Dual amplification strategy for improved efficiency of forensic DNA analysis using NGM Detect™, NGM™ or Globalfiler™ kits

Half-volume validation of the NGM Detect™ PCR Amplification Kit and its application on degraded casework samples

The NGM Detect™ PCR Amplification Kit was designed particularly for genotyping degraded casework samples. This study aimed to validate the half-volume amplification of the kit and to present its successful long-term application. The validation was performed in accordance to the corresponding guidelines of the Scientific Working Group on DNA analysis methods and the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. For validation parameters, such as sensitivity, reproducibility, and repeatability, polymerase chain reactions (PCR) were set up both manually and robotically, applying 29 cycles. For PCRs with sub-optimal DNA input (≤0.5 ng) the cycle numbers were increased to 31. Regardless of the PCR preparation method, the optimal 0.5 ng DNA input produced optimal allelic peak heights with no allelic dropout. The first alleles that failed to amplify started to appear at the level of 0.0375 ng input DNA, although the manually prepared PCRs produced fewer missing alleles. In this case, the raised cycle number produced 1.9% and 4.4% of dropout for manually and for robotically set up PCRs, respectively. In the case of 84 degraded casework samples, PCRs were prepared only by hand. The kit was able to provide informative profiles for 78.57%, 70.37%, and 69.77% for lowly, moderately, and highly degraded samples, respectively. Allelic dropouts were 26.05%, 44.88%, and 51.23% for the same groups. According to our results, we strongly recommend using the NGM Detect™ Kit in half-volume PCR system and encourage the usage of the kit in the particular cases when other kits fail to produce a complete DNA profile.

A systematic approach to improve downstream single-cell analysis for the DEPArray™ technology

Most commercially available STR amplification kits have never been fully validated for low template DNA analysis, highlighting the need for testing different PCR kits and conditions for improving single-cell profiling. Here, current strategies rely mainly on adjusting PCR cycle number and analytical threshold settings, with a strong preference for using 30 amplification cycles and thresholds at 30-150 RFU for allele detection. This study aimed to (1) determine appropriate conditions for obtaining informative profiles utilizing a dilution series, and (2) test the outcome on single cells using the DEPArray™ technology. Four routinely applied forensic STR kits were compared by using three different amplification volumes and DNA dilutions down to 3.0 pg, while two well-performing kits were used for single/pooled leucocyte and sperm cell genotyping. Besides reduced costs, the results demonstrate that a 50%-75% PCR volume reduction was beneficial for peak height evaluation. However, this was counteracted by an increased artifact generation in diluted DNA volumes. Regarding profile completeness, the advantage of volume reduction was only prominent in samples processed with Fusion 6C. For single and pooled cells, ESIFast and NGMDetect provided a solid basis for consensus profiling regarding locus failure, although locus dropouts were generally observed as stochastic events. Amplification volume of 12.5 μL was confirmed as appropriate in terms of peak heights and stutter frequencies, with increased stutter peaks being the main artifact in single-cell profiles. Limitations associated with these analyses are discussed, providing a solid foundation for further studies on low template DNA.

Effects of solvent-based adhesive removal on the subsequent dual analysis of fingerprint and DNA

The combined approach of classical fingerprinting and DNA profiling is a powerful tool in forensic investigations of latent "touch" traces. However, little attention has been paid to the organic solvents frequently used in dactyloscopic laboratories to facilitate the separation of adhesive evidence prior to fingerprint development and downstream effects on subsequent DNA profiling. In the present study, we tested a selection of adhesive removers (n = 9) and assessed their potential impact on DNA recovery and amplification by PCR. Thereby, we identified and characterized novel PCR inhibitors. All investigated chemicals contain volatile organic compounds that evaporate under normal indoor atmospheric conditions. Exposure to certain solvents resulted in increased DNA degradation, but only if evaporation was prevented. A series of adhesive-removal experiments were conducted with prepared mock evidence (self-adhesive postage stamps affixed to paper envelope) to investigate the impact of treatment time and the location of applied traces on DNA recovery and dactyloscopy, respectively. Due to the early onset of print decomposition, we found that only a short treatment time was compatible with the development of fingerprints on the adhesive side of a stamp. Solvents also removed DNA from the adhesive surface, thus resulting in a marked shift in the substrate distribution of recovered DNA from the stamp to the envelope, but not in the reverse direction. Furthermore, we observed that treatment with conventional fingerprint reagents lead to a significant reduction in the amounts of DNA recovered from stamps, while the additional use of adhesive removers did not significantly enhance this effect.

Comparison of genotyping and weight of evidence results when applying different genotyping strategies on samples from a DNA transfer experiment

In this study, we assessed to what extent data on the subject of TPPR (transfer, persistence, prevalence, recovery) that are obtained through an older STR typing kit can be used in an activity-level evaluation for a case profiled with a more modern STR kit. Newer kits generally hold more loci and may show higher sensitivity especially when reduced reaction volumes are used, and this could increase the evidential value at the source level. On the other hand, the increased genotyping information may invoke a higher number of contributors in the weight of evidence calculations, which could affect the evidential values as well. An activity scenario well explored in earlier studies [1,2] was redone using volunteers with known DNA profiles. DNA extracts were analyzed with three different approaches, namely using the optimal DNA input for (1) an older and (2) a newer STR typing system, and (3) using a standard, volume-based input combined with replicate PCR analysis with only the newer STR kit. The genotyping results were analyzed for various aspects such as percentage detected alleles and relative peak height contribution for background and the contributors known to be involved in the activity. Next, source-level LRs were calculated and the same trends were observed with regard to inclusionary and exclusionary LRs for persons who had or had not been in direct contact with the sampled areas. We subsequently assessed the impact on the outcome of the activity-level evaluation in an exemplary case by applying the assigned probabilities to a Bayesian network. We infer that data from different STR kits can be combined in the activity-level evaluations.

