Comparison and optimization of DNA recovery from sperm vs. epithelial cells using laser capture microdissection technology and an immunofluorescent staining system

Advancements in differentiation between sperm cells and epithelial cells for efficient forensic DNA analysis in sexual assault cases

Most of the sexual assault casework samples are of mixed sources. Forensic DNA laboratories are always in the requirement of a precise technique for the efficient separation of sperm and non-sperm DNA from mixed samples. Since the introduction of the differential extraction technique in 1985, it has seen significant advancements in the form of either chemicals used or modification of incubation times. Several automated and semi-automated techniques have also adopted the fundamentals of conventional differential extraction techniques. However, lengthy incubation, several manual steps, and carryover over non-sperm material in sperm fraction are some of the major limitations of this technique. Advanced cell separation techniques have shown huge promise in separating sperm cells from a mixture based on their size, shape, composition, and membrane structure and antigens present on sperm membranes. Such advanced techniques such as DEParray, ADE, FACS, LCM, HOT and their respective pros and cons have been discussed in this article. As current-day forensic techniques should be as per the line of Olympic slogan i.e., faster, higher, stronger, the advanced cell separation techniques show a huge potential to be implemented in the casework samples.

Droplet-based optical trapping for cell separation in mock forensic samples

Optical tweezers have a wide range of uses for mechanical manipulation of objects in the microscopic range. This includes both living and static cells in a variety of biomedical and research applications. Single-focus optical tweezers, formed by focusing a laser beam through a high numerical aperture immersion objective, create a significant force, which enables controlled transport of a variety of different cell types and morphologies in three dimensions. Optical tweezers have been previously reported to capture and separate spermatozoa from a reconstituted simulated postcoital sample. We report herein the development of a simplified, more efficient cell transfer protocol that can separate and isolate both spermatozoa as well as leukocytes, with similar efficiencies as those previously reported. The new cell transfer method was used to separate sperm cells from a reconstituted mixture of spermatozoa and vaginal epithelial cells, with complete STR profiles developed from 50 cells with little evidence of contribution from the female contributor to the mixture. This modified protocol was then used to separate 21 samples of enriched leukocytes, with trapped cells ranging from 5 to 22 cells. Complete STR profiles were developed from as few as 10 leukocytes. Thus, with minimal sample preparation and a short trapping time, this method has the potential to provide an alternative to traditional differential extraction methods for separation of sperm:nonsperm mixtures while also providing versatility for separation of cells with differing morphologies.

Micromanipulation of single cells and fingerprints for forensic identification

Crime scene samples often include biological stains, handled items, or worn clothes and may contain cells from various donors. Applying routine sample collection methods by using a portion of a biological stain or swabbing the entire suspected touched area of the evidence followed by DNA extraction often leads to DNA mixtures. Some mixtures can be addressed with sophisticated interpretation protocols and probabilistic genotyping software resulting in DNA profiles of their contributors. However, many samples remain unresolved, providing no investigative information. Samples with many contributors are often the most challenging samples in forensic biology. Examples include gang rape situations or where the perpetrator's DNA is present in traces among the overwhelming amounts of the victim's DNA. If this is the only available evidence in a case, it is of paramount importance to generate usable information. An alternative approach, to address biological mixtures, could be the collection of individual cells directly from the evidence and testing them separately. This method could prevent cells from being inadvertently blended during the extraction process, thus resulting in DNA mixtures. In this study, multiple tools coupled with adhesive microcarriers to collect single cells were evaluated. These were tested on epithelial (buccal) and sperm cells, as well as on touched items. Single cells were successfully collected but fingerprints were swabbed in their entirety to account for the extracellular DNA of these samples and the poor DNA quality of shed skin flakes. Furthermore, micromanipulation devices, such as the P.A.L.M.® and the Axio Zoom.V16 operated manually or with a robotic arm aureka®, were compared for their effectiveness in collecting cells. The P.A.L.M.® was suitable for single cell isolation when smeared on membrane slides. Manual or robotic manipulations, by utilizing the Axio Zoom.V16, have wider applications as they can be used to isolate cells from various substrates such as glass or membrane slides, tapes, or directly from the evidence. Manipulations using the Axio Zoom.V16, either with the robotic arm aureka® or manually, generated similar outcomes which were significantly better than the outcomes by using the P.A.L.M.®. Robotic manipulations using the aureka® produced more consistent results, but operating the aureka® required training and often needed re-calibrations. This made the process of cell manipulations slower than when manually operated. Our preferred method was the manual manipulations as it was fast, cost effective, required little training, but relied on a steady hand of the technician.