Literature DB >> 29177703

Evaluation of four commercial quantitative real-time PCR kits with inhibited and degraded samples.

Amy S Holmes1, Rachel Houston2, Kyleen Elwick2, David Gangitano2, Sheree Hughes-Stamm2.   

Abstract

DNA quantification is a vital step in forensic DNA analysis to determine the optimal input amount for DNA typing. A quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay that can predict DNA degradation or inhibitors present in the sample prior to DNA amplification could aid forensic laboratories in creating a more streamlined and efficient workflow. This study compares the results from four commercial qPCR kits: (1) Investigator® Quantiplex® Pro Kit, (2) Quantifiler® Trio DNA Quantification Kit, (3) PowerQuant® System, and (4) InnoQuant® HY with high molecular weight DNA, low template samples, degraded samples, and DNA spiked with various inhibitors.The results of this study indicate that all kits were comparable in accurately predicting quantities of high quality DNA down to the sub-picogram level. However, the InnoQuant(R) HY kit showed the highest precision across the DNA concentration range tested in this study. In addition, all kits performed similarly with low concentrations of forensically relevant PCR inhibitors. However, in general, the Investigator® Quantiplex® Pro Kit was the most tolerant kit to inhibitors and provided the most accurate quantification results with higher concentrations of inhibitors (except with salt). PowerQuant® and InnoQuant® HY were the most sensitive to inhibitors, but they did indicate significant levels of PCR inhibition. When quantifying degraded samples, each kit provided different degradation indices (DI), with Investigator® Quantiplex® Pro indicating the largest DI and Quantifiler® Trio indicating the smallest DI. When the qPCR kits were paired with their respective STR kit to genotype highly degraded samples, the Investigator® 24plex QS and GlobalFiler® kits generated more complete profiles when the small target concentrations were used for calculating input amount.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA quantification; Degradation index; Forensic science; PCR inhibition; Quantitative real-time PCR

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29177703     DOI: 10.1007/s00414-017-1745-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Legal Med        ISSN: 0937-9827            Impact factor:   2.686


  12 in total

1.  Developmental validation of the Quantifiler(®) HP and Trio Kits for human DNA quantification in forensic samples.

Authors:  Allison Holt; Sharon Chao Wootton; Julio J Mulero; Pius M Brzoska; Emanuel Langit; Robert L Green
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 4.882

Review 2.  Forensic implications of genetic analyses from degraded DNA--a review.

Authors:  Reza Alaeddini; Simon J Walsh; Ali Abbas
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2009-10-02       Impact factor: 4.882

3.  Performance of a next generation sequencing SNP assay on degraded DNA.

Authors:  Katherine Butler Gettings; Kevin M Kiesler; Peter M Vallone
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 4.882

4.  Development and validation of InnoQuant® HY, a system for quantitation and quality assessment of total human and male DNA using high copy targets.

Authors:  Andrew Loftus; Gina Murphy; Hiromi Brown; Anne Montgomery; Jonathan Tabak; James Baus; Marion Carroll; André Green; Suresh Sikka; Sudhir Sinha
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 4.882

5.  An investigation of PCR inhibition using Plexor(®) -based quantitative PCR and short tandem repeat amplification.

Authors:  Robyn E Thompson; George Duncan; Bruce R McCord
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 1.832

6.  Comparison of Quantifiler(®) Trio and InnoQuant™ human DNA quantification kits for detection of DNA degradation in developed and aged fingerprints.

Authors:  Zachary C Goecker; Stephen E Swiontek; Akhlesh Lakhtakia; Reena Roy
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 2.395

7.  DNA and RNA profiling of excavated human remains with varying postmortem intervals.

Authors:  M van den Berge; D Wiskerke; R R R Gerretsen; J Tabak; T Sijen
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 2.686

8.  Quantifiler® Trio Kit and forensic samples management: a matter of degradation.

Authors:  Stefano Vernarecci; Enrica Ottaviani; Alessandro Agostino; Elisabetta Mei; Lisa Calandro; Paola Montagna
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 4.882

9.  Human DNA quantification and sample quality assessment: Developmental validation of the PowerQuant(®) system.

Authors:  Margaret M Ewing; Jonelle M Thompson; Robert S McLaren; Vincent M Purpero; Kelli J Thomas; Patricia A Dobrowski; Gretchen A DeGroot; Erica L Romsos; Douglas R Storts
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2016-04-16       Impact factor: 4.882

10.  Direct-to-PCR tissue preservation for DNA profiling.

Authors:  Amy Sorensen; Clare Berry; David Bruce; Michelle Elizabeth Gahan; Sheree Hughes-Stamm; Dennis McNevin
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 2.686

View more
  2 in total

1.  Assessment of autosomal and male DNA extracted from casework samples using Casework Direct Kit, Custom and Maxwell 16 System DNA IQ Casework Pro Kit for autosomal-STR and Y-STR profiling.

Authors:  Hashom Mohd Hakim; Hussein Omar Khan; Siti Afifah Ismail; Shahrizad Ayob; Japareng Lalung; Edward Abban Kofi; Geoffrey Keith Chambers; Hisham Atan Edinur
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  A distant relationship?-investigation of correlations between DNA isolated from backspatter traces recovered from firearms, wound profile characteristics, and shooting distance.

Authors:  Jan Euteneuer; Annica Gosch; Philipp Cachée; Cornelius Courts
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 2.686

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.