4.0 Article

Effects of storage conditions on forensic examinations of blood samples and bloodstains stored for 20 years

期刊

LEGAL MEDICINE
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 81-84

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2016.01.003

关键词

Blood storage conditions; Aged sample; Leuco-malachite-green test; Anti-human Hb test; mRNA detection; DNA degradation; STR typing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of various storage conditions on blood identification tests, DNA degradation, and short tandem repeat (STR) typing were evaluated. Bloodstains stored at room temperature, 4 degrees C,-20 degrees C, and -80 degrees C for 20 years; blood samples stored at -20 degrees C and -80 degrees C for 20 years; and fresh blood samples were analyzed. Leuco-malachite-green testing, anti-human hemoglobin (Hb) testing (using immunochromatography), and tests for hemoglobin-beta (HBB) mRNA were performed as blood identification tests. DNA degradation was evaluated by quantifying the ratios of 305 and 129 base pair (bp) fragments to 41 bp fragments. STR typing was performed using an AmpFISTR (R) Identifiler (TM) Plus PCR Amplification Kit. All samples were positive in leuco-malachite-green staining and anti-human Hb assays. HBB was not detected in blood samples stored at -20 degrees C or-80 degrees C, although this marker was detected in all bloodstains. As indicated by the ratio of 129:41 bp and 305:41 bp DNA fragments, DNA from bloodstains stored at room temperature or 4 degrees C were significantly degraded compared to DNA from all other samples. STR typing analyses revealed that a portion of the loci was undetected in bloodstains stored at room temperature. Therefore, to prevent DNA degradation during long-term storage, it is recommended that bloodstains and blood be stored at below -20 degrees C. In addition, because bloodstains are more suitable for detection of blood-specific mRNAs than blood sample, it is desirable that blood is stored as bloodstain for this method. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据