Assessing the utility of quantitative and qualitative metrics in the DNA quantification process of skeletal remains for autosomal and Y-chromosome STR amplification purposes

In historical cases, ancient DNA investigations and missing persons identification, teeth or bone samples are often the only and almost always the best biological material available for DNA typing. On the other hand, DNA obtained from bone material may be characterized by a high degradation index (DI) or its low content, or DNA tests cannot be repeated due to bone piece size limitation. That is often the effect of the environment in which the material was placed and the time during which exposure to unfavorable environmental factors took place. Therefore, it is very important to use appropriate procedures related to STR analysis. For our study, we selected 80 challenging bone samples. The amount of DNA was compared in qPCR using Quantifiler™ Trio DNA Quantification Kit and Investigator® Quantiplex® Pro RGQ. All qPCR results were confirmed by PCR-CE. The results of DNA concentrations and the assigned degradation index (DI) differed significantly within analyzed samples (~10%). Additionally, the Y-chromosome DI also differed from the autosomal DI in the samples. The difference in degradation indexes could explain the lower Y-chromosome amplification success rate compared to autosomal e.g. during human identification process. The results indicate that performing two DNA quantifications with the use of two different kits (primers sets) allows for a much more precise evaluation of the DNA quality and quantity in the isolate. We suggest that at least one of two suggested DNA concentration measurements should be based on an additional determination of the Y chromosome degradation index. Altogether, it allows for rational isolate management, especially when the volume is limited and the sample is unique.

The performance of quality controls in the Investigator® Quantiplex® Pro RGQ and Investigator® 24plex STR kits with a variety of forensic samples

Forensic DNA laboratories process database reference samples on FTA® cards or buccal swabs, which commonly contain adequate amounts of quality DNA resulting in full STR profiles and high first-pass rates. However, some reference samples and many forensic casework samples are exposed to a variety of insults that may lead to low quantities of DNA, DNA degradation, DNA mixtures, and/or PCR inhibition, posing a challenge to downstream genotyping success. The inclusion of multiple amplification targets and internal PCR controls (IPCs) in DNA quantification kits, and quality sensors within STR amplification kits can aid in the accurate interpretation of sample/profile quality, and guide more efficient rework strategies when needed. In order to assess the effectiveness of these quality systems we subjected database-type samples (buccal swabs and blood or saliva on FTA® cards), mock casework samples (low-template, degraded, inhibited, DNA mixtures), and authentic post-coital samples to various challenging conditions. Concordance between the quality flags in the Investigator® Quantiplex® Pro RGQ kit (QIAGEN), the QS markers in QIAGEN's Investigator® 24plex QS kit, and overall STR profile quality was evaluated for all casework-type samples. To assess the value of the QS markers in the Investigator® 24plex QS and GO! STR kits, samples with partial or failed STR profiles were reworked based on the quality of the electropherogram first with the QS markers redacted, and second in conjunction with the QS markers. Results from each of the rework approaches were compared to determine which strategy, if any, improved the STR profile quality and the number of reportable alleles. The QS markers in the 24plex STR kits correctly confirmed sample quality in 99.9% of databasing samples and 98% of mock casework samples. Quality flags during DNA quantification were concordant with downstream STR profiles for the majority (77%) of the mock casework samples. Additionally, when samples with partial STR profiles were reworked, more loci were obtained for 80% of the samples regardless of the rework strategy used. However, the most notable improvement in STR completeness was observed in inhibited samples that were reworked based on the information provided by the STR quality sensors, with an average increase of 56% reportable alleles.

Utility of the Ion S5™ and MiSeq FGx™ sequencing platforms to characterize challenging human remains

Often in missing persons' and mass disaster cases, the samples remaining for analysis are hard tissues such as bones, teeth, nails, and hair. These remains may have been exposed to harsh environmental conditions, which pose challenges for downstream genotyping. Short tandem repeat analysis (STR) via capillary electrophoresis (CE) is still the gold standard for DNA typing; however, a newer technology known as massively parallel sequencing (MPS) could improve upon our current techniques by typing different and more markers in a single analysis, and consequently improving the power of discrimination. In this study, bone and tooth samples exposed to a variety of DNA insults (cremation, embalming, decomposition, thermal degradation, and fire) were assessed and sequenced using the Precision ID chemistry and a custom AmpliSeq™ STR and iiSNP panel on the Ion S5™ System, and the ForenSeq DNA Signature Prep Kit on the MiSeq FGx™ system, as well as the GlobalFiler™ PCR Amplification Kit on the 3500™ Genetic Analyzer. The results demonstrated that using traditional CE-based genotyping performed as expected, producing a partial or full DNA profile for all samples, and that both sequencing chemistries and platforms were able to recover sufficient STR and SNP information from a majority of the same challenging samples. Run metrics including profile completeness and mean read depth produced good results with each system, considering the degree of damage of some samples. Most sample insults (except decomposed) produced similar numbers of alleles for both MPS systems. Comparable markers produced full concordance between the two platforms.