Cargando…

Comparison of preprocessing methods and storage times for touch DNA samples

AIM: To select appropriate preprocessing methods for different substrates by comparing the effects of four different preprocessing methods on touch DNA samples and to determine the effect of various storage times on the results of touch DNA sample analysis. METHOD: Hand touch DNA samples were used t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dong, Hui, Wang, Jing, Zhang, Tao, Ge, Jian-ye, Dong, Ying-qiang, Sun, Qi-fan, Liu, Chao, Li, Cai-xia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Croatian Medical Schools 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5346895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28252870
http://dx.doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2017.58.4
_version_ 1782513971572506624
author Dong, Hui
Wang, Jing
Zhang, Tao
Ge, Jian-ye
Dong, Ying-qiang
Sun, Qi-fan
Liu, Chao
Li, Cai-xia
author_facet Dong, Hui
Wang, Jing
Zhang, Tao
Ge, Jian-ye
Dong, Ying-qiang
Sun, Qi-fan
Liu, Chao
Li, Cai-xia
author_sort Dong, Hui
collection PubMed
description AIM: To select appropriate preprocessing methods for different substrates by comparing the effects of four different preprocessing methods on touch DNA samples and to determine the effect of various storage times on the results of touch DNA sample analysis. METHOD: Hand touch DNA samples were used to investigate the detection and inspection results of DNA on different substrates. Four preprocessing methods, including the direct cutting method, stubbing procedure, double swab technique, and vacuum cleaner method, were used in this study. DNA was extracted from mock samples with four different preprocessing methods. The best preprocess protocol determined from the study was further used to compare performance after various storage times. DNA extracted from all samples was quantified and amplified using standard procedures. RESULTS: The amounts of DNA and the number of alleles detected on the porous substrates were greater than those on the non-porous substrates. The performances of the four preprocessing methods varied with different substrates. The direct cutting method displayed advantages for porous substrates, and the vacuum cleaner method was advantageous for non-porous substrates. No significant degradation trend was observed as the storage times increased. CONCLUSION: Different substrates require the use of different preprocessing method in order to obtain the highest DNA amount and allele number from touch DNA samples. This study provides a theoretical basis for explorations of touch DNA samples and may be used as a reference when dealing with touch DNA samples in case work.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5346895
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Croatian Medical Schools
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53468952017-03-14 Comparison of preprocessing methods and storage times for touch DNA samples Dong, Hui Wang, Jing Zhang, Tao Ge, Jian-ye Dong, Ying-qiang Sun, Qi-fan Liu, Chao Li, Cai-xia Croat Med J Forensic Science AIM: To select appropriate preprocessing methods for different substrates by comparing the effects of four different preprocessing methods on touch DNA samples and to determine the effect of various storage times on the results of touch DNA sample analysis. METHOD: Hand touch DNA samples were used to investigate the detection and inspection results of DNA on different substrates. Four preprocessing methods, including the direct cutting method, stubbing procedure, double swab technique, and vacuum cleaner method, were used in this study. DNA was extracted from mock samples with four different preprocessing methods. The best preprocess protocol determined from the study was further used to compare performance after various storage times. DNA extracted from all samples was quantified and amplified using standard procedures. RESULTS: The amounts of DNA and the number of alleles detected on the porous substrates were greater than those on the non-porous substrates. The performances of the four preprocessing methods varied with different substrates. The direct cutting method displayed advantages for porous substrates, and the vacuum cleaner method was advantageous for non-porous substrates. No significant degradation trend was observed as the storage times increased. CONCLUSION: Different substrates require the use of different preprocessing method in order to obtain the highest DNA amount and allele number from touch DNA samples. This study provides a theoretical basis for explorations of touch DNA samples and may be used as a reference when dealing with touch DNA samples in case work. Croatian Medical Schools 2017-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5346895/ /pubmed/28252870 http://dx.doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2017.58.4 Text en Copyright © 2017 by the Croatian Medical Journal. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Forensic Science
Dong, Hui
Wang, Jing
Zhang, Tao
Ge, Jian-ye
Dong, Ying-qiang
Sun, Qi-fan
Liu, Chao
Li, Cai-xia
Comparison of preprocessing methods and storage times for touch DNA samples
title Comparison of preprocessing methods and storage times for touch DNA samples
title_full Comparison of preprocessing methods and storage times for touch DNA samples
title_fullStr Comparison of preprocessing methods and storage times for touch DNA samples
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of preprocessing methods and storage times for touch DNA samples
title_short Comparison of preprocessing methods and storage times for touch DNA samples
title_sort comparison of preprocessing methods and storage times for touch dna samples
topic Forensic Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5346895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28252870
http://dx.doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2017.58.4
work_keys_str_mv AT donghui comparisonofpreprocessingmethodsandstoragetimesfortouchdnasamples
AT wangjing comparisonofpreprocessingmethodsandstoragetimesfortouchdnasamples
AT zhangtao comparisonofpreprocessingmethodsandstoragetimesfortouchdnasamples
AT gejianye comparisonofpreprocessingmethodsandstoragetimesfortouchdnasamples
AT dongyingqiang comparisonofpreprocessingmethodsandstoragetimesfortouchdnasamples
AT sunqifan comparisonofpreprocessingmethodsandstoragetimesfortouchdnasamples
AT liuchao comparisonofpreprocessingmethodsandstoragetimesfortouchdnasamples
AT licaixia comparisonofpreprocessingmethodsandstoragetimesfortouchdnasamples