Advertisement

Factors affecting dental DNA in various real post-mortem conditions

  • Hussam MansourEmail author
  • Oliver Krebs
  • Hans O. Pinnschmidt
  • Nadine Griem
  • Ilona Hammann-Ehrt
  • Klaus Püschel
Original Article

Abstract

Post-mortem DNA degradation is still the real challenge of DNA-based identification in forensic practise. It is a complicated multifactorial process occurring as a result of the combination of several different environmental effects along with the crucial effect of the elapsed post-mortem interval (PMI). The main purpose of the present study is to evaluate the effect of ante- and post-mortem factors on dental DNA in real forensic cases. Ninety-five teeth extracted from 39 corpses, whose bodies were subject to 6 different post-mortem conditions, were used to evaluate dental DNA amount. In total, 179 DNA extracts isolated from the root of the teeth were examined after removing the crown and sectioning each root into apical and cervical portions. DNA concentration was measured using real-time polymerase chain reaction DNA quantitation kit (PowerQuant™ System/Promega). Our results indicate that the post-mortem interval (PMI) is the most important influential factor on dental DNA quantification (p < 0.001). However, in the actual data set, it was confounded with several ante- and post-mortem factors, rendering its actual net effect difficult. The time period of the first 10 days after death yielded the best DNA results from all analysed dental samples. Afterwards, a dramatic decrease in dental DNA was observed in the following time period. Teeth extracted from burnt and fresh corpses yielded the highest amount of DNA, while skeletonized exhumed corpses resulted in the lowest DNA amount. Indeed, dry and indoor conditions demonstrated better results than those in water, outdoors, or buried in the ground. On the other hand, ante-mortem factors including sex, age, tooth type, and tooth root portions did not reveal significant effect on dental DNA yield. We suggest that ante-mortem factors are considerably more subjected to individual variations. Post-mortem factors including PMI, post-mortem conditions, and the relevant surrounding environments have substantial influence on the dental DNA amount yielded.

Keywords

Teeth DNA quantification Genetic identification Post-mortem interval (PMI) 

Notes

Funding information

The authors would like to thank the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for supporting and funding the research project.

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the State Chamber of Medicine in Hamburg “Ethik-Kommission der Ärztekammer Hamburg”, approval no. WF- 40/19. Furthermore, consent from the responsible authorities for unidentified dead bodies was provided.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

