Modified differential DNA extraction to reduce processing time of sexual assault exhibits

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.

Alternative direct-to-amplification cell lysis techniques for forensically relevant non-sperm cells

While efforts have been made to reduce the pervasive backlog of sexual assault evidence collection kits, the actual laboratory process remains very time-consuming due to the requirement of a differential lysis step before DNA purification, as well as intricate mixture analysis towards the end of the DNA workflow. Recently, an alternative, direct-to-amplification sperm lysis method (using 1 M NaOH) was identified. However, a direct cell lysis method for non-sperm cells has not been identified yet. Thus, the primary objective of this work was to find an alternative method that is quick, inexpensive, and does not require multiple purification steps for the lysis of non-sperm cells in sexual assault samples. In this study, vaginal swab samples were lysed with the control method, prepGEM™, as well as six alternative reagents: alkaline buffer with 25-200 mM NaOH, high-salt stain extraction buffer, modified radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA) buffer, mammalian protein extraction reagent (M-PER™), digitonin buffer, and urea/thiourea buffer. Quantification using Quantifiler® Trio of vaginal and semen lysates revealed that the alkaline (25 mM NaOH) and M-PER™ methods were efficient for the lysis of vaginal epithelial cells without substantial sperm cell lysis. Following quantification, analysis of STR profiles from vaginal lysates revealed that the M-PER™ method showed promising results across all metrics examined, including the percentage of detected STR alleles, mean peak heights, peak height ratio, and interlocus balance. Thus, this method was recommended as an alternative to the traditional differential lysis method for non-sperm cells given its ability to produce amplification-ready lysates without any DNA purification step.

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.

Recovery of DNA from SERATECⓇ immunochromatographic PSA and saliva test strips

There is an increased use of immunochromatographic test strips to presumptively identify bodily fluids of forensic interest, such as blood, semen, and saliva. Commonly, forensic samples are of low quantities. In the practice of conserving limited samples, it would be ideal to be able to recover the genetic material deposited on these testing membranes. This research aimed to determine whether DNA could be extracted from semen and saliva test strips, which part of the test strip is best to use, and to assess the quality of the DNA recovered. Semen and saliva samples were deposited on SERATEC^® PSA Semiquant and Amylase Tests and analyzed. The testing membrane was then removed from the cassette and DNA extraction methods (forensicGEM Universal, forensicGEM Sperm, QIAamp^® DNA Mini kit, Monarch^® Nucleic Acid Purification kit, and organic extraction) were performed. Quality was evaluated by qPCR and STR analysis. DNA from semen was best extracted using the Monarch^® Nucleic Acid Purification kit, while saliva was best extracted using the forensicGEM or QIAamp kits. No significant differences were observed between collection of the sample well pad and testing strip, thus use of the entire strip is encouraged. DNA from semen and saliva was quantifiable with a 1:1000 dilution. DNA quality analysis by qPCR showed that there is no difference in the DNA quality following elution from the test strip. However, degradation was noted in saliva samples and some semen samples by STR analysis. Scientists are encouraged to consider processed test strips for DNA profiling to preserve evidence.