ABSTRACT
AIM: A 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. METHODS: Eighteen 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. RESULTS: Although 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.
Subject(s)
Bone and Bones/chemistry , DNA/analysis , Czech Republic , DNA Fingerprinting/standards , Forensic Genetics , HumansABSTRACT
No data are available regarding the success of DNA Short Tandem Repeat (STR) profiling from degraded skeletal remains in Guatemala. Therefore, DNA profiling success rates relating to 2595 skeletons from eleven cases at the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala (FAFG) are presented. The typical postmortem interval was 30 years. DNA was extracted from bone powder and amplified using Identifiler and Minifler. DNA profiling success rates differed between cases, ranging from 50.8% to 7.0%, the overall success rate for samples was 36.3%. The best DNA profiling success rates were obtained from femur (36.2%) and tooth (33.7%) samples. DNA profiles were significantly better from lower body bones than upper body bones (p = <0.0001). Bone samples from males gave significantly better profiles than samples from females (p = <0.0001). These results are believed to be related to bone density. The findings are important for designing forensic DNA sampling strategies in future victim recovery investigations.