414_2019_2151_MOESM1_ESM.doc (99 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 99 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Mansour H, Krebs O, Sperhake J, Fuhrmann A, Püschel K (2018) Identification of scattered skeletal remains. Combined dental and DNA-based identification. Rechtsmedizin 28:307–312.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00194-018-0235-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mansour H, Krebs O, Sperhake J, Augustin C, Koehne T, Amling M, Püschel K (2018) Cementum as a source of DNA in challenging forensic cases. J Forensic Leg Med 54:76–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2017.12.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Higgins D, Austin JJ (2013) Teeth as a source of DNA for forensic identification of human remains: a review. Sci Justice 53:433–441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schwark T, Heinrich A, von Wurmb-Schwark N (2011) Genetic identification of highly putrefied bodies using DNA from soft tissues. Int J Legal Med 125(6):891–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loreille O, Diegoli T, Irwin J, Coble M, Parsons T (2007) High efficiency DNA extraction from bone by total demineralization. Forensic Sci Int Genet 1:191–195.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2007.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Higgins D, Rohrlach AB, Kaidonis J, Townsend G, Austin JJ (2015) Differential nuclear and mitochondrial DNA preservation in post-mortem teeth with implications for forensic and ancient DNA studies. PLoS One 10:e0126935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sivagami AV, Rao AR, Varshney UA (2000) A simple and cost-effective method for preparing DNA from the hard tooth tissue, and its use in polymerase chain reaction amplification of amelogenin gene segment for sex determination in an Indian population. Forensic Sci Int 110:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ambers A, Turnbough M, Benjamin R, King J, Budowle B (2014) Assessment of the role of DNA repair in damaged forensic samples. Int J Legal Med 128:913–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freire-Aradas A, Fondevila M, Kriegel A-K et al (2012) A new SNP assay for identification of highly degraded human DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet 6:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fondevila M, Phillips C, Naverán N, Cerezo M, Rodríguez A, Calvo R, Fernández L, Carracedo Á, Lareu M (2008) Challenging DNA: assessment of a range of genotyping approaches for highly degraded forensic samples. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser 1(1):26–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burger J, Hummel S, Herrmann B, Henke W (1999) DNA preservation: a microsatellite-DNA study on ancient skeletal remains. Electrophoresis 20:1722–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hughes-Stamm SR, Ashton KJ, van Daal A (2011) Assessment of DNA degradation and the genotyping success of highly degraded samples. Int J Legal Med 125:341–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alaeddini R, Walsh SJ, Abbas A (2010) Forensic implications of genetic analyses from degraded DNA-a review. Forensic Sci Int Genet 4:148–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Putkonen MT, Palo JU, Cano JM et al (2010) Factors affecting the STR amplification success in poorly preserved bone samples. Investig Genet 1:9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rubio L, Santos I, Gaitan MJ, Martin de las Heras S (2013) Time-dependant changes in DNA stability in decomposing teeth over 18 months. Acta Odontol Scand 71:638–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Leo D, Turrina S, Marigo M (2000) Effects of individual dental factors on genomic DNA analysis. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 21:411–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rubio L, Martinez LJ, Martinez E, Martin de las Heras S (2009) Study of short- and long-term storage of teeth and its influence on DNA. J Forensic Sci 54:1411–1413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bosshardt DD (2005) Are cementoblasts a subpopulation of osteoblasts or a unique phenotype? J Dent Res 84:390–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alvarez GA, Munoz I, Pestoni C, Lareu MV, Rodriguez-Calvo MS, Carracedo A (1996) Effect of environmental factors on PCR-DNA analysis from dental pulp. Int J Leg Med 109:125–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Higgins D, Kaidonis J, Townsend G, Hughes T, Austin JJ (2013) Targeted sampling of cementum for recovery of nuclear DNA from human teeth and the impact of common decontamination measures. Investig Genet 4:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-4-18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gaytmenn R, Sweet D (2003) Quantification of forensic DNA from various regions of human teeth. J Forensic Sci 48:622–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    PowerQuant System Technical Manual. https://www.promega.de/-/media/files/resources/protocols/technical-manuals/101/powerquant-system-technical-manual.pdf. Last access on 18.06.2019Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ewing MM, Thompson JM, McLaren RS, Purpero VM, Thomas KJ, Dobrowski PA, DeGroot GA, Romsos EL, Storts DR (2016) Human DNA quantification and sample quality assessment: developmental validation of the PowerQuant® system. Forensic Sci Int Genet 23:166–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Holmes A, Houston R, Elwick K et al (2018) Evaluation of four commercial quantitative real-time PCR kits with inhibited and degraded samples. Int J Legal Med 132:691–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prinz M, Carracedo A, Mayr WR et al (2007) DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics for disaster victim identification (DVI). Forensic Sci Int 1:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stamfelj I, Vidmar G, Cvetko E, Gaspersic D (2008) Cementum thickness in multirooted human molars: a histometric study by light microscopy. Ann Anat 190:129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Raimann P, Picanço J, Silva D, Albuquerque T, Paludo F, Alho C (2012) Procedures to recover DNA from pre-molar and molar teeth of decomposed cadavers with different post-mortem intervals. Arch Oral Biol 57:1459–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Corte-Real A, Anjos MJ, Vieira DN, Gamero JJ (2012) The Tooth for molecular analysis and identification: a forensic approach. J Forensic Odontostomatol 30:22–28Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vavpotič M, Turk T, Martincic DS, Balazic J (2009) Characteristics of the number of odontoblasts in human dental pulp post-mortem. Forensic Sci Int 193:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Martins JNR, Marques D, Francisco H, Carames J (2018) Gender influence on the number of roots and root canal system configuration in human permanent teeth of a Portuguese subpopulation. Quintessence Int 2:103–111Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zorba E, Moraitis K, Manolis SK (2011) Sexual dimorphism in permanent teeth of modern Greeks. Forensic Sci Int 210:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Trivedi R, Chattopadhyay P, Kashyap VK (2002) A New improved method for extraction of DNA from teeth for the analysis of hypervariable loci. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 23:191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Solheim T (1990) Dental cementum apposition as an indicator of age. Scand J Dent Res 98:510–519Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Imaizumi K, Miyasaka S, Yoshino M (2004) Quantitative analysis of amplifiable DNA in tissues exposed to various environments using competitive PCR assays. Sci Justice 44:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pfeiffer H, Huhne J, Seitz B, Brinkmann B (1999) Influence of soil storage and exposure period on DNA recovery from teeth. Int J Leg Med 112:142–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Legal MedicineUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Center of Experimental Medicine, Institute of Medical Biometry and EpidemiologyUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations