Comparison between MACSprep™ forensic sperm microbead kit and Erase Sperm Isolation kit for the enrichment of sperm fractions recovered from sexual assault samples
Tóm tắt
Sexual assault samples often contain mixtures of cells coming from at least two donors. Ideally, one would need to separate the cells into two cellular fractions: one consisting of the alleged aggressor’s spermatozoa (the sperm fraction) and the other containing the victim’s epithelial cells (the non-sperm fraction). This separation increases the probability of obtaining the alleged offender’s autosomal DNA profile. However, spermatozoa are often collected along with an excess of biological material originating from the victim, and with unfavorable male:female biological material ratios, the absence of separation could result in the PCR amplification of the victim’s DNA profile only. Several approaches are available to enrich/purify the spermatozoa present on sexual assault samples. In this paper, we compare a new method, the MACSprep™ Forensic Sperm MicroBead Kit (MACSprep, based on microbeads conjugated with antibodies bound to spermatozoa and their retention within a magnetic column) with the Erase Sperm Isolation Kit (Erase, a standard differential lysis separation procedure combined with a specific removal of free DNA) routinely used in our lab. The performance of both kits was tested using sets of vaginal and buccal swabs loaded with different dilutions of sperm, or azoospermic semen, representing a total of 120 independent samples. For the samples containing undiluted sperm, an average recovery of 58% was observed for the MACSprep’s sperm fractions and 43% for Erase’s. Significantly better recovery of azoospermic semen was observed in MACSprep’s non-sperm fractions (~ 85%) compared to Erase (~ 28%). Erase performed significantly better than MACSprep in terms of recovery for diluted sperm samples (1:10 to 1:800 sperm dilutions) in the presence of vaginal cells, while the purities of the achieved sperm fractions were in favor of MACSprep for the highest sperm dilutions tested. Similar trends were observed with buccal swabs loaded with 1:200 sperm dilutions. Increased sperm dilutions on vaginal swabs resulted in higher variability in the male material recovered, whatever the separation method used. Both methods were easy to perform and resulted in male DNA extracts ready to use in less than 2 h. Both kits showed their specificities in terms of recovery efficiency and purity of the sperm fractions. Ideally, additional experiments should be performed in different laboratories, using workflow and chemistries different than ours, to better define the peculiarities observed with MACSprep for high dilutions. Improving the recovery of MACSprep for diluted samples, in addition to its better purity observed in the experiments performed, could make it a method of choice for laboratory workflow, despite MACSprep’s current price per sample being about twice the price of Erase’s.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Vuichard S, Borer U, Bottinelli M et al (2011) Differential DNA extraction of challenging simulated sexual-assault samples: a Swiss collaborative study. Investig Genet 2:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-2-11
Green RL, Lagace RE, Oldroyd NJ, Hennessy LK, Mulero JJ (2013) Developmental validation of the AmpFlSTR(R) NGM SElect PCR Amplification Kit: a next-generation STR multiplex with the SE33 locus. Forensic Sci Int Genet 7:41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.05.012
Fregeau CJ, Bowen KL, Leclair B, Trudel I, Bishop L, Fourney RM (2003) AmpFlSTR profiler Plus short tandem repeat DNA analysis of casework samples, mixture samples, and nonhuman DNA samples amplified under reduced PCR volume conditions (25 microL). J Forensic Sci 48:1014–1034
Kumar N, Maitray A, Gupta R, Sharma D, Sk S (2018) Importance of Y- STR profiling in sexual assault cases with mixed DNA profile. Int J Biochem Mol Biol 3(1):42–45. https://doi.org/10.15406/ijmboa.2018.03.00048
Roewer L (2009) Y chromosome STR typing in crime casework. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 5:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-009-9089-5
Purps J, Siegert S, Willuweit S et al (2014) A global analysis of Y-chromosomal haplotype diversity for 23 STR loci. Forensic Sci Int Genet 12:12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.04.008
Roewer L (2019) Y‐chromosome short tandem repeats in forensics—sexing, profiling, and matching male DNA. WIREs Forensic Science 1:e1336. https://doi.org/10.1002/wfs2.1336
