Advertisement

International Journal of Legal Medicine

, Volume 133, Issue 2, pp 419–426 | Cite as

Whose blood is it? Application of DEPArray™ technology for the identification of individual/s who contributed blood to a mixed stain

  • K. AnslingerEmail author
  • B. Bayer
Method Paper
  • 126 Downloads

Abstract

The interpretation and statistical evaluation of mixed DNA profiles often presents a particular challenge in forensic DNA investigations. Only in specific combinations can single cellular components of a mixture be assigned to one contributor. In this study, the DEPArray™ technology, which enables image-assisted immunofluorescent-sorting of rare single cells using dielectrophoretic (DEP) forces, was applied together with different preliminary tests to identify the individual/s who contributed blood to a given mixture. The technique was successfully applied in two routine casework samples. In order to ascertain how old a stain can be and still be processed successfully, white blood cells from two 10- and one 27-year-old stains were investigated. Depending on the stain’s age, the associated DNA degradation level and the number of target cells successfully isolated, the final profile reflects a compromise between the gain of information due to isolation of pure cells of a specific cell type from a single contributor and the loss of discriminatory power due to incomplete profiles caused by DNA degradation.

Keywords

DEPArray™ technology Mixed DNA profiles Cell separation White blood cells Cold case 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Menarini Silicon Biosystems for the provision of the DEPArray™ system, as well as for the valuable support and Eppendorf for providing necessary laboratory equipment.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Gill P, Brenner CH, Buckleton JS, Carracedo A, Krawczak M, Mayr WR, Morling N, Prinz M, Schneider PM, Weir BS (2003) DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures; DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics. Forensic SciInt 160:90–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ulbrich W, Anslinger K, Bäßler G, Eckert M, Fimmers R, Hohoff C, Kraft M, Leuker C, Molsberger G, Pich U, Razbin S, Schneider H, Templin M, Wächter A, Weirich V, Zierdt H, Schneider PM (2016) GemeinsameEmpfehlungen der Projektgruppe “Biostatistische DNA-Berechnungen” und der SpurenkommissionzurbiostatistischenBewertung von DNA-analytischenBefunden. Rechtsmedizin 26:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coble MD, Buckleton J, Butler JM, Egeland T, Fimmers R, Gill P, Gusmão L, Guttman B, Krawczak M, Morling N, Parson W, Pinto N, Schneider PM, Sherry ST, Willuweit S, Prinz M (2016) DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: recommendations on the validation of software programs performing biostatistical calculations for forensic genetics applications. Forensic SciInt Genet 25:191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gill P, Jeffreys A, Werrett D (1985) Forensic application of DNA ‘fingerprints’. Nature 318:577–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Verdon TJ, Mitchell RJ, Chen W, Xiao K, Van Oorschot RAH (2015) FACS separation of non-compromised forensically relevant biological mixtures. Forensic SciInt Genet 14:194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elliott K, Hill D, Lambert C, Burroughes T, Gill P (2003) Use of laser microdissection greatly improves the recovery of DNA from sperm on microscope slides. Forensic SciInt 137:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anslinger K, Mack B, Bayer B, Rolf B, Eisenmenger W (2005) Digoxigenin labelling and laser capture microdissection of male cells. Int J Legal Med 119:374–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anslinger K, Mack B, Bayer B, Eisenmenger W (2007) Sex-specific fluorescent labelling of cells for laser microdissection and DNA profiling. Int J Legal Med 121:54–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yano S, Honda K, Kaminiwa J, Nishi T, Iwabuchi Y, Sugano Y, Kurosu A, Suzuki Y (2014) DNA extraction for short tandem repeat typing from mixed samples using anti-human leukocyteCD45 and ABO blood group antibodies. Forensic SciInt Genet. 10:17-22Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fontana F, Rapone C, Bregola G, Aversa R, de Meo A, Signorini G, Sergio M, Ferrarini A, Lanzellotto R, Medoro G, Giorgini G, Manaresi N, Berti A (2017) Isolation and genetic analysis of pure cells from forensic biological mixtures: the precision of a digital approach. Forensic SciInt Genet 29:225–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anslinger K, Bayer B, von Máriássy D (2018) Application of DEPArray™ technology for the isolation of white blood cells from cell mixtures in chimerism analysis. Rechtsmedizin 28:134–137Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vernarecci S, Ottaviani E, Agostino A, Mei E, Calandro L, Montagna P (2015) Quantifiler® Trio Kit and forensic samples management: a matter of degradation. Forensic SciInt Genet 16:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vandewoestyne M, Van Hoofstat D, Franssen A, Van Nieuwerburgh F, Deforce D (2013) Presence and potential of cell free DNA in different types of forensic samples. Forensic SciInt Genet 7:316–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Butler JM, Shen Y, McCord BR (2003) The development of reduced size STR amplicons as tools for analysis of degraded DNA. J Forensic Sci 48:1054–1064Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Legal MedicineLudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations