for 2, 4 , 7, 10, 14, 20 days; UV light: 254 nm for 30, 120, 240, 360 min
Sampling Method
sampling according to body fluid type (skin: rubbing cotton cloths over hands and forehead and tapelifting cloths)
Sampling Area
according to body fluid
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
RNA/DNA coextraction protocol as described by Lindenbergh et al (2012)
DNA Quantification
Alu repeat system through real-time PCR on ABI 7900HT
Input for Profiling
DNA: 0.5 ng DNA template; RNA: 10µl input for RT, 0.2-5 µl cDNA for RNA profiling
Profiling
DNA: AmpFlSTR NGM PCR amplification kit, 3130xl ABI Prism Genetic Analyzer; GeneMapper ID-X version 1.1.1, threshold: 50 rfu; RNA: profiling according to Lindenbergh et al (2012): 14-plex end-point PCR (!8S-rRNA, HBB, CD93, AMICA1, STATH, HTN3, PRM1, SEMG1, CDSN, LOR, HBD1, MUC4, MMP7, MMP11 3130xl CE instrument, GeneMapper ID-X, threshold: 50 rfu
Reference Samples
taken from all donors
Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis
comparison to reference profiles, determination of mixture ratio by average unique peak height ratio
RNA Data Interpretation
choosing one informative (out of several) RNA profiles: average peak height of cell-type specific markers (only stable markers used) and identification of mixture ratio
Results
DNA Quantity
N/A
Profile Quality
mostly full DNA and RNA profiles, peak drop-out observed in degradation experiments
Parameter Used for Comparison
DNA mixture ratio (from average unique allelic peak heights), RNA mixture ratio (from cell-type specific peak heights), Cell type ratio to donor ratio; Degradation experiment: average remaining yield per treatment (=average peak heights after treatment in relation to untreated samples)
Summary of Results
mixture ratios derived from DNA profiles in the range of designed mixture ratios for all lysate mixtures; Cell type ratios derived from RNA profiles not always in the range of designed mixture ratios, 10/34 mixtures did not indicate the correct major component; cell type ratio to donor ratio was mostly close to one for mixture like semen-blood, saliva-blood and saliva-semen, but varied clearly for mixtures including skin and vaginal cells; For most mixture types the presence of relatively more cell material resulted in stronger signals in both DNA and RNA profiles; Most body fluids show variation in their composition for different donors: the combination of donors affects whether donor and cell type can be correctly associated via DNA and RNA profiling; Quadruplicate analysis shows a large variation of calculated cell type ratios (up to 9-fold); Degradation: temperature, humidity and UV-light induce degradation of both DNA and RNA with time; each method affects assayed components (DNA and RNA from saliva and blood differently); No marker specific effects detected, i.e. when blood RNA degrades all mRNA markers were equally affected, thus the corresponding cell type most likely determines nucleic acid stability; Conclusion: the authors discourage the association of cell types and donors from peak height data in DNA and RNA profiles
Raised Questions
a donor and cell type association seemed possible from proportional contributions in two samples having the same components in different ratios (but how relevant is this under casework conditions?)
Cautionary Remarks
mixtures generated from lysates (for donor and cell type experiment) and from body fluids for degradation experiment