Cerri N, Ricci U, Sani I, Verzeletti A, De Ferrari F (2003) Mixed stains from sexual assault cases: autosomal or Y-chromosome short tandem repeats? Croat Med J 44:289–292
Prinz M (2003) Advantages and disadvantages of Y-short tandem repeat testing in forensic casework. Forensic Sci Rev 15:191–198
Jain T, Shrivastava P (2016) PowerPlex Y23 system: a fast, sensitive and reliable Y-STR multiplex system for forensic and population genetic purpose. J Mol Biomark Diagn 7:3. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9929.1000281
Adnan A, Ralf A, Rakha A, Kousouri N, Kayser M (2016) Improving empirical evidence on differentiating closely related men with RM Y-STRs: a comprehensive pedigree study from Pakistan. Forensic Sci Int Genet 25:45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.07.005
Alghafri R, Goodwin W, Ralf A, Kayser M, Hadi S (2015) A novel multiplex assay for simultaneously analysing 13 rapidly mutating Y-STRs. Forensic Sci Int Genet 17:91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.04.004
Ballantyne KN, Goedbloed M, Fang R et al (2010) Mutability of Y-chromosomal microsatellites: rates, characteristics, molecular bases, and forensic implications. Am J Hum Genet 87:341–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.08.006
Ralf A, Lubach D, Kousouri N et al (2020) Identification and characterization of novel rapidly mutating Y-chromosomal short tandem repeat markers. Hum Mutat 41:1680–1696. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.24068
Ralf A, Zandstra D, Weiler N, van Ijcken WFJ, Sijen T, Kayser M (2021) RMplex: An efficient method for analyzing 30 Y-STRs with high mutation rates. Forensic Sci Int Genet 55:102595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102595
Ballantyne KN, Ralf A, Aboukhalid R et al (2014) Toward male individualization with rapidly mutating y-chromosomal short tandem repeats. Hum Mutat 35:1021–1032. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.22599
Castella V, Gervaix J, Hall D (2013) DIP-STR: highly sensitive markers for the analysis of unbalanced genomic mixtures. Hum Mutat 34:644–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.22280
Oldoni F, Castella V, Hall D (2015) A novel set of DIP-STR markers for improved analysis of challenging DNA mixtures. Forensic Sci Int Genet 19:156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.07.012
Oldoni F, Castella V, Grosjean F, Hall D (2017) Sensitive DIP-STR markers for the analysis of unbalanced mixtures from “touch” DNA samples. Forensic Sci Int Genet 28:111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.02.004
Cereda G, Biedermann A, Hall D, Taroni F (2014) An investigation of the potential of DIP-STR markers for DNA mixture analyses. Forensic Sci Int Genet 11:229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.04.001
Garvin AM, Bottinelli M, Gola M, Conti A, Soldati G (2009) DNA preparation from sexual assault cases by selective degradation of contaminating DNA from the victim. J Forensic Sci 54:1297–1303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01180.x
Garvin AM, Fischer A, Schnee-Griese J et al (2012) Isolating DNA from sexual assault cases: a comparison of standard methods with a nuclease-based approach. Investig Genet 3:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-25
Voorhees JC, Ferrance JP, Landers JP (2006) Enhanced elution of sperm from cotton swabs via enzymatic digestion for rape kit analysis. J Forensic Sci 51:574–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00112.x
Yoshida K, Sekiguchi K, Mizuno N et al (1995) The modified method of two-step differential extraction of sperm and vaginal epithelial cell DNA from vaginal fluid mixed with semen. Forensic Sci Int 72:25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-0738(94)01668-u
Garvin AM (2003) Filtration based DNA preparation for sexual assault cases. J Forensic Sci 48:1084–1087
Chen J, Kobilinsky L, Wolosin D, Shaler R, Baum H (1998) A physical method for separating spermatozoa from epithelial cells in sexual assault evidence. J Forensic Sci 43:114–118
Murray C, McAlister C, Elliott K (2007) Identification and isolation of male cells using fluorescence in situ hybridisation and laser microdissection, for use in the investigation of sexual assault. Forensic Sci Int Genet 1:247–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2007.05.003
Sanders CT, Sanchez N, Ballantyne J, Peterson DA (2006) Laser microdissection separation of pure spermatozoa from epithelial cells for short tandem repeat analysis. J Forensic Sci 51:748–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00180.x
