Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26530406›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2016

Direct-to-PCR tissue preservation for DNA profiling.

Amy Sorensen, Clare Berry, David Bruce, Michelle Elizabeth Gahan, Sheree Hughes-Stamm, Dennis McNevin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Amy SorensenNational Centre for Forensic Studies, Faculty of Education, Science, Technology & Mathematics (ESTeM), University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
Clare BerryNational Centre for Forensic Studies, Faculty of Education, Science, Technology & Mathematics (ESTeM), University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
David BruceNational Centre for Forensic Studies, Faculty of Education, Science, Technology & Mathematics (ESTeM), University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
Michelle Elizabeth GahanNational Centre for Forensic Studies, Faculty of Education, Science, Technology & Mathematics (ESTeM), University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
Sheree Hughes-StammNational Centre for Forensic Studies, Faculty of Education, Science, Technology & Mathematics (ESTeM), University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
Dennis McNevinNational Centre for Forensic Studies, Faculty of Education, Science, Technology & Mathematics (ESTeM), University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia. dennis.mcnevin@canberra.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disaster victim identification (DVI) often occurs in remote locations with extremes of temperatures and humidities. Access to mortuary facilities and refrigeration are not always available. An effective and robust DNA sampling and preservation procedure would increase the probability of successful DNA profiling and allow faster repatriation of bodies and body parts. If the act of tissue preservation also released DNA into solution, ready for polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the DVI process could be further streamlined. In this study, we explored the possibility of obtaining DNA profiles without DNA extraction, by adding aliquots of preservative solutions surrounding fresh human muscle and decomposing human muscle and skin tissue samples directly to PCR. The preservatives consisted of two custom preparations and two proprietary solutions. The custom preparations were a salt-saturated solution of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) with ethylenediaminetetraacetic (EDTA) and TENT buffer (Tris, EDTA, NaCl, Tween 20). The proprietary preservatives were DNAgard (Biomatrica(®)) and Tissue Stabilising Kit (DNA Genotek). We obtained full PowerPlex(®) 21 (Promega) and GlobalFiler(®) (Life Technologies) DNA profiles from fresh and decomposed tissue preserved at 35 °C for up to 28 days for all four preservatives. The preservative aliquots removed from the fresh muscle tissue samples had been stored at -80 °C for 4 years, indicating that long-term archival does not diminish the probability of successful DNA typing. Rather, storage at -80 °C seems to reduce PCR inhibition.

Indexed as

Polymerase Chain ReactionTissue PreservationCryoprotective AgentsDimethyl SulfoxideDNADNA FingerprintingEdetic AcidGenotypeHumansMicrosatellite RepeatsMuscle, SkeletalSkinSpecimen HandlingCryoprotective AgentsDimethyl SulfoxideDNAEdetic AcidDirect PCRDisaster victim identification (DVI)DNA profileMass disasterPCR inhibitionTissue preservation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.