Successful nuclear DNA profiling of rootless hair shafts: a novel approach

  • Kelly S. Grisedale
  • Gina M. Murphy
  • Hiromi Brown
  • Mark R. Wilson
  • Sudhir K. Sinha
Short Communication

Abstract

Historically, rootless hair shaft samples submitted to a forensic laboratory for DNA analysis are reserved for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis due to the presence of highly degraded as well as insufficient amounts of nuclear DNA. Although mtDNA has been very successful in obtaining results from rootless hair, this system has its limitations, namely, it is a lineage marker that cannot differentiate between maternally related genotypes. Given the high incidence of hairs as forensic evidence, there is a need for the use of a nuclear DNA test system capable of producing reliable results for hair shaft forensic evidence. This study reports the utilization of an enhanced DNA extraction methodology for hairs, in combination with a recently developed novel, nuclear DNA typing assay, InnoTyper® 21, to improve the success rate for obtaining informative results from highly compromised, degraded, and trace forensic samples such as rootless hair shafts. The InnoTyper 21 kit is a small amplicon retrotransposon marker typing system compatible with currently used capillary electrophoresis platforms. This system contains 20 Alu element markers, ranging in size from 60 to 125 bp, making the assay highly sensitive for extremely degraded forensic samples and thus enabling recovery of nuclear DNA profiles from samples that would otherwise require mtDNA sequencing. A subset of samples was also tested with the GlobalFiler kit with less success due to the larger amplicon sizes in comparison with InnoTyper 21. Results were variable but very promising, with approximately 40% of the total number of hairs tested producing interpretable nuclear DNA profiles with InnoTyper 21. These results demonstrate the ability of the utilized methodologies to produce nuclear DNA results with high statistical power from rootless hair shafts.

Keywords

InnoTyper® 21 Rootless hair shafts Nuclear DNA DNA extraction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the National Institute of Justice.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

Hair and buccal swab samples collected with approval by the Western Carolina Institutional Review Board. Approval was received on December 19, 2013 (IRB number 2014-0100). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

Authors Kelly Grisedale and Mark Wilson have no conflicts of interest to declare. Authors Gina Murphy, Hiromi Brown, and Sudhir Sinha are employed by InnoGenomics Technologies, the company that developed and validated the InnoTyper® 21 and InnoQuant® systems.

References

  1. 1.
    FBI/DOJ (2015) Microscopic hair comparison analysis review. https://wwwfbigov/services/laboratory/scientific-analysis/fbidoj-microscopic-hair-comparison-analysis-review. Accessed 12 June 2017
  2. 2.
    Linch CA, Whiting DA, Holland MM (2001) Human hair histogenesis for the mitochondrial DNA forensic scientist. J Forensic Sci 46(4):844–853CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lynch CA (2009) Degeneration of nuclei and mitochondria in human hairs. J Foren Sci 54(2):346–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Budowle B, Wilson MR, DiZinno JA, Stauffer C, Fasano MA, Holland MM, Monson KL (1999) Mitochondrial DNA regions HVI and HVII population data. Forensic Sci Int 103:23–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holland MM, Fisher DL, Mitchell LG, Rodriguez WC, Canik JJ, Merril CR, Weedn VW (1993) Mitochondrial DNA sequence analysis of human skeletal remains: identification of remains from the Vietnam War. J Foren Sci 38(3):542–553Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holland MM, Cave CA, Holland CA, Bille TW (2003) Development of a quality, high throughput DNA analysis procedure for skeletal samples to assist with the identification of victims from the world trade center attacks. Croat Med J 44(3):264–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McNevin D, Wilson-Wilde L, Robertson J, Kyd J, Lennard C (2005) Short tandem repeat (STR) genotyping of keratinised hair. Part 2. An optimised genomic DNA extraction procedure reveals donor dependence of STR profiles. Forensic Sci Int 153:247–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robertsona KS, McNevinb D, Robertson J (2007) STR genotyping of exogenous hair shaft DNA. Aust J Forensic Sci 39:107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chung DT, Drabek J, Opel KL, Butler JM, McCord BR (2004) A study on the effects of degradation and template concentration on the amplification efficiency of the STR miniplex primer sets. J Forensic Sci 49:733–740CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coble MD, Butler JM (2005) Characterization of new miniSTR loci to aid analysis of degraded DNA. J Forensic Sci 50(1):43–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hellmann U, Rohleder HS, Wittig M (2001) STR typing of human telogen hairs—a new approach. Int J Legal Med 114(4–5):269–273Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burnside ES, Bintz BJ, Wilson MR (2013) Improved extraction efficiency of human mitochondrial DNA from hair shafts and its implications for sequencing of the entire mtGenome from a single hair fragment. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 19:63Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown H, Thompson R, Murphy G, Peters D, LaRue B, King J, Montgomery AH, Carroll M, Baus J, Sinha S, Wendt FR, Song B, Chakraborty R, Budowle B, Sinha SK (2017) Development and validation of a novel multiplexed DNA analysis system, InnoTyper 21. Forensic Sci Int Genet 29:80–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Batzer MA, Deininger PL (2002) Alu repeats and human genomic diversity. Nat Rev Genet 3(5):370–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van den Berge M, Wiskerke D, Gerretsen RRR, Tabak J, Sijen T (2016) DNA and RNA profiling of excavated human remains with varying postmortem intervals. Int J Legal Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-016-1438-9 Published online 14 September 2016
  16. 16.
    Sinha S, Murphy G, Brown H, Montgomery A, Carrol M, Tabak J (2015) Retrotransposable elements: novel and sensitive DNA markers and their application in human identity. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser 5:627–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tasker E, LaRue B, Beherec C, Gangitano D, Hughes-Stamm S (2017) Analysis of DNA from post-blast pipe bomb fragments for identification and determination of ancestry. Forensic Sci Int Genet 28:195–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pineda GM, Montgomery AH, Thompson R, Indest B, Carroll M, Sinha SK (2014) Development and validation of InnoQuant, a sensitive human DNA quantitation and degradation assessment method for forensic samples using high copy number mobile elements Alu and SVA. Forensic Sci Int Genet 13:224–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holt A, Wootton SC, Mulero JJ, Brzoska PM, Langit E, Green RL (2016) Developmental validation of the quantifiler HP and Trio kits for human DNA quantification in forensic samples. Forensic Sci. Int Genet 21:145–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heywood DM, Skinner R, Cornwell PA (2003) Analysis of DNA in hair fibers. J Cosmet Sci 54:21–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly S. Grisedale
    • 1
  • Gina M. Murphy
    • 2
  • Hiromi Brown
    • 2
  • Mark R. Wilson
    • 1
  • Sudhir K. Sinha
    • 2
  1. 1.Western Carolina UniversityCullowheeUSA
  2. 2.InnoGenomics TechnologiesNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations