Cavanaugh Sarah E, Bathrick Abigail S
Bode Cellmark Forensics, Inc., 10430 Furnace Road, Suite 107, Lorton, VA 22079, USA.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018 Jan;32:40-49. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.10.005. Epub 2017 Oct 18.
DNA evidence sample processing typically involves DNA extraction, quantification, and STR amplification; however, DNA loss can occur at both the DNA extraction and quantification steps, which is not ideal for forensic evidence containing low levels of DNA. Direct PCR amplification of forensic unknown samples has been suggested as a means to circumvent extraction and quantification, thereby retaining the DNA typically lost during those procedures. Direct PCR amplification is a method in which a sample is added directly to an amplification reaction without being subjected to prior DNA extraction, purification, or quantification. It allows for maximum quantities of DNA to be targeted, minimizes opportunities for error and contamination, and reduces the time and monetary resources required to process samples, although data analysis may take longer as the increased DNA detection sensitivity of direct PCR may lead to more instances of complex mixtures. ISO 17025 accredited laboratories have successfully implemented direct PCR for limited purposes (e.g., high-throughput databanking analysis), and recent studies indicate that direct PCR can be an effective method for processing low-yield evidence samples. Despite its benefits, direct PCR has yet to be widely implemented across laboratories for the processing of evidentiary items. While forensic DNA laboratories are always interested in new methods that will maximize the quantity and quality of genetic information obtained from evidentiary items, there is often a lag between the advent of useful methodologies and their integration into laboratories. Delayed implementation of direct PCR of evidentiary items can be attributed to a variety of factors, including regulatory guidelines that prevent laboratories from omitting the quantification step when processing forensic unknown samples, as is the case in the United States, and, more broadly, a reluctance to validate a technique that is not widely used for evidence samples. The advantages of direct PCR of forensic evidentiary samples justify a re-examination of the factors that have delayed widespread implementation of this method and of the evidence supporting its use. In this review, the current and potential future uses of direct PCR in forensic DNA laboratories are summarized.
DNA证据样本处理通常涉及DNA提取、定量和STR扩增;然而,在DNA提取和定量步骤中都可能发生DNA损失,这对于含有低水平DNA的法医证据来说并不理想。有人建议对法医未知样本进行直接PCR扩增,以此规避提取和定量步骤,从而保留那些程序中通常会损失的DNA。直接PCR扩增是一种将样本直接添加到扩增反应中,而无需事先进行DNA提取、纯化或定量的方法。它能够靶向最大量的DNA,将误差和污染的机会降至最低,并减少处理样本所需的时间和资金资源,不过由于直接PCR提高的DNA检测灵敏度可能导致更多复杂混合物的情况,数据分析可能会花费更长时间。通过ISO 17025认可的实验室已成功在有限目的(如高通量数据库分析)中实施直接PCR,最近的研究表明直接PCR可以是处理低产量证据样本的有效方法。尽管有这些优点,但直接PCR尚未在各实验室中广泛用于处理证据物品。虽然法医DNA实验室一直对能最大限度提高从证据物品中获得的遗传信息数量和质量的新方法感兴趣,但有用方法的出现与它们融入实验室之间往往存在滞后。证据物品直接PCR的延迟实施可归因于多种因素,包括在美国等国家的监管指南,这些指南阻止实验室在处理法医未知样本时省略定量步骤,更广泛地说,是不愿意验证一种未广泛用于证据样本的技术。法医证据样本直接PCR的优点证明有必要重新审视导致该方法广泛实施延迟的因素以及支持其使用的证据。在本综述中,总结了直接PCR在法医DNA实验室中的当前和潜在未来用途。