Cargando…

Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method

BACKGROUND: The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grisedale, Kelly S, van Daal, Angela
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424158/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22748106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14
_version_ 1782241187387670528
author Grisedale, Kelly S
van Daal, Angela
author_facet Grisedale, Kelly S
van Daal, Angela
author_sort Grisedale, Kelly S
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. METHODS: A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. RESULTS: Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. CONCLUSIONS: The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3424158
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34241582012-08-22 Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method Grisedale, Kelly S van Daal, Angela Investig Genet Research BACKGROUND: The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. METHODS: A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. RESULTS: Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. CONCLUSIONS: The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited. BioMed Central 2012-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC3424158/ /pubmed/22748106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 Text en Copyright ©2012 Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Grisedale, Kelly S
van Daal, Angela
Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method
title Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method
title_full Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method
title_fullStr Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method
title_short Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method
title_sort comparison of str profiling from low template dna extracts with and without the consensus profiling method
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424158/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22748106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14
work_keys_str_mv AT grisedalekellys comparisonofstrprofilingfromlowtemplatednaextractswithandwithouttheconsensusprofilingmethod
AT vandaalangela comparisonofstrprofilingfromlowtemplatednaextractswithandwithouttheconsensusprofilingmethod