{"title":"Utilizing differential extraction thresholds to deduce the existence of spermatozoa in forensic casework samples","authors":"Evelyn Ridgley, Casey Dejournett, Karen Olson","doi":"10.1016/j.fsir.2024.100365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Testing of evidence in an alleged sexual assault case not only seeks to address the question of who was involved, but also looks to answer the question of what biological source provided the DNA. It can be difficult to obtain positive serological data on challenging samples such as laundered items, low-level DNA samples, or sexual assault kit swabs obtained after a prolonged interval from the time of assault. In the absence of confirmatory serological results, an expert witness often cannot speak to the biological source of the DNA. In order to determine quantitation thresholds which could be used to deduce the presence of spermatozoa (sperm) within a sample, we evaluated the fractionation of male DNA utilizing our laboratory’s differential extraction method. Study samples included serial dilutions of semen and semen/saliva mixtures, post-coital and laundered samples as well as casework data from 1,729 samples that were processed using a differential extraction. Based on this data, it was determined that a sample which had at least 200 picograms of male DNA and at least 10% of the total male DNA in fraction 2 (F2, also known as the sperm-enriched or sperm fraction) could be reported as positive for the presence of sperm. No false positive results were obtained from the study-generated samples when using these thresholds to infer the presence of sperm. Additionally, samples that contained sperm, but were negative using traditional serological methods, could be detected. However, not all sperm-containing samples fractionated above both thresholds; therefore, serological testing may still be necessary to minimize false negative results. The thresholds developed here, proved reliable to deduce the presence of sperm in real casework samples.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36331,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Reports","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100365"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665910724000148/pdfft?md5=0623f36002983af67e06e065f9ba22b4&pid=1-s2.0-S2665910724000148-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Science International: Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665910724000148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Testing of evidence in an alleged sexual assault case not only seeks to address the question of who was involved, but also looks to answer the question of what biological source provided the DNA. It can be difficult to obtain positive serological data on challenging samples such as laundered items, low-level DNA samples, or sexual assault kit swabs obtained after a prolonged interval from the time of assault. In the absence of confirmatory serological results, an expert witness often cannot speak to the biological source of the DNA. In order to determine quantitation thresholds which could be used to deduce the presence of spermatozoa (sperm) within a sample, we evaluated the fractionation of male DNA utilizing our laboratory’s differential extraction method. Study samples included serial dilutions of semen and semen/saliva mixtures, post-coital and laundered samples as well as casework data from 1,729 samples that were processed using a differential extraction. Based on this data, it was determined that a sample which had at least 200 picograms of male DNA and at least 10% of the total male DNA in fraction 2 (F2, also known as the sperm-enriched or sperm fraction) could be reported as positive for the presence of sperm. No false positive results were obtained from the study-generated samples when using these thresholds to infer the presence of sperm. Additionally, samples that contained sperm, but were negative using traditional serological methods, could be detected. However, not all sperm-containing samples fractionated above both thresholds; therefore, serological testing may still be necessary to minimize false negative results. The thresholds developed here, proved reliable to deduce the presence of sperm in real casework samples.
对指控性侵犯案件中的证据进行检测,不仅是为了解决谁参与了性侵犯的问题,也是为了回答是什么生物来源提供了 DNA 的问题。对于具有挑战性的样本,例如洗过的物品、低水平的 DNA 样本或在与性侵犯发生时间相隔较长时间后获得的性侵犯工具箱拭子,可能很难获得阳性血清学数据。在没有确证血清学结果的情况下,专家证人往往无法说明 DNA 的生物来源。为了确定可用于推断样本中精子(精液)存在的定量阈值,我们利用实验室的差分提取法对男性 DNA 的分馏进行了评估。研究样本包括精液和精液/唾液混合物的系列稀释液、性交后样本和洗涤样本,以及使用差分提取法处理的 1,729 份样本的个案工作数据。根据这些数据确定,如果样本中至少含有 200 皮克的男性 DNA,且第 2 部分(F2,又称精子富集部分或精子部分)中的男性 DNA 至少占总 DNA 的 10%,则可报告样本中精子的存在呈阳性。使用这些阈值来推断精子是否存在时,研究产生的样本没有出现假阳性结果。此外,含有精子但使用传统血清学方法检测为阴性的样本也能被检测出来。不过,并非所有含精子样本的分馏结果都高于这两个阈值;因此,仍有必要进行血清学检测,以尽量减少假阴性结果。事实证明,在实际案例样本中推断精子存在的阈值是可靠的。