Skip to main content
Log in

Assessment of the role of DNA repair in damaged forensic samples

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies on DNA damage and repair have involved in vitro laboratory procedures that induce a single type of lesion in naked templates. Although repair of singular, sequestered types of DNA damage has shown some success, forensic and ancient specimens likely contain a number of different types of lesions. This study sought to (1) develop protocols to damage DNA in its native state, (2) generate a pool of candidate samples for repair that more likely emulate authentic forensic samples, and (3) assess the ability of the PreCRTM Repair Mix to repair the resultant lesions. Complexed, native DNA is more difficult to damage than naked DNA. Modified procedures included the use of higher concentrations and longer exposure times. Three types of samples, those that demonstrated damage based on short tandem repeat (STR) profile signals, were selected for repair experiments: environmentally damaged bloodstains, bleach-damaged whole blood, and human skeletal remains. Results showed trends of improved performance of STR profiling of bleach-damaged DNA. However, the repair assay did not improve DNA profiles from environmentally damaged bloodstains or bone, and in some cases resulted in lower RFU values for STR alleles. The extensive spectrum of DNA damage and myriad combinations of lesions that can be present in forensic samples appears to pose a challenge for the in vitro PreCRTM assay. The data suggest that the use of PreCR in casework should be considered with caution due to the assay’s varied results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gates KS (2009) An overview of chemical processes that damage cellular DNA: spontaneous hydrolysis, alkylation, and reactions with radicals. Chem Res Toxicol 22(11):1747–1760

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Geacintov NE, Broyde S (2010) The chemical biology of DNA damage. Wiley-VCH Publishing, Weinhein

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Shafirovich V, Geacintov NE (2010) Role of free radical reactions in the formation of DNA damage. In The Chemical Biology of DNA Damage. Weinhein, Germany: Wiley-VCH Publishing: 81–104

  4. Lindahl T, Nyberg B (1972) Rate of depurination of native deoxyribonucleic acid. Biochemistry 11:3610–3618

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jun S (2010) DNA chemical damage and its detection. Int J Chem 2(2):261–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. De Gruijl F, Rebel H (2008) Early events in UV carcinogenesis: DNA damage, target cells, and mutant p53 foci. J Photochem Photobiol 84:382–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cooke MS, Evans MD, Dizdaroglu M, Lunec J (2003) Oxidative DNA damage: mechanisms, mutation, and disease. FASEB J 17:1195–1214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nelson J (2009). Repair of damaged DNA for forensic analysis. National Institute of Justice

  9. Hall A, Ballantyne J (2004) Characterization of UVC-induced DNA damage in bloodstains: forensic implications. Anal Bioanal Chem 380(1):72–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Diegoli TM, Farr M, Cromartie C, Coble MD, Bille TW (2012) An optimized protocol for forensic application of the PreCR Repair Mix to multiplex STR amplification of UV-damaged DNA. Forensic Sci Int 6(4):498–503

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tuchinda C, Srivannaboon S, Lim HW (2006) Photoprotection by window glass, automobile glass, and sunglasses. J Am Acad Dermatol 54(5):845–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Foran DR (2006) Relative degradation of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA: an experimental approach. J Forensic Sci 51(4):766–770

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. PreCR™ Repair Mix Product Information. https://www.neb.com

  14. CYRO (2001) Technical data Acrylite OP-4 acrylic sheet. CYRO Industries, Parsippany

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ambers A, Gill-King H, Dirkmaat D, Benjamin R, King J, Budowle B (2014) Autosomal and Y-STR analysis of degraded DNA from the 120-year-old skeletal remains of Ezekiel Harper. FSI Genet 9:33–41

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Marrone A, Ballantyne J (2009) Changes in dry state hemoglobin over time do not increase the potential for oxidative DNA damage in dried blood. PLoS One 4(4):e5110

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Mello Filho AC, Hoffmann ME et al (1984) Cell killing and DNA damage by hydrogen peroxide are mediated by intracellular iron. Biochem J 218(1):273–275

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kremer ML (2003) The Fenton reaction: dependence of the rate on pH. J Phys Chem 107(11):1734–1741

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jung YS, Lim WT, Park JY, Kim YH (2009) Effect of pH on Fenton and Fenton-like oxidation. Environ Technol 30(2):183–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Church and Dwight product ingredient disclosure for OxiClean® Free Triple Power Stain Fighter (Product Code: ING-1608). http://www.armandhammer.com

  21. McKenzie SB, Williams JL (2010) Clinical laboratory hematology, second edition (Elizabeth Zeibig, Ed.). Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kemp BM, Smith DG (2005) Use of bleach to eliminate contaminating DNA from the surface of bones and teeth. Forensic Sci Int 154(1):53–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Loreille OM, Parr RL, McGregor KA, Fitzpatrick CM, Lyon C, Yang DY, Speller CF, Grimm MR, Grimm MJ, Irwin JA, Robinson EM (2010) Integrated DNA and fingerprint analyses in the identification of 60-year-old mummified human remains discovered in an Alaskan glacier. J Forensic Sci 55(3):813–818

