DNA Isolation, Manipulation and Characterization from Old Tissues

DeSalle, Rob; Bonwich, Elizabeth

doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-1766-9_2

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 147 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other modern methods, such as DNA-isolation (e.g. DeSalle & Bonwich, 1996) and specification of amino acid composition of collagens (e.g. Dungworth et al, 1975), are mostly not practicable in routine archaeological research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microscopic examination of ground sections – a simple method for distinguishing between bone and antler?

Páral

Witter

Tonar

2007

Intl J of Osteoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both bones and antlers have been used throughout history for manufacturing various products. Therefore, archaeologists often have to distinguish between these materials. The more the raw material (bone or antler) has been treated, the more complicated it is to distinguish. For this study, recent macerated and archaeological samples of bone and antler and their products have been compared. Antler is usually very easy to distinguish based on the characteristic surface structure; however, the original surface is not preserved in all artefacts. The inner surface of the diaphysis of long bones is mostly compact with prominent trabeculae and lamellae, whereas, after removal of the spongiosa, the inner surface of antler is characterised by numerous grooves. Sometimes, however, artefacts are found which are composed only of the compact bone substance, without inner and outer surfaces, and it is not possible to distinguish between bones and antlers macroscopically. Haversian systems can be found in histological and ground sections of both bones and antlers. In contrast to bones, antlers have few interstitial lamellae. The osteons of antler seem to be smaller and to consist of fewer layers than those of bone. Inner and outer circumferential lamellae cannot be distinguished in antlers. Although microscopic examination of sectioned samples does not allow distinction between bones and antlers in every case, it represents a valuable additional tool for distinguishing between these two materials in historic artefacts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microscopic examination of ground sections – a simple method for distinguishing between bone and antler?

Páral

Witter

Tonar

2007

Intl J of Osteoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…DNA extraction from artificial stains was performed using a modified phenol/chloroform method, published by DeSalle and Bonwich [23] using an extraction volume of 40 μl. DNA of buccal swabs was extracted using 300 μl SwabSolution® (Promega, Mannheim, Germany).…”

Section: Dna Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Everything clean? Transfer of DNA traces between textiles in the washtub

Kamphausen¹,

Fandel²,

Gutmann

et al. 2015

Int J Legal Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forensic genetic analysis of items possibly handled by a suspect or a victim is frequently inquired by the law enforcement authorities, since DNA left on touched objects can often be linked to an individual. Due to technical improvement, even poor traces, which seemed to be unsuitable for DNA analysis a few years ago, may be amplified successfully today. Yet, DNA can be transferred to a crime scene artificially or unintentionally without any primary contact between the individual and the object found at the crime scene, the so-called secondary transfer or indirect transfer in general. In this study, "secondary transfer" scenarios with cells and DNA of different origins under wet conditions were investigated. Transfer was simulated as either "washing by hand" in a washtub or as "machine laundry" in a washing machine. As expected, major differences were seen between blood stains and epithelial abrasions. DNA from blood donors could be detected clearly both on the donor and on the acceptor textile, regardless of washing method. Regarding epithelial abrasions, simulating worn clothes, after washing by hand, only little residual DNA was found, and partial profiles were displayed on the donor textile, while transfer to the acceptor textile occurred even less and not in noteworthy amount and quality. Single alleles could be found both on donor textiles and acceptor textiles after simulated machine wash, but no reliable DNA profile could be verified after laundry in machine. Therefore, a DNA transfer from one worn cloth (without blood stains) to another textile in the washing machine seems to be extremely unlikely.

show abstract

“…DNA extraction from artificially created stains (handprints) was performed using a slightly modified phenol/chloroform method as published by DeSalle and Bonwich [14].…”

Section: Handprintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good shedder or bad shedder—the influence of skin diseases on forensic DNA analysis from epithelial abrasions

Kamphausen¹,

Schadendorf

Wurmb‐Schwark

et al. 2011

Int J Legal Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The successful analysis of weak biological stains by means of highly sensitive short tandem repeat (STR) amplification has been increased significantly over the recent years. Nevertheless, the percentage of reliably analysable samples varies considerably between different crime scene investigations even if the nature of the stains appears to be the same. It has been proposed that the amount and quality of DNA left at a crime scene may be due to individual skin conditions (among other factors). Therefore, we investigated DNA from handprints from 30 patients acutely suffering from skin diseases like atopic dermatitis, psoriasis or skin ulcer before and after therapy by STR amplification using the new and highly sensitive Powerplex® ESX17 kit in comparison to 22 healthy controls. Handprints from atopic dermatitis patients showed a correct and reliable DNA profile in 90% and 40% of patients before and after therapy, respectively. Regarding psoriasis patients, we detected full DNA profiles in only 64% and 55% of handprints before and after therapy. In contrast, in ulcus patients and controls, full DNA profiles were obtained in much lower numbers. We conclude that active skin diseases like atopic dermatitis or psoriasis have a considerable impact on the amplificable DNA left by skin contact with surfaces. Since up to 7% of adults in European countries suffer from one of these diseases, this could explain at least partially the varying quality of DNA from weak stains.

show abstract

DNA Isolation, Manipulation and Characterization from Old Tissues

Cited by 15 publications

References 147 publications

Microscopic examination of ground sections – a simple method for distinguishing between bone and antler?

Microscopic examination of ground sections – a simple method for distinguishing between bone and antler?

Everything clean? Transfer of DNA traces between textiles in the washtub

Good shedder or bad shedder—the influence of skin diseases on forensic DNA analysis from epithelial abrasions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About