Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40116019›Full record

ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2025

Investigation of a Y-chromosome screening approach for sexual assault evidence using the QIAGEN Investigator Casework GO! kit.

Dan Nana Osei Bonsu, Natasha Mitchell, Claire Jeanes, Julianne Henry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Dan Nana Osei BonsuChemistry and Forensic Science, Griffith Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4671-0521
Natasha MitchellDepartment of Justice, Forensic Science Queensland, Coopers Plains, Queensland, Australia.
Claire JeanesAttorney Generals Department, Forensic Science SA, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Julianne HenryAttorney Generals Department, Forensic Science SA, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following an alleged sexual assault, a victim may undergo a medical examination whereby internal or external bodily swabs may be collected and submitted to a forensic laboratory to be screened for the presence of semen. At Forensic Science SA (FSSA), this involves microscopic examination of a smear prepared from each swab for the presence of sperm. Microscopic detection of sperm is confirmatory for semen, but the process is very time-consuming, especially where very low levels are present. Moreover, microscopy results are not a reliable predictor of the amount of male DNA that might be recovered. SWGDAM recommends a direct-to-DNA approach as an efficient alternative. Therefore, we investigated the Qiagen Casework GO! kit (CWG), in conjunction with the Y-chromosome marker in the Quantifiler Trio DNA quantification kit, for the rapid screening of sexual assault swabs for the presence of male DNA (termed 'Y-screen'). We initially investigated two swab types, the Copan cotton swab (currently used in Forensic Examination Collection Kits (FECK) submitted to FSSA) and the Sarstedt Forensic XL swab (a Forensic DNA grade alternative). The optimal size of the swab cutting and the volume of CWG lysis mix for the Y-screen was determined to be 1/8 and 100 μL, respectively, which ensured cost minimization and sample preservation. The performance of the optimized Y-screen method was compared with conventional microscopy using a series of simulated sexual assault swabs constructed by spiking female buccal swabs with serial dilutions of semen. For Copan cotton swabs, all samples with detectable sperm by microscopy had detectable levels of male DNA using the Y-screen. The Y-screen also showed greater sensitivity than microscopy for this swab type, detecting male DNA in 8% of samples where sperm was not observed. In contrast, 36% of Forensic XL swabs gave undetectable male DNA when sperm was observed by microscopy, which indicated that the Y-screen approach with CWG may not be compatible with all swab types. A casework trial of the Y-screen approach using 46 FECK swabs (Copan cotton swabs) submitted across 29 cases confirmed the higher sensitivity of the Y-screen approach as compared to conventional microscopy. Here, 44% of FECK swabs that had no observable sperm by microscopy had detectable male DNA using the Y-screen. There were no instances where the FECK swabs with observable sperm by microscopy had undetectable male DNA using the Y-screen. Our study confirmed the utility of the Y-screen approach using CWG to expedite the downstream DNA analysis of FECK swab samples in operational casework.

Indexed as

Chromosomes, Human, YDNADNA FingerprintingSex OffensesSpecimen HandlingFemaleHumansMaleMicrosatellite RepeatsPolymerase Chain ReactionSemenSpermatozoaDNACasework GO!microscopyQuantifiler™ Triosemensexual assaultY‐screen

Identifiers

PMID40116019
PMCPMC12046101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.