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Friedberg EC, Walker GC, Siede W, Wood RD, Schultz RA, Ellenberger T (2006) DNA repair and mutagenesis. ASM Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  25. Onori N, Onofri V, Alessandrini F, Buscemi L, Pesaresi M, Turchi C, Tagliabracci A (2006) Post-mortem DNA damage: a comparative study of STRs and SNPs typing efficiency in simulated forensic samples. Int Congr Ser 1288:510–512

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Valko M, Leibfritz D, Moncol J, Cronin MT, Mazur M, Telser J (2007) Free radicals and antioxidants in normal physiological functions and human disease. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 39:44–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Golenberg EM, Bickel A, Weihs P (1996) Effect of highly fragmented DNA on PCR. Nucleic Acids Res 24(24):5026–5033

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Sedgwick B (2004) Repairing DNA-methylation damage. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 5:148–157

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Prince AM, Andrus L (1992) PCR: how to kill unwanted DNA. Biotechniques 12:358–360

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kwok S, Higuchi R (1989) Avoiding false positives with PCR. Nature 339:237–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Tamariz J, Voynarovska K, Prinz M, Caragine T (2006) The application of ultraviolet irradiation to exogenous sources of DNA in plasticware and water for the amplification of low copy number DNA. J Forensic Sci 51:790–794

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Preusse-Prang A, Renneberg R, Schwark T, Poetsch M, Simeoni E, von Wurmb-Schwark N (2009) The problem of DNA contamination in forensic case work—how to get rid of unwanted DNA. FSI Genet 2:185–186

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kemp BM, Smith DG (2005) Use of bleach to eliminate contaminating DNA from the surface of bones and teeth. Forensic Sci Int 154:53–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Shaw K, Sesardic I, Bristol N, Ames C, Dagnall K, Ellis C, Whittaker F, Daniel B (2008) Comparison of the effects of sterilization techniques on subsequent DNA profiling. Int J Legal Med 122:29–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This project was supported by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (Award No. 2010-DN-BX-K227). The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angie Ambers.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Table 1

Principal sources of DNA damage and major types of DNA lesions. (XLSX 11 kb)

Supplementary Figure 1

Average peak height from damaged DNA in whole human blood after immersion in a 50 % Clorox® bleach solution (3 % NaOCl) and average peak height after treatment w/PreCR™ Repair Mix (manufacturer-recommended protocol). n = 40 blood samples (each repaired in duplicate, for a total of 80 repair reactions) (GIF 235 kb)

High-resolution image (TIFF 69 kb)

Supplementary Figure 2

Comparison of average peak heights from bleach-damaged DNA with and without treatment with PreCR™ Repair Mix (manufacturer vs. modified protocol). n = 25 blood samples (each repaired in duplicate, for a total of 50 repair reactions) (GIF 313 kb)

High-resolution image (TIFF 107 kb)

Supplementary Figure 3

Average peak heights of environmentally damaged DNA in bloodstains with and without treatment with PreCR™ Repair Mix (manufacturer-recommended protocol). n = 75 bloodstains (each repaired in duplicate, for a total of 150 repair reactions) (GIF 211 kb)

High-resolution image (TIFF 66 kb)

Supplementary Figure 4

Average peak heights of environmentally damaged DNA in bloodstains with and without PreCR™ Repair Mix treatment (manufacturer-recommended protocol vs. modified protocol). n = 30 bloodstains (each repaired in duplicate, for a total of 60 repair reactions) (GIF 349 kb)

High-resolution image (TIFF 119 kb)

Supplementary Figure 5

Average peak heights of damaged DNA from contemporary human skeletal remains with and without PreCR™ Repair Mix treatment (manufacturer-recommended protocol). n = 50 bone samples (each repaired in duplicate, for a total of 100 repair reactions) (GIF 255 kb)

High resolution image (TIFF 76 kb)

Supplementary Figure 6

Average peak heights of damaged DNA from contemporary human skeletal remains with and without PreCR™ Repair Mix treatment (manufacturer-recommended protocol vs. modified protocol). n = 30 bone samples (each repaired in duplicate, for a total of 60 repair reactions) (GIF 270 kb)

High resolution image (TIFF 80 kb)

Supplementary Figure 7

Average peak heights of damaged DNA from historical human skeletal remains with and without PreCR™ Repair Mix treatment (modified protocol). Bones were 120 years old. (n = 20) (GIF 236 kb)

High-resolution image (TIFF 70 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ambers, A., Turnbough, M., Benjamin, R. et al. Assessment of the role of DNA repair in damaged forensic samples. Int J Legal Med 128, 913–921 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-014-1003-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-014-1003-3

Keywords

Navigation