DNA reviews: DNA identification following CBRN incidents

Socratous, Eleni; Graham, Eleanor A. M.

doi:10.1007/s12024-008-9066-4

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biological agents include infectious and deadly pathogens such as bacteria for example, Bacillus anthracis , and viruses, for example, smallpox (Bronze, Huycke, Machado, Voskuhl, & Greenfield, 2002). DNA extraction for human identification is unlikely to be limited by these biological agents, as the extraction mechanism does not differentiate between human cells or microbes (Alessandrini et al, 2019; Socratous & Graham, 2008). The detergents and proteases used during pretreatment followed by phenol–chloroform (in manual DNA preparations) or chaotropic agents (e.g., guanidinium salts used for silica solid‐phase DNA purification) would generally result in the release of both human and microbial nucleic acids.…”

Section: Dna Extraction From Human Remains and Non‐conventional Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent trends and developments in forensic DNA extraction

Chong

Thong

Syn

2020

WIREs Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extraction of DNA is a fairly standard procedure routinely undertaken in biological academic and research settings. In a forensic DNA context, DNA extraction is the crucial first step toward the generation of DNA profiles used to support convictions or exonerations in the criminal justice system. However, it is often complicated by the additional challenge of yielding sufficient quantities of clean DNA that is free from environmental inhibitors, from a wide spectrum of sample types which may contain limited quantities of biological material. While improvements in methods and technology over the decades have sped up and simplified the process of DNA extraction, several issues remain to be fully addressed—such as the incomplete separation of spermic DNA from sperm‐epithelial cell mixtures, increasing demands for ever‐faster DNA results, or even on‐scene DNA processing, and processing of difficult samples such as skeletal remains or samples contaminated by Chemical, Biological, or Radiological (CBR) agents. These challenges are often compounded by high work volumes and limited quantities of starting material. As such, this review focuses on recent trends and developments in four areas of forensic DNA extraction: (a) analysis of sexual assault evidence which often represents a significant portion of a forensic DNA laboratory's casework, (b) use of portable rapid DNA instruments which has gained much traction among law enforcement in recent times, (c) DNA extraction from difficult and CBR‐contaminated samples which, albeit rare, would be essential in a DNA laboratory's toolbox in the event of an incident, and (d) bypassing DNA extraction altogether. This article is categorized under: Forensic Biology > Forensic DNA Technologies

show abstract

Section: Dna Extraction From Human Remains and Non‐conventional Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent trends and developments in forensic DNA extraction

Chong

Thong

Syn

2020

WIREs Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Almost every issue of the new journal Forensic Science Medicine and Pathology contains a DNA review written by Eleanor Graham from the University of Leicester. These DNA reviews include coverage of low-level DNA profiling (152), efforts to predict phenotype (153), DNA identification following chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear incidents (154), analysis of hair samples (155), and a summary of the United Kingdom national DNA database (156). Potential problems when tumor tissue is submitted for STR analysis were also reviewed (157).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%