Anslinger K, Bayer B, Mack B, Eisenmenger W (2007) Sex-specific fluorescent labelling of cells for laser microdissection and DNA profiling. Int J Legal Med 121:54–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-005-0065-7
Li CX, Han JP, Ren WY, Ji AQ, Xu XL, Hu L (2011) DNA profiling of spermatozoa by laser capture microdissection and low volume-PCR. PLoS ONE 6:e22316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022316
Elliott K, Hill DS, Lambert C, Burroughes TR, Gill P (2003) Use of laser microdissection greatly improves the recovery of DNA from sperm on microscope slides. Forensic Sci Int 137:28–36
Meredith M, Bright JA, Cockerton S, Vintiner S (2012) Development of a one-tube extraction and amplification method for DNA analysis of sperm and epithelial cells recovered from forensic samples by laser microdissection. Forensic Sci Int Genet 6:91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.02.007
Horsman KM, Barker SL, Ferrance JP, Forrest KA, Koen KA, Landers JP (2005) Separation of sperm and epithelial cells in a microfabricated device: potential application to forensic analysis of sexual assault evidence. Anal Chem 77:742–749. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac0486239
Horsman KM, Bienvenue JM, Blasier KR, Landers JP (2007) Forensic DNA analysis on microfluidic devices: a review. J Forensic Sci 52:784–799. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00468.x
Di Nunno N, Melato M, Vimercati A et al (2003) DNA identification of sperm cells collected and sorted by flow cytometry. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 24:254–270. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.paf.0000070224.58005.ac
Schoell WM, Klintschar M, Mirhashemi R, Pertl B (1999) Separation of sperm and vaginal cells with flow cytometry for DNA typing after sexual assault. Obstet Gynecol 94:623–627
Schoell WM, Klintschar M, Mirhashemi R et al (1999) Separation of sperm and vaginal cells based on ploidy, MHC class I-, CD45-, and cytokeratin expression for enhancement of DNA typing after sexual assault. Cytometry 36:319–323
Norris JV, Evander M, Horsman-Hall KM, Nilsson J, Laurell T, Landers JP (2009) Acoustic differential extraction for forensic analysis of sexual assault evidence. Anal Chem 81:6089–6095. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac900439b
Wright SN, Huge BJ, Dovichi NJ (2020) Capillary zone electrophoresis separation and collection of spermatozoa for the forensic analysis of sexual assault evidence. Electrophoresis 41:1344–1353. https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.201900455
Williamson VR, Laris TM, Romano R, Marciano MA (2018) Enhanced DNA mixture deconvolution of sexual offense samples using the DEPArray system. Forensic Sci Int Genet 34:265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.03.001
Anslinger K, Graw M, Bayer B (2018) Deconvolution of blood-blood mixtures using DEPArrayTM separated single cell STR profiling. Rechtsmedizin 29:30–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00194-018-0291-1
Fontana F, Rapone C, Bregola G et al (2017) Isolation and genetic analysis of pure cells from forensic biological mixtures: the precision of a digital approach. Forensic Sci Int Genet 29:225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.04.023
Watkins DRL, Myers D, Xavier HE, Marciano MA (2021) Revisiting single cell analysis in forensic science. Sci Rep 11:7054. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86271-6
Zhao XC, Wang L, Sun J, Jiang BW, Zhang EL, Ye J (2016) Isolating sperm from cell mixtures using magnetic beads coupled with an anti-PH-20 antibody for forensic DNA analysis. PLoS ONE 11:e0159401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159401
Marshall P (2002) Optimisation of spermatozoa capture during the differential extraction process for STR typing with the potential for automation. University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth. Master of Science (Forensic Genetics) 1–60
Li XB, Wang QS, Feng Y et al (2014) Magnetic bead-based separation of sperm from buccal epithelial cells using a monoclonal antibody against MOSPD3. Int J Legal Med 128:905–911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-014-0983-3
Inci F, Karaaslan MG, Gupta R et al (2021) Bio-inspired magnetic beads for isolation of sperm from heterogenous samples in forensic applications. Forensic Sci Int Genet 52:102451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102451
Brownlow RJ, Dagnall KE, Ames CE (2012) A comparison of DNA collection and retrieval from two swab types (cotton and nylon flocked swab) when processed using three QIAGEN extraction methods. J Forensic Sci 57:713–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02022.x