{"title":"Comparative analysis of SNaPshot and massively parallel sequencing for body fluid–specific DNA methylation markers","authors":"Bo Min Kim, Sang Un Park, Hwan Young Lee","doi":"10.1002/elps.202400037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The identification of tissue-specific differentially methylated regions has significantly contributed to the field of forensic genetics, particularly in body fluid identification crucial for linking evidence to crimes. Among the various approaches to analyzing DNA methylation, the SNaPshot assay has been popularly studied in numerous researches. However, there is a growing interest in exploring alternative methods such as the use of massively parallel sequencing (MPS), which can process a large number of samples simultaneously. This study compares SNaPshot and MPS multiplex assays using nine cytosine-phosphate-guanine markers for body fluid identification. As a result of analyzing 112 samples, including blood, saliva, vaginal fluid, menstrual blood, and semen, both methods demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, indicating their reliability in forensic investigations. A total of 92.0% samples were correctly identified by both methods. Although both methods accurately identified all blood, saliva, and semen samples, some vaginal fluid samples showed unexpected methylation signals at nontarget loci in addition to the target loci. In the case of menstrual blood samples, due to their complexity, independent typing criteria were applied, and successful menstrual blood typing was possible, whereas a few samples showed profiles similar to vaginal fluid. The MPS method worked better in vaginal fluid samples, and the SNaPshot method performed better in menstrual blood samples. This study offers valuable insights into body fluid identification based on the characteristics of the SNaPshot and MPS methods, which may help in more efficient forensic applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":11596,"journal":{"name":"ELECTROPHORESIS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/elps.202400037","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ELECTROPHORESIS","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/elps.202400037","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The identification of tissue-specific differentially methylated regions has significantly contributed to the field of forensic genetics, particularly in body fluid identification crucial for linking evidence to crimes. Among the various approaches to analyzing DNA methylation, the SNaPshot assay has been popularly studied in numerous researches. However, there is a growing interest in exploring alternative methods such as the use of massively parallel sequencing (MPS), which can process a large number of samples simultaneously. This study compares SNaPshot and MPS multiplex assays using nine cytosine-phosphate-guanine markers for body fluid identification. As a result of analyzing 112 samples, including blood, saliva, vaginal fluid, menstrual blood, and semen, both methods demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, indicating their reliability in forensic investigations. A total of 92.0% samples were correctly identified by both methods. Although both methods accurately identified all blood, saliva, and semen samples, some vaginal fluid samples showed unexpected methylation signals at nontarget loci in addition to the target loci. In the case of menstrual blood samples, due to their complexity, independent typing criteria were applied, and successful menstrual blood typing was possible, whereas a few samples showed profiles similar to vaginal fluid. The MPS method worked better in vaginal fluid samples, and the SNaPshot method performed better in menstrual blood samples. This study offers valuable insights into body fluid identification based on the characteristics of the SNaPshot and MPS methods, which may help in more efficient forensic applications.
期刊介绍:
ELECTROPHORESIS is an international journal that publishes original manuscripts on all aspects of electrophoresis, and liquid phase separations (e.g., HPLC, micro- and nano-LC, UHPLC, micro- and nano-fluidics, liquid-phase micro-extractions, etc.).
Topics include new or improved analytical and preparative methods, sample preparation, development of theory, and innovative applications of electrophoretic and liquid phase separations methods in the study of nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates natural products, pharmaceuticals, food analysis, environmental species and other compounds of importance to the life sciences.
Papers in the areas of microfluidics and proteomics, which are not limited to electrophoresis-based methods, will also be accepted for publication. Contributions focused on hyphenated and omics techniques are also of interest. Proteomics is within the scope, if related to its fundamentals and new technical approaches. Proteomics applications are only considered in particular cases.
Papers describing the application of standard electrophoretic methods will not be considered.
Papers on nanoanalysis intended for publication in ELECTROPHORESIS should focus on one or more of the following topics:
• Nanoscale electrokinetics and phenomena related to electric double layer and/or confinement in nano-sized geometry
• Single cell and subcellular analysis
• Nanosensors and ultrasensitive detection aspects (e.g., involving quantum dots, "nanoelectrodes" or nanospray MS)
• Nanoscale/nanopore DNA sequencing (next generation sequencing)
• Micro- and nanoscale sample preparation
• Nanoparticles and cells analyses by dielectrophoresis
• Separation-based analysis using nanoparticles, nanotubes and nanowires.