Dan O M Bonsu1,2, Denice Higgins3,4, Julianne Henry5,6, Jeremy J Austin3. 1. Australian Centre for Ancient DNA (ACAD), School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. danoseimensah.bonsu@adelaide.edu.au. 2. Department of Forensic Sciences, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana. danoseimensah.bonsu@adelaide.edu.au. 3. Australian Centre for Ancient DNA (ACAD), School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 4. School of Dentistry, Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 5. Forensic Science SA (FSSA), Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 6. College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the recovery and extraction efficiency of DNA from three metal surfaces (brass, copper, steel) relevant to forensic casework, and plastic (control) using two different swabbing systems; Rayon and Isohelix™ swabs, with sterile water and isopropyl alcohol respectively, as the wetting solutions. METHODS: Twenty nanograms of human genomic DNA were applied directly to Isohelix™ and Rayon swabs; and to the metal and plastic substrates. All substrates were left to dry for 24 h, followed by single wet swabbing and extraction with the DNA IQ™ System. DNA extracts were quantified using real time quantitative PCR assays with SYBR green chemistry. RESULTS: DNA was extracted from directly seeded Isohelix™ swabs with a high efficiency of 98%, indicating effective DNA-release from the swab into the extraction buffer. In contrast, only 58% of input DNA was recovered from seeded Rayon swabs, indicating higher DNA retention by these swabs. Isohelix™ swabs recovered 32 - 53% of DNA from metal surfaces, whilst the Rayon swabs recovered 11-29%. DNA recovery was lowest from copper and highest from brass. Interestingly, Rayon swabs appeared to collect more DNA from the plastic surface than Isohelix™ swabs, however, due to the lower release of DNA from Rayon swabs they returned less DNA overall following extraction than Isohelix™ swabs. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that DNA samples deposited on metal surfaces can be more efficiently recovered using Isohelix™ swabs wetted with isopropyl alcohol than Rayon swabs wetted with sterile water, although recovery is affected by the substrate type.
PURPOSE: We investigated the recovery and extraction efficiency of DNA from three metal surfaces (brass, copper, steel) relevant to forensic casework, and plastic (control) using two different swabbing systems; Rayon and Isohelix™ swabs, with sterile water and isopropyl alcohol respectively, as the wetting solutions. METHODS: Twenty nanograms of human genomic DNA were applied directly to Isohelix™ and Rayon swabs; and to the metal and plastic substrates. All substrates were left to dry for 24 h, followed by single wet swabbing and extraction with the DNA IQ™ System. DNA extracts were quantified using real time quantitative PCR assays with SYBR green chemistry. RESULTS: DNA was extracted from directly seeded Isohelix™ swabs with a high efficiency of 98%, indicating effective DNA-release from the swab into the extraction buffer. In contrast, only 58% of input DNA was recovered from seeded Rayon swabs, indicating higher DNA retention by these swabs. Isohelix™ swabs recovered 32 - 53% of DNA from metal surfaces, whilst the Rayon swabs recovered 11-29%. DNA recovery was lowest from copper and highest from brass. Interestingly, Rayon swabs appeared to collect more DNA from the plastic surface than Isohelix™ swabs, however, due to the lower release of DNA from Rayon swabs they returned less DNA overall following extraction than Isohelix™ swabs. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that DNA samples deposited on metal surfaces can be more efficiently recovered using Isohelix™ swabs wetted with isopropyl alcohol than Rayon swabs wetted with sterile water, although recovery is affected by the substrate type.
Entities:
Keywords:
Collection efficiency; Extraction efficiency; Isohelix™ swab; Metal surfaces; Rayon swab; Release efficiency
Authors: Corina C G Benschop; Danielle C Wiebosch; Ate D Kloosterman; Titia Sijen Journal: Forensic Sci Int Genet Date: 2009-08-14 Impact factor: 4.882
Authors: Jennifer Comte; Simon Baechler; Joelle Gervaix; Eric Lock; Marie-Pierre Milon; Olivier Delémont; Vincent Castella Journal: Forensic Sci Int Genet Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 4.882
Authors: Roland A H van Oorschot; Georgina E Meakin; Bas Kokshoorn; Mariya Goray; Bianca Szkuta Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2021-11-07 Impact factor: 4.096