A proof of principal study on the use of direct PCR of semen and spermatozoa and development of a differential isolation protocol for use in cases of alleged sexual assault

Does SARS-CoV-2 Affect Human Semen? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contradictory results have been reported regarding effects of the SARS-CoV-2 upon human semen. A timely and up-to-date systematic review with meta-analysis appears necessary. This study aimed to deliver pooled prevalence (PP) of SARS-CoV-2 in semen and pooled semen parameters as compared with the uninfected. The relevant databases were scanned by two authors for observational studies reporting analysis of semen in COVID-19 patients. The SARS-CoV-2-infected were assigned to group A (exposed arm), whereas the uninfected to group B (unexposed arm). Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to address the risk of bias. PRISMA guidelines were adopted. In case of homogenous studies, fixed-effects model was followed, whereas for heterogenous studies random-effects model was used. Of 990 studies, 24 were eligible involving 1589 subjects (947 in group A and 642 in group B). The "comparability" domain was biased the most. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in three studies among 8 individuals producing the PP of 1.76% (95% CI 0.72-3.21). Sperm concentration was reduced significantly (WMD = -16.23 [95% CI -25.56 to -6.89], as well as total sperm in ejaculate (WMD = -34.84 [95% CI - 43.51 to -26.17]) and sperm volume (WMD =  - 0.48 [95% CI - 0.59 to - 0.36] in group A as compared with controls. There was a non-significant effect upon progressive motility and leukocyte presence in semen. SARS-CoV-2 RNA in semen among the infected individuals is detected infrequently. By this token, sexual transmission through semen is of low probability and little concern for public health. However, significant decrease in sperm volume, sperm concentration, and total sperm in ejaculate has been noted. The current data, though, are limited, and more studies with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the further impact.

Review of direct PCR and Rapid DNA approaches to streamline sexual assault kit testing

Crime laboratories have been faced with large casework backlogs due to lengthy processing times, limited resources and scientists, and rising crime rates. Evidence related to sexual assault crimes, specifically sexual assault kits (SAKs), heavily contribute to the reported backlogs. Although more sensitive, faster chemistries and automated techniques have been implemented over the years, the traditional STR workflow remains relatively unchanged. Enhanced workflows such as direct PCR and Rapid DNA have the potential to streamline the processing of forensic evidence items including those commonly submitted in SAKs, but the FBI QAS guidelines restrict CODIS-approved labs from implementing these methods for forensic samples. Recent studies have shown decreased turnaround times and improved or comparable profiling success with both approaches. However, review of the literature shows a lack of in-depth research comparing traditional DNA workflows to faster and more sensitive direct PCR and/or Rapid DNA approaches for evidentiary samples, especially for SAKs. By providing the forensic science and criminal justice communities with the strengths and limitations of direct PCR and Rapid DNA methods, stakeholders and policy makers may be better informed.

Alternative direct‐to‐amplification sperm cell lysis techniques for sexual assault sample processing

The prevalence of sexual assault cases and increasingly sensitive DNA analysis methods have resulted in sexual assault kit backlogs in the United States. Although traditional DNA extraction and purification utilizing detergents, proteinase K, and DTT have been the primary technique for lysing sperm cell fractions from these samples, it is labor‐intensive and inefficient regarding time and sperm DNA recovery – hindering the ability of forensic analysts to keep pace with evidence submissions. Thus, this study examined seven alternative sperm cell lysis techniques to develop a method that could efficiently lyse sperm and consistently generate high‐quality profiles while also reducing time, labor, and cost requirements. Microscopic examination of lysates indicated only Casework Direct and alkaline techniques could lyse all spermatozoa within samples, while quantification results demonstrated all methods performed comparably to the control method of forensicGEM™ Sperm (p > 0.06). Amplification with 0.25 ng DNA revealed that unpurified lysates from Casework Direct, alkaline, and NP‐40 techniques produced DNA profiles with acceptable mean STR peak heights and interlocus balance, both of which were similar to or better than the control. Overall, this study demonstrated the ability of Casework Direct, alkaline, and NP‐40 methods to efficiently lyse spermatozoa and provide high‐quality STR profiles despite the absence of a purification step. Ultimately, based on the data reported herein, alkaline lysis is the recommended alternative sperm lysis approach given its ability to generate high‐quality profiles, save time, and decrease the cost per reaction when compared to traditional sperm cell lysis methods.

The effects of dithiothreitol (DTT) on fluorescent qPCR dyes

DNA extractions of semen samples commonly utilize dithiothreitol (DTT) to reduce and disrupt disulfide bonds. Although traditional extraction techniques remove DTT before downstream analyses, the forensic DNA community has recently explored Y-screening, direct amplification, and direct cell lysis assays that omit purification but employ reducing agents to lyse spermatozoa. This study examined the impact of residual DTT on downstream processes involving fluorescent dyes. Quantification using Investigator^® Quantiplex HYres revealed a significant increase in the male DNA yield (p = 0.00056) and a >150,000,000-fold increase in the male:human DNA ratio when DTT remained in extracts versus when it was filtered out using a traditional purification method. When DTT was present with Quantifiler™ Trio, the true mean DNA yield for the large autosomal target significantly increased (p = 0.038) and the average reported DNA yields increased 1.1-fold, >9.5-fold, and 1.3-fold for the small autosomal, large autosomal, and male targets, respectively. DTT-spiked DNA standards from both kits were impacted similarly to samples with residual DTT, demonstrating that observed effects were related to DTT and not the extraction method. This study corroborates other reports that DTT adversely affects multiple dyes (e.g., Cy5, Quasar 670, SYBR Green I, TMR, and Mustang Purple^® ). Overall, DTT causes inaccurate quantities and, consequently, inaccurate calculated male:female ratios when used in conjunction with these kits. Thus, implementation of newer direct-to-PCR assays incorporating DTT should either be avoided or used only with carefully evaluated, compatible dyes.

Rapid oral bacteria detection based on real-time PCR for the forensic identification of saliva

This study developed a new method for forensic saliva identification using three oral bacteria, Streptococcus salivarius, Streptococcus sanguinis, and Neisseria subflava, combined with a real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) system we called OB mRT-PCR. Analytical sensitivity results showed that the target bacteria were amplified at 102-107 copies/reaction, and analytical specificity was assessed using 24 other viruses, bacteria, and protozoa. To evaluate the OB mRT-PCR kit for forensic applications, saliva from 140 Korean individuals was tested, and at least two target bacteria were detected in all the samples. Additional studies on non-saliva samples demonstrated the specificity of the kit. Comparison of the kit with two conventional saliva test methods, the SALIgAE and RSID-Saliva assays, indicated that it was more sensitive and applicable to saliva samples in long-term storage (up to 14 weeks). Additionally, through amplification of mock forensic items and old DNA samples (isolated without lysis of the bacterial cells, regardless of their Gram-positivity), we found that the kit was applicable to not only saliva swabs, but also DNA samples. We suggest that this simple RT-PCR-based experimental method is feasible for rapid on-site analysis, and we expect this kit to be useful for saliva detection in old forensic DNA samples.