ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2016
Direct-to-PCR tissue preservation for DNA profiling.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of metal ions and DNA recovery from the surface of fired and unfired brass ammunition to improve STR profiling.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- Assessing the feasibility of free DNA for disaster victim identification and forensic applications.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Direct PCR amplification from saliva sample using non-direct multiplex STR kits for forensic DNA typing.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The QIAGEN 140-locus single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel for forensic identification using massively parallel sequencing (MPS): an evaluation and a direct-to-PCR trial.International journal of legal medicine · 2019Article
- Evaluation of four commercial quantitative real-time PCR kits with inhibited and degraded samples.International journal of legal medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
26530406What 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.