Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of DNA preservation between ribs and vertebrae

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The choice of skeletal element types and their intra-bone parts is important because of differences in DNA preservation, and this must be considered when sampling bones for DNA testing. When incomplete skeletons are found, ribs and vertebrae have been shown to be the most suitable for genetic identification of bones from the torso. This study compares the preservation of DNA between 12th thoracic vertebrae and first ribs to determine which bone type is more suitable for genetic typing. The study analyzed 35 12th thoracic vertebrae and 29 first ribs from one mass grave from the Second World War with commingled skeletal remains excavated. Bone DNA preservation was estimated by measuring nuclear DNA concentration and its degradation and through short tandem repeat (STR) typing success. Previous studies performed on aged skeletal remains have shown that the DNA content of the first ribs and 12th thoracic vertebrae has high intra-bone variability, and this was considered when sampling the bones. After full demineralization extraction, the PowerQuant System (Promega) was used to measure the quantity and quality of DNA, and the GlobalFiler kit (Applied Biosystems) was used for STR typing. The results showed that DNA yield and degradation and STR typing success exhibited no statistically significant difference between first ribs and 12th thoracic vertebrae, and there was no intra-individual difference when comparing only paired bones from the same individuals. Consequently, with intra-bone DNA variability considered, the first ribs or the 12th thoracic vertebrae can be selected when sampling to genetically identify the skeletal remains of highly degraded torsos.

Highlights

  • The first ribs and thoracic vertebrae are the most suitable bones for sampling from the torso.

  • The proximal part of first rib and posterior vertebral column of the 12th thoracic vertebrae yielded the most DNA.

  • The first ribs were compared with the 12th thoracic vertebrae, and the sampling process considered intra-bone DNA variability.

  • The quality and quantity of nuclear DNA and success of STR typing were measured.

  • The first ribs yielded the same DNA yields as well as STR typing success as the 12th thoracic vertebrae.

  • When only the torso is present, it is not of high importance whether the first ribs or the 12th thoracic vertebrae are collected.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Antinick TC, Foran DR (2019) Intra- and inter-element variability in mitochondrial and nuclear DNA from fresh and environmentally exposed skeletal remains. J Forensic Sci 64:88–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Benedik Bevc T, Božič L, Podovšovnik E et al (2021) Intra-bone nuclear DNA variability and STR typing success in Second World War 12th thoracic vertebrae. Forensic Sci Int Genet. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Božič L, Benedik Bevc T, Podovšovnik E et al (2021) Intra-bone nuclear DNA variability and STR typing success in Second World War first ribs. Int J Legal Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-021-02681-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Emmons AL, Davoren J, DeBruyn JM, Mundorff AZ (2020) Inter and intra individual variation in skeletal DNA preservation in buried remains. Forensic Sci Int Genet 44:102193

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gardner MJ, Altman DG (1986) (1986) Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J 292:746–750

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Henderson J (1988) Factors determining the state of preservation of human remains. In: Boddington A, Gerland AN, Janaway RC (eds), Death, decay, and reconstruction: approaches to archaeology and forensic science. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK, pp. 43–54

  7. Inkret J, Podovšovnik E, Zupanc T, Haring G, Zupanič PI (2021) Intra-bone nuclear DNA variability in Second World War metatarsal and metacarpal bones. Int J Legal Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-021-02528-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Latham KE, Miller JJ (2018) DNA recovery and analysis from skeletal material in modern forensic contexts. Forensic Sci Res 4:51–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mays S, Elders J, Humphrey L et al (2013) Science and the dead: a guideline for the destructive sampling of archaeological human remains for scientific analysis. English Heritage Publishing with the Advisory Panel on the Archaology of Burial in England, London, UK p. 3–5

  10. Morild I, Hamre SS, Huel R, Parsons TJ (2015) Identification of missing Norwegian World War II soldiers, in Karelia Russia. J Forensic Sci 60:1104–1110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mundorff AZ, Davoren JM (2014) Examination of DNA yield rates for different skeletal elements at increasing post mortem intervals. Forensic Sci Int Genet 8:55–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nielsen-Marsh C, Gernaey A, Turner-Walker G et al (2000) The chemical degradation of bones. In: Cox M, Mays S (eds) Human osteology in archaeology and forensic science. Greenwich Medical Media, London, pp 439–451

    Google Scholar 

  13. Parsons TJ, Huel RML, Bajunović Z, Rizvić A (2019) Large scale DNA identification: the ICMP expersience. Forensic Sci Int Genet 38:236–244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Prinz M, Carracedo A, Mayr WR, Morling N, Parsons TJ, et al (2007) DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): Recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics for disaster victim identification (DVI). Forensic Sci Int Genet 1:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2006.10.003

  15. von Endt DW, Ortner DJ (1984) Experimental effects of bone size and temperature on bone diagenesis. J Archaeol Sci 11:247–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(84)90005-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Waldron T (1987) The relative survival of the human skeleton: implications for palaeopathology. In: Boddington A, Garland AN, Janaway RC (eds) Death, decay, and reconstruction: approaches to archaeology and forensic science. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 55–64

    Google Scholar 

  17. Watherston J, McNevin D, Gahan ME, Bruce D, Ward J (2018) Current and emerging tools for the recovery of genetic information from post mortem samples: new directions for disaster victim identification. Forensic Sci Int Genet 37:270–282

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Zupanc T, Zupanič Pajnič I, Podovšovnik E, Obal M (2021) High DNA yield from metatarsal and metacarpal bones from Slovenian Second World War skeletal remains. Forensic Sci Int Genet 51:102426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102426

  19. Zupanič Pajnič I (2016) Extraction of DNA from human skeletal material. In: Goodwin W (ed), Forensic DNA Typing Protocols, Methods in Molecular Biology 1420, Springer Science & Business Media, New York, USA, p. 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3597-0_7

  20. Zupanič PI (2021) Identification of a Slovenian prewar elite couple killed in the Second World War. Forensic Sci Int 327:110994

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Slovenian Government Commission on Concealed Mass Graves for its support in exhumations of Second World War victims.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (project “Inferring ancestry from DNA for human identification” J3-3080).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Laura Božič and Tajda Benedik Bevc contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Korytkova 2, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Laura Božič, Tajda Benedik Bevc, Tomaž Zupanc & Irena Zupanič Pajnič

  2. Orthopedic Hospital of Valdoltra, Ankaran, Slovenia

    Eva Podovšovnik

Authors
  1. Laura Božič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tajda Benedik Bevc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eva Podovšovnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tomaž Zupanc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Irena Zupanič Pajnič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irena Zupanič Pajnič.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

The research project was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Republic of Slovenia (0120–266/2020/6).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 72 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 24 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Božič, L., Benedik Bevc, T., Podovšovnik, E. et al. Comparison of DNA preservation between ribs and vertebrae. Int J Legal Med 136, 1247–1253 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-022-02860-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-022-02860-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation