Amelogenin Gene - The Pioneer in Gender Determination from Forensic Dental Samples

Molecular analysis for sex determination in forensic dentistry: a systematic review

“…The results showed that most of the studies succeeded in DNA extraction except for two studies (Srivastava et al 2017;Chowdhury et al 2018). The sex identification was accurately defined in six studies (Zapico and Ubelaker 2013;Chauhan et al 2016;Kholief et al 2017;Dutta et al 2017;Bharath et al 2019), and in four studies, not all samples were identified correctly (Reddy et al 2011;Srivastava et al 2017;Chowdhury et al 2018;Lim et al 2019). The conclusion from ten studies was that teeth, mesiodens, dental pulp, and dentin are reliable sources for DNA with resistance to forensic insult unless subjected to extreme degradation and that also toothbrushes and dental prostheses were good DNA sources.…”

“…These ten studies included 335 samples, and three studies mention samples originating from male and female subjects (Nakanishi et al 2015;Kholief et al 2017;Bharath et al 2019). Samples were acquired from different parts of the oral region, including from whole teeth (Srivastava et al 2017;Lim et al 2019), dentin or dental pulp (Zapico and Ubelaker 2013;Kholief et al 2017;Dutta et al 2017;Chowdhury et al 2018), epithelial cells from toothbrush, intraoral, dental prosthesis (Reddy et al 2011;Nakanishi et al 2015;Bharath et al 2019), and saliva from dental prosthesis (Chauhan et al 2016). Three studies mention the age of sampled subjects who were 19-81 years old (Zapico and Ubelaker 2013;Kholief et al 2017;Bharath et al 2019).…”

“…Three studies mention the age of sampled subjects who were 19-81 years old (Zapico and Ubelaker 2013;Kholief et al 2017;Bharath et al 2019). The other studies do not mention the subject's age (Reddy et al 2011;Nakanishi et al 2015;Chauhan et al 2016;Srivastava et al 2017;Dutta et al 2017;Chowdhury et al 2018;Lim et al 2019).…”

“…Three studies used DNA without any treatment for the samples, while others were grouping the sample into categories of forensic insult. Degraded DNA was achieved by storage for certain time span (Reddy et al 2011), incineration (Dutta et al 2017;Chowdhury et al 2018;Lim et al 2019), immersion in saltwater (Dutta et al 2017;Chowdhury et al 2018), desiccation at room temperature (Reddy et al 2011;Dutta et al 2017;Chowdhury et al 2018), burial in soil (Chowdhury et al 2018), and/or illumination by ultra-violet radiation (Nakanishi et al 2015).…”

“…DNA extraction was performed by Chelex-100 (Reddy et al 2011;Bharath et al 2019), silica-based (Zapico and Ubelaker 2013;Chauhan et al 2016;Kholief et al 2017), silica-coated magnetic particle (Nakanishi et al 2015), or phenol-chloroform method (Srivastava et al 2017;Dutta et al 2017;Chowdhury et al 2018;Lim et al 2019). The methods of analysis in the studies included the amelogenin method (Srivastava et al 2017;Dutta et al 2017;Chowdhury et al 2018;Lim et al 2019), amelogenin with β-actin (Zapico and Ubelaker 2013), amelogenin without copy number variation (CNV) region (Nakanishi et al 2015), amelogenin and 15 CODIS loci (Chauhan et al 2016), SRY (Reddy et al 2011;Bharath et al 2019), and combined DYS14 along with SRY (Kholief et al 2017). DNA amplification was conducted using PCR (Lim et al 2019).…”