dnatrack is a work in progress — updates ship daily. Report a bug or request a feature →

The influence of substrate on DNA transfer and extraction efficiency

FSI Genetics, 2013

Study Design

Addressed Question

comparison of extraction efficiency from different substrates

Activity Context

None

Category

Recovery

Specifications

ExtractionSurface

Variables of Interest

Primary substrateamount of primary deposit

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

1

Replicates per Individual and Condition

4

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

blood

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

N/A

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

N/A

Contact Scenario

primary deposit - sampling

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

fabric: Acetate, polyester, Calico, Poly/cotton, Flannelette, Tarpaulin, plywood, plastic, cotton drill

Primary Substrate Material

AcetateCottonPlasticWood

Deposit

0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 15, 30 µl venous EDTA blood

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

Negative (Confirmed)

Sampling Time

direct

Persistence

N/A

Sampling Method

direct extraction from fibers or swabbing (wet + dry) from plywood

Sampling Area

2x2cm^2 areas including the deposit area

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

5% Chelex, Amicon Ultra 4 concentration for samples that tested negative in the quantification step

DNA Quantification

Quantifiler, ABI PRISM 7500 Real-Time PCR system

Input for Profiling

N/A

Profiling

Profiler Plus 28 cycles, 3100 Genetic Analyzer, GeneMapper ID v3.2

Reference Samples

taken from blood donor

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

comparison to reference profile to confirm absence of contaminating DNA

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

0-800 ng

Profile Quality

absence of contaminating alleles confirmed

Parameter Used for Comparison

DNA yield per µl = DNA extracted/volume of deposited blood

Summary of Results

variation among substrates (plastic lowest); variation among blood volumes with no obvious trend; significant loss of DNA observed during concentration using Amicon Ultra-4 filter units; the application of correction factors to the results from the transfer studies led to "highly discrepant" results and were thus not applied, but still recommend to be implemented in future experiments

Raised Questions

Differences in efficiencies of extraction methods; experiments to examine sampling efficiency; suggestion of a reference substrate to compare extraction efficiencies of all other substrates too; suggestion of the use of correction factors in future experiments

Cautionary Remarks

"highly discrepant results" introduced by correction factors not shown; DNA content of initial deposit not quantified; differences in blood samples between transfer and extraction efficiency experiment; correction factors not successful but still recommend to be implemented in future experiments