Advertisement

International Journal of Legal Medicine

, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp 745–750 | Cite as

The effects of extra PCR cycles when amplifying skeletal samples with the GlobalFiler® PCR Amplification Kit

  • Michelle HarrelEmail author
  • David Gangitano
  • Sheree Hughes-Stamm
Short Communication

Abstract

When samples with low amounts of DNA are amplified using short tandem repeats (STRs), stochastic effects such as allele and locus dropout or drop-in, allele imbalance, and increased stutter often occur making data interpretation more difficult. The most common approach to improving STR results from low template samples is to increase the number of PCR cycles. Although more alleles may be recovered, stochastic effects may be exaggerated resulting in more complicated STR profiles. This work reports the effect of additional PCR cycles (29 vs. 30, 31, and 32) on STR success from environmentally challenged bone and tooth samples using the GlobalFiler® DNA Amplification Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific). In addition, we compared the efficiency of two DNA extraction kits for skeletal samples: QIAamp® DNA Investigator (QIAGEN) and PrepFiler® BTA™ Forensic DNA Extraction (Thermo Fisher Scientific) kits. Results showed that more DNA was recovered from samples using the PrepFiler® BTA™ kit; but regardless of the extraction method, the number of alleles detected and the peak heights both increased with an increase in PCR cycle number. Although more alleles were reported in almost all samples, the most notable improvement was observed in samples with the DNA template < 120 pg. A general increase in the number of PCR artifacts was detected in STR profiles generated using 30–32 cycles. Overall, this study provides supporting evidence that STR profile completeness and quality may be improved when low template skeletal samples are amplified with extra PCR cycles (up to 32 cycles) using the GlobalFiler® DNA Amplification Kit.

Keywords

Low template DNA Skeletal Low copy number GlobalFiler® 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Rachel Houston and Carrie Mayes for assistance with sample processing, and the Applied Anatomical Research Center (AARC) for providing the skeletal samples used in this study. Most importantly, we are grateful to those who donated their loved ones for scientific research. We would also like to thank Thermo Fisher Scientific for providing many of the reagents used in this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

