Cargando…
Comparison of the M‐Vac(®) Wet‐Vacuum‐Based Collection Method to a Wet‐Swabbing Method for DNA Recovery on Diluted Bloodstained Substrates, ,
A wet‐vacuum‐based collection method with the M‐Vac(®) was compared to a wet‐swabbing collection method by examining the recovery of diluted blood on 22 substrates of varying porosity. The wet‐vacuum method yielded more total nuclear DNA than wet‐swabbing on 18 porous substrates, recovering on avera...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7689737/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32687222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14508 |
_version_ | 1783613918101372928 |
---|---|
author | McLamb, Jessica M. Adams, Lara D. Kavlick, Mark F. |
author_facet | McLamb, Jessica M. Adams, Lara D. Kavlick, Mark F. |
author_sort | McLamb, Jessica M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | A wet‐vacuum‐based collection method with the M‐Vac(®) was compared to a wet‐swabbing collection method by examining the recovery of diluted blood on 22 substrates of varying porosity. The wet‐vacuum method yielded more total nuclear DNA than wet‐swabbing on 18 porous substrates, recovering on average 12 times more DNA. However, both methods yielded comparable amounts of total DNA on two porous and two nonporous substrates. In no instance did wet‐swabbing significantly recover more DNA. The wet‐vacuum method also successfully collected additional DNA on previously swabbed substrates. Mitochondrial DNA yields were assessed, and outcomes were generally similar to the nuclear DNA outcomes described above. Results demonstrate that wet‐vacuuming may serve as an alternative collection method to swabbing on difficult porous substrates and could potentially recover additional DNA on previously swabbed substrates. However, swabbing remains the preferred collection method on substrates with visible stains and/or nonporous surfaces for reasons of convenience, simplicity, and lower cost relative to the wet‐vacuum method. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7689737 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76897372020-12-05 Comparison of the M‐Vac(®) Wet‐Vacuum‐Based Collection Method to a Wet‐Swabbing Method for DNA Recovery on Diluted Bloodstained Substrates, , McLamb, Jessica M. Adams, Lara D. Kavlick, Mark F. J Forensic Sci Papers A wet‐vacuum‐based collection method with the M‐Vac(®) was compared to a wet‐swabbing collection method by examining the recovery of diluted blood on 22 substrates of varying porosity. The wet‐vacuum method yielded more total nuclear DNA than wet‐swabbing on 18 porous substrates, recovering on average 12 times more DNA. However, both methods yielded comparable amounts of total DNA on two porous and two nonporous substrates. In no instance did wet‐swabbing significantly recover more DNA. The wet‐vacuum method also successfully collected additional DNA on previously swabbed substrates. Mitochondrial DNA yields were assessed, and outcomes were generally similar to the nuclear DNA outcomes described above. Results demonstrate that wet‐vacuuming may serve as an alternative collection method to swabbing on difficult porous substrates and could potentially recover additional DNA on previously swabbed substrates. However, swabbing remains the preferred collection method on substrates with visible stains and/or nonporous surfaces for reasons of convenience, simplicity, and lower cost relative to the wet‐vacuum method. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-07-20 2020-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7689737/ /pubmed/32687222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14508 Text en Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Journal of Forensic Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Forensic Sciences This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Papers McLamb, Jessica M. Adams, Lara D. Kavlick, Mark F. Comparison of the M‐Vac(®) Wet‐Vacuum‐Based Collection Method to a Wet‐Swabbing Method for DNA Recovery on Diluted Bloodstained Substrates, , |
title | Comparison of the M‐Vac(®) Wet‐Vacuum‐Based Collection Method to a Wet‐Swabbing Method for DNA Recovery on Diluted Bloodstained Substrates, ,
|
title_full | Comparison of the M‐Vac(®) Wet‐Vacuum‐Based Collection Method to a Wet‐Swabbing Method for DNA Recovery on Diluted Bloodstained Substrates, ,
|
title_fullStr | Comparison of the M‐Vac(®) Wet‐Vacuum‐Based Collection Method to a Wet‐Swabbing Method for DNA Recovery on Diluted Bloodstained Substrates, ,
|
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the M‐Vac(®) Wet‐Vacuum‐Based Collection Method to a Wet‐Swabbing Method for DNA Recovery on Diluted Bloodstained Substrates, ,
|
title_short | Comparison of the M‐Vac(®) Wet‐Vacuum‐Based Collection Method to a Wet‐Swabbing Method for DNA Recovery on Diluted Bloodstained Substrates, ,
|
title_sort | comparison of the m‐vac(®) wet‐vacuum‐based collection method to a wet‐swabbing method for dna recovery on diluted bloodstained substrates, , |
topic | Papers |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7689737/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32687222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14508 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mclambjessicam comparisonofthemvacwetvacuumbasedcollectionmethodtoawetswabbingmethodfordnarecoveryondilutedbloodstainedsubstrates AT adamslarad comparisonofthemvacwetvacuumbasedcollectionmethodtoawetswabbingmethodfordnarecoveryondilutedbloodstainedsubstrates AT kavlickmarkf comparisonofthemvacwetvacuumbasedcollectionmethodtoawetswabbingmethodfordnarecoveryondilutedbloodstainedsubstrates |