Results of a collaborative study on DNA identification of aged bone samples

Abstract

AimA collaborative exercise with several institutes was organized by the Forensic DNA Service (FDNAS) and the Institute of the Legal Medicine, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic, with the aim to test performance of different laboratories carrying out DNA analysis of relatively old bone samples.MethodsEighteen laboratories participating in the collaborative exercise were asked to perform DNA typing of two samples of bone powder. Two bone samples provided by the National Museum and the Institute of Archaelogy in Prague, Czech Republic, came from archeological excavations and were estimated to be approximately 150 and 400 years old. The methods of genetic characterization including autosomal, gonosomal, and mitochondrial markers was selected solely at the discretion of the participating laboratory.ResultsAlthough the participating laboratories used different extraction and amplification strategies, concordant results were obtained from the relatively intact 150 years old bone sample. Typing was more problematic with the analysis of the 400 years old bone sample due to poorer quality.ConclusionThe laboratories performing identification DNA analysis of bone and teeth samples should regularly test their ability to correctly perform DNA-based identification on bone samples containing degraded DNA and potential inhibitors and demonstrate that risk of contamination is minimized.

Comparison of standard capillary electrophoresis based genotyping method and ForenSeq DNA Signature Prep kit (Illumina) on a set of challenging samples

“…The analysis of highly degraded and limited quantity of DNA, such as nucleic acids extracted from archaeological specimens, may not yield reliable results in all laboratories [4]. The results of this study show that the ability of recovering concordant genotypes using CE and MPS approach is strongly influenced by the degree of damage of the template and amount of DNA available for testing.…”

Identification of human remains using Rapid DNA analysis

“…Temperature, moisture, and oxygen levels in the depositional environment, soil composition, and pH affect the ability to obtain analyzable DNA from biological specimens [23]. When severe degradation and prolonged aging are present, DNA contained within the bone and teeth is protected [24][25][26][27][28][29][30] and typically persists for much longer than in soft tissues. The type of bone being analyzed also plays a role in DNA typing success, with denser and more compact bones yielding more DNA than non-weight-bearing structures [31,32].…”

Costal cartilage ensures low degradation of DNA needed for genetic identification of human remains retrieved at different decomposition stages and different postmortem intervals

“…Hard tissues, such as teeth [7], petrous bones [8], or femoral bones [9] are used routinely for identification tests in cases of advanced decomposition [10]. However, DNA isolation from hard tissues is not only time-and laborintensive [11] but also ineffective [12].…”