Search

For over 10 years, various studies have attempted to increase the recovery of DNA from ammunition by modifying the DNA collection, extraction, purification, and amplification procedures, with varying levels of success. This study focused on the "soaking" method of Montpetit & O'Donnell [1] and the "rinse-and-swab" method of Bille et al. [2]. First, testing for the presence of exogenous DNA, 210 boxed cartridges (brass, steel, and nickel-plated) from nine manufacturers were swabbed and DNA was extracted, concentrated, and quantified. Extracts that quantified > 0 ng/µL (44 of 210) were amplified and genotyped with GlobalFiler™. Of those, only one extract yielded two alleles indicating that the manufacturing and packaging of ammunition was virtually DNA free. Next, to obtain a baseline comparison of two DNA collection methods on a non-metallic substrate and identify a suitable number of cells to spot on cartridges, different DNA input amounts of primary human adult epidermal keratinocytes (HEKa) were tested. Thereafter, 300 brass and 300 nickel-plated, cartridges were spotted with HEKa cells containing ~5 ng of DNA, fired or unfired, and processed with either method. Finally, five methods representing hybrids of the soaking and rinse-and-swab methods were tested to determine if variations of those methods could be used to increase DNA yield and recovery. The results show that the soaking method consistently yielded more DNA than the rinse-and-swab method from a non-metallic substrate. However, the comparison study demonstrated that both methods performed comparably for cartridges. On average, the soaking method recovered 0.25 ng of DNA (5.1% recovery) and the rinse-and-swab method recovered 0.28 ng (5.8% recovery). However, average recoveries were significantly different among three analysts and considerable variation in yields were observed, possibly due to storage time. Furthermore, consistent with prior reports, the DNA recovered from brass casings was only 16% of that recovered from nickel-plated casings and the average yield of DNA from fired casings was reduced to 67% of unfired casings. Moreover, DNA extracts from brass or nickel-plated casings did not appear to contain amplification inhibitors and only 30/596 appeared severely degraded. Finally, both the published rinse-and-swab and soaking methods yielded more DNA than all modifications of the two methods. Overall, both methods yielded equivalent DNA quantities. Additionally, recovery of DNA from any given cartridge casing may be dependent on storage time as well as the skill, proficiency, and experience of the analyst and may reflect stochastic effects, particularly for casings containing low copy and/or degraded DNA., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

In forensic DNA casework, a highly accurate real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay is recommended per the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM) (SWGDAM Validation Guidelines for DNA Analysis Methods [1]) to determine whether a DNA sample is of sufficient quantity and robust quality to move forward with downstream short tandem repeats (STR) or sequencing analyses. Most of these assays rely on a standard curve, referred to herein and traditionally as absolute qPCR, in which an unknown is compared, relative to that curve. However, one fundamental issue with absolute qPCR is the quantifiable concentration of commercial assay standards can vary depending on (1) origin, i.e., whether from a cell line or a human subject, (2) supplier, (3) lot number, (4) shipping method, etc. In 2018, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) released a human DNA standard reference material for evaluating qPCR quantification standards, Standard Reference Material (SRM) 2372a, Romsos et al. (2018) [2] which contains three well-characterized human genomic DNA samples: Component A) a single male 1 donor, Component B) a single female 1 donor, and Component C) a 1:3 male 2 :female 2 donor, each with certification data for nDNA and informational mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA)/nuclear DNA (nDNA) ratio data. The SRM 2372a was used to assess four qPCR assays: (1) Quantifiler Trio (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) for nDNA quantification, (2) NovaQUANT (EMD Millipore Corporation, San Diego, CA) for nDNA and mtDNA quantification, (3) a custom duplex mtDNA assay, and (4) a custom triplex mtDNA assay. Additionally, extracts from eighteen (18) skeletal remains were tested with the latter three assays for concordance of DNA concentration and with assays (2) and (3), for the degradation state. Our assessment revealed that an accurate, efficient, and reproducible qPCR assay is dependent on (1) the quality and reliability of the DNA standard, (2) the qPCR chemistry, and (3) the specific primers, and probes (if applicable), used in an assay. Our findings indicate qPCR assays may not always quantify as expected and that performance of each lot should be verified using a well-characterized DNA standard such as the NIST SRM 2372a and adjusted if warranted., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)