Cargando…
Comparing preservation substrates under field conditions for efficient DNA recovery in bone
Often bones are the only biological material left for the identification of human remains. As situations may occur where samples need to be stored for an extended period without access to cooling, appropriate storage of the bone samples is necessary for maintaining the integrity of DNA for profiling...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9902413/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36495333 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00414-022-02923-w |
_version_ | 1784883256240373760 |
---|---|
author | de Arellano Sánchez, Jorge Adrián Ramírez Ortiz, José Miguel Moreno Quintero, Andres López Pfeiffer, Heidi Vennemann, Marielle Bauer, Hannah |
author_facet | de Arellano Sánchez, Jorge Adrián Ramírez Ortiz, José Miguel Moreno Quintero, Andres López Pfeiffer, Heidi Vennemann, Marielle Bauer, Hannah |
author_sort | de Arellano Sánchez, Jorge Adrián Ramírez |
collection | PubMed |
description | Often bones are the only biological material left for the identification of human remains. As situations may occur where samples need to be stored for an extended period without access to cooling, appropriate storage of the bone samples is necessary for maintaining the integrity of DNA for profiling. To simulate DNA preservation under field conditions, pig rib bones were used to evaluate the effects of bone cleaning, buffer composition, storage temperature, and time on DNA recovery from bone samples. Bones were stored in three different buffers: TENT, solid sodium chloride, and ethanol-EDTA, at 20 °C and 35 °C for 10, 20, and 30 days. Bones were subsequently dried and ground to powder. DNA was extracted and quantified. Results show that temperature and storage time have no significant influence on DNA yield. DNA recovery from bones stored in solid sodium chloride or ethanol-EDTA was significantly higher compared to bones stored in TENT, and grinding of bones was facilitated by the extent of dehydration in solid sodium chloride and ethanol-EDTA compared to TENT. Overall, solid sodium chloride was found to be superior over ethanol-EDTA; when it comes to transportation, dry material such as salt eliminates the risk of leaking; it is non-toxic and in contrast to ethanol not classified as dangerous goods. Based on this study’s results, we recommend NaCl as a storage substrate for forensic samples in cases where no cooling/freezing conditions are available. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9902413 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99024132023-02-08 Comparing preservation substrates under field conditions for efficient DNA recovery in bone de Arellano Sánchez, Jorge Adrián Ramírez Ortiz, José Miguel Moreno Quintero, Andres López Pfeiffer, Heidi Vennemann, Marielle Bauer, Hannah Int J Legal Med Original Article Often bones are the only biological material left for the identification of human remains. As situations may occur where samples need to be stored for an extended period without access to cooling, appropriate storage of the bone samples is necessary for maintaining the integrity of DNA for profiling. To simulate DNA preservation under field conditions, pig rib bones were used to evaluate the effects of bone cleaning, buffer composition, storage temperature, and time on DNA recovery from bone samples. Bones were stored in three different buffers: TENT, solid sodium chloride, and ethanol-EDTA, at 20 °C and 35 °C for 10, 20, and 30 days. Bones were subsequently dried and ground to powder. DNA was extracted and quantified. Results show that temperature and storage time have no significant influence on DNA yield. DNA recovery from bones stored in solid sodium chloride or ethanol-EDTA was significantly higher compared to bones stored in TENT, and grinding of bones was facilitated by the extent of dehydration in solid sodium chloride and ethanol-EDTA compared to TENT. Overall, solid sodium chloride was found to be superior over ethanol-EDTA; when it comes to transportation, dry material such as salt eliminates the risk of leaking; it is non-toxic and in contrast to ethanol not classified as dangerous goods. Based on this study’s results, we recommend NaCl as a storage substrate for forensic samples in cases where no cooling/freezing conditions are available. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-12-10 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9902413/ /pubmed/36495333 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00414-022-02923-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article de Arellano Sánchez, Jorge Adrián Ramírez Ortiz, José Miguel Moreno Quintero, Andres López Pfeiffer, Heidi Vennemann, Marielle Bauer, Hannah Comparing preservation substrates under field conditions for efficient DNA recovery in bone |
title | Comparing preservation substrates under field conditions for efficient DNA recovery in bone |
title_full | Comparing preservation substrates under field conditions for efficient DNA recovery in bone |
title_fullStr | Comparing preservation substrates under field conditions for efficient DNA recovery in bone |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing preservation substrates under field conditions for efficient DNA recovery in bone |
title_short | Comparing preservation substrates under field conditions for efficient DNA recovery in bone |
title_sort | comparing preservation substrates under field conditions for efficient dna recovery in bone |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9902413/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36495333 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00414-022-02923-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dearellanosanchezjorgeadrianramirez comparingpreservationsubstratesunderfieldconditionsforefficientdnarecoveryinbone AT ortizjosemiguelmoreno comparingpreservationsubstratesunderfieldconditionsforefficientdnarecoveryinbone AT quinteroandreslopez comparingpreservationsubstratesunderfieldconditionsforefficientdnarecoveryinbone AT pfeifferheidi comparingpreservationsubstratesunderfieldconditionsforefficientdnarecoveryinbone AT vennemannmarielle comparingpreservationsubstratesunderfieldconditionsforefficientdnarecoveryinbone AT bauerhannah comparingpreservationsubstratesunderfieldconditionsforefficientdnarecoveryinbone |