The influence of substrate on DNA transfer and extraction efficiency
FSI Genetics, 2013
Authors
Journal
FSI Genetics
Study Design
Addressed Question
comparison of extraction efficiency from different substrates
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
1
Replicates per Individual and Condition
4
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
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
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
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