4.5 Article

Comparative evaluation of different human dental tissues and alveolar bone for DNA quantity and quality for forensic investigation

Journal

FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL
Volume 325, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110877

Keywords

Short Tandem Repeats (STR); Forensic; Mitochondrial DNA; Dental tissue; Teeth; Alveolar bone

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found dentine to be the best source of DNA, followed by pulp, with cementum being the least favorable choice. Alveolar bone exhibited the second-highest total yield of DNA. This study supports alveolar bone as an alternate source of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA.
In this study, the efficacy of dental tissues (cementum, dentine and pulp) and alveolar bone as a potential source of DNA was tested in terms of the quality and quantity using nuclear and mitochondrial markers for forensic investigation. This study found dentine as the best source of DNA with only 5.36% imbalanced (PHR < 0.7) heterozygous loci. Pulp showed the highest quantity of DNA but exhibited 22.3% imbalanced (PHR < 0.7) heterozygous loci. Cementum with highest (46.67%) heterozygote imbalance proved to be the last choice as a source of DNA. Alveolar bone exhibited the second-highest total yield of DNA/mg of tissue. All Global Filer (TM) STR loci were amplified in 70% samples of fresh alveolar bone whereas for 30% samples, only partial profile was generated along with successful sex determination. All the dental tissues and alveolar bone samples amplified non STR markers (D-loop, Cytochrome Oxidase I, SRY, AMEL). Of the alveolar bones from archival samples, one sample exhibited full STR profile whereas other alveolar bone samples gave partial profiles. This study substantiates alveolar bone as an alternate source of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available