Recovery of whole mitochondrial genome from compromised samples via multiplex PCR and massively parallel sequencing.

In forensic casework, compromised samples often possess limited or degraded nuclear DNA, rendering mitochondrial DNA a more feasible option for forensic DNA analyses. The emergence of massively parallel sequencing (MPS) has enabled the recovery of extensive sequence information from very low quantities of DNA. We have developed a multiplex PCR method that amplifies the complete mitochondrial genome in a range of forensically relevant samples including single cells, cremated remains, bone, maggot and hairs isolated from dust bunnies. Following library preparation, MPS yields complete or nearly complete mitochondrial genome coverage for all samples. To confirm concordance between sample types and between sequencing platforms, we compared sequencing results from hair and buccal swabs from two references. Low initial DNA input into the multiplex PCR allows for conservation of precious DNA while MPS maximizes recovery of genetic information.

Successful nuclear DNA profiling of rootless hair shafts: a novel approach.

Historically, rootless hair shaft samples submitted to a forensic laboratory for DNA analysis are reserved for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis due to the presence of highly degraded as well as insufficient amounts of nuclear DNA. Although mtDNA has been very successful in obtaining results from rootless hair, this system has its limitations, namely, it is a lineage marker that cannot differentiate between maternally related genotypes. Given the high incidence of hairs as forensic evidence, there is a need for the use of a nuclear DNA test system capable of producing reliable results for hair shaft forensic evidence. This study reports the utilization of an enhanced DNA extraction methodology for hairs, in combination with a recently developed novel, nuclear DNA typing assay, InnoTyper® 21, to improve the success rate for obtaining informative results from highly compromised, degraded, and trace forensic samples such as rootless hair shafts. The InnoTyper 21 kit is a small amplicon retrotransposon marker typing system compatible with currently used capillary electrophoresis platforms. This system contains 20 Alu element markers, ranging in size from 60 to 125 bp, making the assay highly sensitive for extremely degraded forensic samples and thus enabling recovery of nuclear DNA profiles from samples that would otherwise require mtDNA sequencing. A subset of samples was also tested with the GlobalFiler kit with less success due to the larger amplicon sizes in comparison with InnoTyper 21. Results were variable but very promising, with approximately 40% of the total number of hairs tested producing interpretable nuclear DNA profiles with InnoTyper 21. These results demonstrate the ability of the utilized methodologies to produce nuclear DNA results with high statistical power from rootless hair shafts.

Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method.

BACKGROUND: The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. METHODS: A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. RESULTS: Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. CONCLUSIONS: The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited.