ArticleInvestigative genetics2011
Differential DNA extraction of challenging simulated sexual-assault samples: a Swiss collaborative study.
Article in Investigative genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- STR typing from punched FFPE tissues: resolving suspected contamination and fetal-maternal mixture in two cases.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating novel and conventional cell-separation techniques for sexual assault investigations.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
- Standardizing a microbiome pipeline for body fluid identification from complex crime scene stains.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Toward Analysis at the Point of Need: A Digital Microfluidic Approach to Processing Multi-Source Sexual Assault Samples.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Single-cell transcriptome sequencing allows genetic separation, characterization and identification of individuals in multi-person biological mixtures.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Comparison between MACSprep™ forensic sperm microbead kit and Erase Sperm Isolation kit for the enrichment of sperm fractions recovered from sexual assault samples.International journal of legal medicine · 2023Article
- Alternative direct-to-amplification sperm cell lysis techniques for sexual assault sample processing.Journal of forensic sciences · 2022Article
- New Perspectives for Whole Genome Amplification in Forensic STR Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- An integrated system for forensic DNA testing of sexual assault cases in the Philippines.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2021Article
- Real Time Electronic Feedback for Improved Acoustic Trapping of Micron-Scale Particles.Micromachines · 2019Article
- A Novel On-Chip Method for Differential Extraction of Sperm in Forensic Cases.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2018Article
- Microbial Degradation of Forensic Samples of Biological Origin: Potential Threat to Human DNA Typing.Molecular biotechnology · 2018Review
- Differentiation of mixed biological traces in sexual assaults using DNA fragment analysis.Biotechnology, biotechnological equipment · 2014Article
- Isolating DNA from sexual assault cases: a comparison of standard methods with a nuclease-based approach.Investigative genetics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In sexual-assault cases, autosomal DNA analysis of gynecological swabs is a challenge, as the presence of a large quantity of female material may prevent detection of the male DNA. A solution to this problem is differential DNA extraction, but there is no established best practice for this. We decided to test the efficacy of a number of different protocols on simulated casework samples. Four difficult samples were sent to the nine Swiss laboratories active in forensic genetics. In each laboratory, staff used their routine protocols to separate the epithelial-cell fraction, enriched with the non-sperm DNA, from the sperm fraction. DNA extracts were then sent to the organizing laboratory for analysis. Estimates of male:female DNA ratio without differential DNA extraction ranged from 1:38 to 1:339, depending on the semen used to prepare the samples. After differential DNA extraction, most of the ratios ranged from 1:12 to 9:1, allowing detection of the male DNA. Compared with direct DNA extraction, cell separation resulted in losses of 94-98% of the male DNA. As expected, more male DNA was generally present in the sperm than in the epithelial-cell fraction. However, for about 30% of the samples, the reverse trend was seen. The recovery of male and female DNA was highly variable, depending on the laboratory involved. An experimental design similar to the one used in this study may be of assistance for local protocol testing and improvement.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.