414_2018_1860_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 20 kb)
414_2018_1860_MOESM2_ESM.docx (1.2 mb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 1208 kb)
414_2018_1860_MOESM3_ESM.docx (143 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 142 kb)
414_2018_1860_MOESM4_ESM.docx (37 kb)
ESM 4 (DOCX 36 kb)
414_2018_1860_MOESM5_ESM.docx (121 kb)
ESM 5 (DOCX 121 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ghatak S, Muthukumaran RB, Nachimuthu SK (2013) A simple method of genomic DNA extraction from human samples for PCR-RFLP analysis. J Biomol Tech 24:224–231Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Loreille OM, Diegoli TM, Irwin JA, Coble MD, Parsons TJ (2007) High efficiency DNA extraction from bone by total demineralization. Forensic Sci Int Genet 1:191–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miloš A, Selmanović A, Smajlović L, Huel RL, Katzmarzyk C, Rizvić A, Parsons TJ (2007) Success rates of nuclear short tandem repeat typing from different skeletal elements. Croat Med J 48:486–493Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee HY, Park MJ, Kim NY, Sim JE, Yang WI, Shin K-J (2010) Simple and highly effective DNA extraction methods from old skeletal remains using silica columns. Forensic Sci Int Genet 4:275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abuidrees AS, Alhamad NA, Alsaadany K (2016) A suitable method for dna extraction from bones for forensic applications: a case study. Arab J Forensic Sci Forensic Med 1:346–352Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Borer UV, Eggmann U, Comey CT, Dirnhofer R (1991) Typing of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extracted from compact bone from human remains. J Forensic Sci 36:1649–1661Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gill P, Whitaker J, Flaxman C, Brown N, Buckleton J (2000) An investigation of the rigor of interpretation rules for STRs derived from less than 100 pg of DNA. Forensic Sci Int 112:17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gill P (2001) Application of low copy number DNA profiling. Croat Med J 42:229–232Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Whitaker JP, Cotton EA, Gill P (2001) A comparison of the characteristics of profiles produced with the AMPFlSTR® SGM Plus™ multiplex system for both standard and low copy number (LCN) STR DNA analysis. Forensic Sci Int 123:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forster L, Thomson J, Kutranov S (2008) Direct comparison of post-28-cycle PCR purification and modified capillary electrophoresis methods with the 34-cycle “low copy number”(LCN) method for analysis of trace forensic DNA samples. Forensic Sci Int Genet 2:318–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Strom CM, Rechitsky S (1998) Use of nested PCR to identify charred human remains and minute amounts of blood. J Forensic Sci 43:696–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oh CS, Lee SJ, Lee SD, Kim MJ, Kim Y-S, Lim D-S, Shin DH (2013) Amplification of DNA remnants in mummified human brains from medieval Joseon tombs of Korea. Anthropol Anz 70:57–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Irwin JA, Leney MD, Loreille O, Barritt SM, Christensen AF, Holland TD, Smith BC, Parsons TJ (2007) Application of low copy number STR typing to the identification of aged, degraded skeletal remains. J Forensic Sci 52:1322–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kloosterman A, Kersbergen P (2003) Efficacy and limits of genotyping low copy number DNA samples by multiplex PCR of STR loci. International Congress Series. Elsevier, pp 795–798Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seo SB, Ge J, King JL, Budowle B (2014) Reduction of stutter ratios in short tandem repeat loci typing of low copy number DNA samples. Forensic Sci Int Genet 8:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ambers A, Turnbough M, Benjamin R, Gill-King H, King J, Sajantila A, Budowle B (2016) Modified DOP-PCR for improved STR typing of degraded DNA from human skeletal remains and bloodstains. Legal Med 18:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson BM, Kemp BM (2017) Rescue PCR: reagent-rich PCR recipe improves amplification of degraded DNA extracts. J Archaeol Sci Rep 11:683–694Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McNevin D, Edson J, Robertson J, Austin JJ (2015) Reduced reaction volumes and increased Taq DNA polymerase concentration improve STR profiling outcomes from a real-world low template DNA source: telogen hairs. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 11:326–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cowen S, Debenham P, Dixon A, Kutranov S, Thomson J, Way K (2011) An investigation of the robustness of the consensus method of interpreting low-template DNA profiles. Forensic Sci Int Genet 5:400–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pajnič IZ, Debska M, Pogorelc BG, Mohorčič KV, Balažic J, Zupanc T, Štefanič B, Geršak K (2016) Highly efficient automated extraction of DNA from old and contemporary skeletal remains. J Forensic Legal Med 37:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rohland N, Hofreiter M (2007) Ancient DNA extraction from bones and teeth. Nat Protoc 2:1756–1762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Caragine T, Mikulasovich R, Tamariz J, Bajda E, Sebestyen J, Baum H, Prinz M (2009) Validation of testing and interpretation protocols for low template DNA samples using AmpFLSTR® Identifiler®. Croat Med J 50:250–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Benschop CC, van der Beek CP, Meiland HC, van Gorp AG, Westen AA, Sijen T (2011) Low template STR typing: effect of replicate number and consensus method on genotyping reliability and DNA database search results. Forensic Sci Int Genet 5:316–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gittelson S, Steffen CR, Coble MD (2016) Expected net gain data of low-template DNA analyses. Data Brief 8:375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gittelson S, Steffen CR, Coble MD (2016) Low-template DNA: a single DNA analysis or two replicates? Forensic Sci Int 264:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grisedale KS, van Daal A (2012) Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method. Investig Genet 3:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Daal A (2010) LCN DNA analysis: limitations prevent ‘general acceptance’. Promega Corporation Web siteGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Butler J, Hill C (2010) Scientific issues with analysis of low amounts of DNA. Profiles DNA 13Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Budowle B, Eisenberg AJ, van Daal A (2009) Low copy number typing has yet to achieve “general acceptance”. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser 2:551–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Service CP (2008) Review of the use of Low Copy Number DNA analysis in current cases: CPS statement. http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/101_08.html
  31. 31.
    Caddy B, Taylor G, Linacre A (2008) A review of the science of low template DNA analysis. UK Home Office ReportGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    QIAGEN (2012) QIAamp® DNA Investigator handbookGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scientific TF (2012) PrepFiler® and PrepFiler® BTA Forensic DNA Extraction Kits user guideGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scientific TF (2017) Quantifiler™ HP and Trio DNA Quantification Kits user guideGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scientific TF (2016) GlobalFiler™ PCR Amplification Kit user guideGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    TIBCO (2017) Statistica (data analysis software system). TIBCO Software Inc.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moore D, Dowhan D (2002) Purification and concentration of DNA from aqueous solutions. Curr Protoc Mol Biol 2.1. 1-2.1. 10Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kemp BM, Monroe C, Smith DG (2006) Repeat silica extraction: a simple technique for the removal of PCR inhibitors from DNA extracts. J Archaeol Sci 33:1680–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wikström P, Wiklund A, Andersson A-C, Forsman M (1996) DNA recovery and PCR quantification of catechol 2, 3-dioxygenase genes from different soil types. J Biotechnol 52:107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lloyd KG, MacGregor BJ, Teske A (2010) Quantitative PCR methods for RNA and DNA in marine sediments: maximizing yield while overcoming inhibition. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 72:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forensic Science, College of Criminal JusticeSam Houston State UniversityHuntsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations