Highly efficient and automated extraction of DNA from human remains using a modified EZ1 protocol

Abstract Bones and teeth often represent the only sources of DNA available for identifying human remains. DNA in bones and teeth is generally better preserved than that in soft tissues because of the presence of hard connective tissue with a high level of calcium. Because of the extensive mineralisation, the choice of an efficient DNA extraction procedure is important to minimise the sampling of a high level of minerals and to remove polymerase chain reaction (PCR) inhibitors. Some protocols are available for DNA extraction from bones and teeth as part of the Qiagen EZ1 DNA Investigator Kit using the EZ1 Advanced XL automated purification platform. To improve the efficiency of DNA extraction from skeletal remains, the present study focuses on a modification to these already available protocols. In this study, different bones and teeth collected between 1 and 50 years after death were subjected to DNA extraction using the standard EZ1 protocol, a supplementary protocol, and a modified protocol. The modified approach included a decalcification step, whereas the Qiagen protocols worked directly on non-decalcified powder. In all three procedures, 150 mg samples were used for DNA extraction. We evaluated the quantity of DNA recovered from samples, the presence of any PCR inhibitors co-extracted, the level of DNA degradation, the quality of short tandem repeat (STR) profiles, and the reproducibility of the modified procedure. When compared with the other protocols, the modified protocol resulted in the best recovery of DNA that was free of PCR inhibitors. Additionally, the STR profiles were reliable and of high quality. In our opinion, the decalcification step increases DNA recovery by softening tissues, which allows lysis solutions to act more effectively. Furthermore, the use of two lysis solutions and the variation added to the EZ1 purification step allow for DNA recovery with quality and quantity superior to those of the previously available Qiagen-based protocols. These findings may be helpful solutions to the problems commonly encountered when dealing with difficult samples, such as bones and teeth. Key points Bones and teeth often represent the only sources of DNA for identifying human remains. The choice of an efficient DNA extraction procedure is important for maximizing DNA recovery and removing PCR inhibitors. This study focuses on modifications to the previously available Qiagen-based protocols. The modified protocol enabled the best recovery of DNA, and both quality and quantity were superior to those of the previously available Qiagen-based protocols. The STR profiles obtained from samples extracted using the modified protocol were reliable and of high quality.

[1]  M. Buoncristiani,et al.  Optimization of DNA Extraction from Low‐Yield and Degraded Samples Using the BioRobot® EZ1 and BioRobot® M48 , 2006, Journal of forensic sciences.

[2]  P. Prasad,et al.  A comparative study of various decalcification techniques. , 2013, Indian Journal of Dental Research.

[3]  Garima Chaudhary,et al.  Evaluation of techniques for human bone decalcification and amplification using sixteen STR markers , 2015 .

[4]  J. Builes,et al.  New alternative for human identification. Investigator IDplex Kit – QIAGEN® reproducibility: Latin American interlaboratory study , 2011 .

[5]  R. Lagacé,et al.  Developmental validation of the AmpFℓSTR® NGM SElect™ PCR Amplification Kit: A next-generation STR multiplex with the SE33 locus. , 2013, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[6]  W R Mayr,et al.  DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics for disaster victim identification (DVI). , 2007, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[7]  Jože Balažic,et al.  Molecular genetic identification of skeletal remains from the Second World War Konfin I mass grave in Slovenia , 2010, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[8]  P. Cormaci,et al.  Validation of BTA™ lysis buffer for DNA extraction from challenged forensic samples , 2011 .

[9]  C. Jones,et al.  Routine Acid Decalcification of Bone Marrow Samples Can Preserve DNA for FISH and CGH Studies in Metastatic Prostate Cancer , 2002, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[10]  A. Barbaro,et al.  Validation of AmpFLSTR NGM SElect™ PCR amplification kit on forensic samples , 2011 .

[11]  Ali Abbas,et al.  Forensic implications of genetic analyses from degraded DNA--a review. , 2010, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[12]  Myung Jin Park,et al.  Simple and highly effective DNA extraction methods from old skeletal remains using silica columns. , 2010, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[13]  Bruce Budowle,et al.  Forensic aspects of mass disasters: strategic considerations for DNA-based human identification. , 2005, Legal medicine.

[14]  T. Parsons,et al.  High efficiency DNA extraction from bone by total demineralization. , 2007, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[15]  D. Higgins,et al.  Teeth as a source of DNA for forensic identification of human remains: a review. , 2013, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[16]  K. Sanjai,et al.  Evaluation and comparison of decalcification agents on the human teeth , 2012, Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP.

[17]  Mechthild Prinz,et al.  Optimization of a simple, automatable extraction method to recover sufficient DNA from low copy number DNA samples for generation of short tandem repeat profiles. , 2005, Croatian medical journal.

[18]  John M. Butler,et al.  Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Methodology , 2011 .

[19]  Linus Girdland-Flink,et al.  Assessing the performance of quantity and quality metrics using the QIAGEN Investigator® Quantiplex® pro RGQ kit. , 2020, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.