4.6 Article

Ancient DNA Methods Improve Forensic DNA Profiling of Korean War and World War II Unknowns

Journal

GENES
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes13010129

Keywords

degraded DNA; massively parallel sequencing (MPS); mitochondrial DNA; forensic DNA profiling; ancient DNA; human identification

Funding

  1. AFMES
  2. Max Planck Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Applying ancient DNA extraction and library preparation methods to the identification of military remains can improve the success rate of DNA profiling and increase the likelihood of identifying historical skeletons.
The integration of massively parallel sequencing (MPS) technology into forensic casework has been of particular benefit to the identification of unknown military service members. However, highly degraded or chemically treated skeletal remains often fail to provide usable DNA profiles, even with sensitive mitochondrial (mt) DNA capture and MPS methods. In parallel, the ancient DNA field has developed workflows specifically for degraded DNA, resulting in the successful recovery of nuclear DNA and mtDNA from skeletal remains as well as sediment over 100,000 years old. In this study we use a set of disinterred skeletal remains from the Korean War and World War II to test if ancient DNA extraction and library preparation methods improve forensic DNA profiling. We identified an ancient DNA extraction protocol that resulted in the recovery of significantly more human mtDNA fragments than protocols previously used in casework. In addition, utilizing single-stranded rather than double-stranded library preparation resulted in increased attainment of reportable mtDNA profiles. This study emphasizes that the combination of ancient DNA extraction and library preparation methods evaluated here increases the success rate of DNA profiling, and likelihood of identifying historical remains.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available