Sperm DNA extraction from mixed stains using the Differex™ 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.

Analytical approaches to differential extraction for sexual assault evidence

Many forensic laboratories face growing demands for the processing of DNA evidence from sexual assault investigations. In these cases, evidence collected from the crime scene or from the victim in the form of a Sexual Assault and Evidence Collection Kit (SAECK) typically contains a mixture of cells from at least two donors. Isolation of DNA contributions to link a sample to an alleged offender requires precise chemical treatment of each sample with the goal of separating epithelial cells from non-sperm cells. Currently, the vast majority of laboratories employ differential chemical lysis methods that require lengthy incubations and several manual steps, preventing complete automation. Numerous alternative methods for the differential extraction (DE) of sexual assault evidence have been developed to provide a solution to the growing backlog of samples observed in the US and other countries. Here, we will discuss the predominant methodology for the DE of DNA from sexual assault samples and review alternative approaches from literature. We illustrate three criteria that provide a measure of success in performing these types of chemical separations and examine all methods based upon these expectations. We conclude by providing some general insight into the application of DE techniques in forensic laboratories and discuss the potential future directions of alternative technologies.

Improving the efficacy of the standard DNA differential extraction method for sexual assault evidence

The efficacy of a DNA differential extraction procedure relies on reducing the amount of non-sperm female DNA carryover into the sperm fraction, while providing a sufficient recovery of male DNA from the sperm cell component. A standard approach to this extraction is to use a mild initial lysis step to digest the female (epithelial cell) component in the mixture, followed by a series of centrifugation and wash steps to further purify the resulting sperm-pellet fraction. This sperm fraction is then digested in the presence of a chemical reducing agent in preparation for DNA extraction. This method has been employed with relatively few changes since its introduction in the mid-1980s, despite numerous attempts to develop new or improved procedures. In this report, we demonstrate that it is possible to improve the efficacy of the standard differential extraction by applying simple modifications that can reduce the amount of female DNA carryover into the sperm fraction, with no adverse effects on the recovery of male DNA. In one modification, the addition of a second mild lysis step at the beginning of the differential extraction procedure improved the average male-to-female DNA ratio in the sperm fraction by 3- to 6-fold. In another modification, a "tube transfer" step was added to move the re-suspended sperm pellet to a new tube for the second mild lysis and subsequent wash steps. With this modification, the average male-to-female DNA ratio in the sperm fraction was improved by 4- to 90-fold, relative to results obtained for the non-modified differential extraction method. These modifications may be accomplished using tools and reagents that are already present in most forensic DNA laboratories, so that implementation should be relatively low-cost and practical.

Differential DNA extraction of challenging simulated sexual-assault samples: a Swiss collaborative study

In sexual-assault cases, autosomal DNA analysis of gynecological swabs is a challenge, as the presence of a large quantity of female material may prevent detection of the male DNA. A solution to this problem is differential DNA extraction, but there is no established best practice for this. We decided to test the efficacy of a number of different protocols on simulated casework samples. Four difficult samples were sent to the nine Swiss laboratories active in forensic genetics. In each laboratory, staff used their routine protocols to separate the epithelial-cell fraction, enriched with the non-sperm DNA, from the sperm fraction. DNA extracts were then sent to the organizing laboratory for analysis. Estimates of male:female DNA ratio without differential DNA extraction ranged from 1:38 to 1:339, depending on the semen used to prepare the samples. After differential DNA extraction, most of the ratios ranged from 1:12 to 9:1, allowing detection of the male DNA. Compared with direct DNA extraction, cell separation resulted in losses of 94-98% of the male DNA. As expected, more male DNA was generally present in the sperm than in the epithelial-cell fraction. However, for about 30% of the samples, the reverse trend was seen. The recovery of male and female DNA was highly variable, depending on the laboratory involved. An experimental design similar to the one used in this study may be of assistance for local protocol testing and improvement.