2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigss.2009.09.031
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficiency of DNA IQ System® in recovering semen DNA from cotton swabs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
4
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The process of buffy coat deposition, collection, and DNA extraction resulted in a loss of approximately 60% of the initial amount of DNA deposited ( Fig. 1; see unfired bullets), which agrees with previous studies on the inefficiency of DNA collection and extraction [3][4][5]. Firing the bullets was responsible a further 30.8% decrease in median percent DNA recovery, which could be due to the heat, pressure, and friction generated in the firing process.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The process of buffy coat deposition, collection, and DNA extraction resulted in a loss of approximately 60% of the initial amount of DNA deposited ( Fig. 1; see unfired bullets), which agrees with previous studies on the inefficiency of DNA collection and extraction [3][4][5]. Firing the bullets was responsible a further 30.8% decrease in median percent DNA recovery, which could be due to the heat, pressure, and friction generated in the firing process.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…In the laboratory, there is always a loss of DNA during the DNA extraction process [ 7 9 ]. Although there is limited published information on the absolute efficiency, NIST studies indicate an absolute DNA extraction efficiency of 1–37 %.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, diluting the DNA concentration in the sample prior to GEITP analysis resulted in a significant decrease in the amount of delivered DNA and, consequently, a loss of genetic information as STR profiles had an increasing number of alleles lost or loci dropped from the profiles. As implemented here, the GEITP method consistently delivered approximately 1% of the DNA in a sample, which is significantly less than the approximately 16–33% typical of more conventional techniques . Despite this drawback, the results shown here indicate that the GEITP method is adequate for DNA delivery from crude samples containing a relative abundance of DNA, as demonstrated using the soiled buccal swab samples.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 71%