ABSTRACT
Introduction: Optimal DNA and RNA quantity and purity is essential for downstream molecular biology experimentation and to avoid re-processing of sample. Despite availability of different kits and automated systems for nucleic acid isolation there is limited data on their performance evaluation, more so with pediatric blood samples, that are usually compromised in quantity. Hence, we evaluated the performance of automated QIAcube platform using pediatric blood samples in parallel with manual Qiagen extraction kits. Materials and Methods: A total of 500 samples were analyzed based on groups of PBMC and direct blood input. The isolated DNA and RNA were surveyed for quantity and quality tests by spectrophotometric and downstream analysis. Results: There was no significant difference in the DNA quantity (ng/ul) between manual and automated method based on similar sample input but quality (260/280) was significantly better with the QIAcube platform when direct blood and or PBMCs were used for extraction respectively (1.82 ± 004 Vs. 1.84.002; P-0.000008 and 1.859 ± 005 Vs. 1.843 ± 0.003; P-0.02). Moreover, the standard error mean was low for both quantity and quality in the QIAcube method suggesting uniformity. Comparison of quality assessment by spectrophotometer and qubit fluorimeter showed that QIAcube sheared DNA less (P- 0.038) as compared to manual method (P-0.013). Also, time taken to process the samples in QIAcube was 23% less than the kit-based method. Conclusion: Overall analysis of QIAcube platform suggests that it yields more better, uniform, and less-sheared quality of nucleic acid in a relatively less time as compared to manual extraction kits.
ABSTRACT
Death in custody causes one of the most embarrassing situation for the law enforcement agencies and medicolegal experts. The doctors has to follow the guidelines given by National Human Rights Commission while conducting postmortem examination in such cases and many a times doctors have been blamed for giving a biased opinion under influence to protect the interests of police and jail officials. This paper discusses postmortem examination in cases of custodial deaths and incidence of custodial death in India as well as other parts of the world. The cases of custodial deaths for which autopsy was conducted at AIIMS has also been discussed.
Subject(s)
Adult , Autopsy/statistics & numerical data , Cause of Death , Female , Humans , India , Law Enforcement , Male , Middle Aged , Violence/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
Since the legal consequences taking in consideration of Indian evidence Act 1857 of an unwarranted release of confidential information are uncertain and even the consequences may be serious, it is necessary that a physician be most cautious when divulging any information about a patient. Although there are exceptions to the proposition that all confidential information acquired from a patient should be kept secret, the basic rule to remember is that confidential information should not be revealed without obtaining the patient's consent unless law of the land like provision in criminal procedure code of India requires the physician to report the information, to any person or insurance company. Whenever a physician believes it is necessary to reveal a professional secret to protect the welfare of a patient, a third person, or the community, he should exercise caution in the method of disclosure. The following suggestions have been made to guide physicians under these circumstances: 1. Assure yourself that the person informed is sometime entitled to the information, such as the patient's parent or guardian. 2. Do not give information by telephone if you do not recognize the voice of the person making the request. 3. Avoid the use of telegrams or letters to communicate medical information of patient. 4. If you are in doubt about your right to release the information consult your legal council. 5. A person in police custody as an undertrial prisoner has the right not to permit the doctor who has examined him, to disclose the nature of his illness to any person. If a person is convicted, he has no right and the doctor can disclose the result to the authorities. 6. Never release the treatment history without written consent from patient or its legal heirs to any insurance company.